Primary School and Religious Education

Gerry T

Cabaal wrote: »

Curious if the results would be very different in the Islamic forum, worth a try posting it?

Sure why not, I will throw this up there.

littlemac1980

Personally I believe its impossible that children could be thought anything meaningful about human history and our society, without reference to religion.

I think its non-sense to suggest that could be done.

One would have to refer to the beliefs of Egyptians to explain certain things about the Pyramids etc. likewise one would have to refer to the differences in beliefs to explain certain historical events, omitting to mention them is omitting to educate.

Then the question is whether the Teacher could possibly convey knowledge about a certain religious outlook in an objective way despite their religion, and their own beliefs. The question therefore arises if its possible to ensure objective teaching where a teacher has any religion. Should all teachers therefore be athesist or agnostic?

In truth, my own view is that the distinction between Religion and Athiestism is artificial anyway, they are both based on a set of beliefs and a sense of faith, they just believe different things.

I think that people are entitled to have their children educated in accordance with their own beliefs. In a country where the state imposes certain standards of education, and requires attendance to state run institutions for the purpose of education, and imposes serious penalties for the breach of those obligations, then the State has an obligation to provide religious/belief education also which accords with the Parents beliefs.

The main issue that arises is that there is naturally going to be a clash between various belief systems, Religious Vs Non-Religious; Christian Vs. Muslim etc. but the State (as we all know) is not a perfect system.

So long as the State imposes obligations and standards regarding children's education, and effectively imposes itself in the education of children, then I believe that the State must also be involved in the religious education of the Children also.

Some people will no doubt say that the State should only concern itself with teaching scientific and academic topics, like Maths and Science and History etc. and religion can be left out.

I'm not gonna get into an argument about why Religion can't be left out of the overall category of what is "education" it simply can't - unless you have a very archaic understanding of what religion actually is, and well that's an entirely different debate.

robindch

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Personally I believe its impossible that children could be thought anything meaningful about human history and our society, without reference to religion.

And there are very few people indeed -- none whom I know -- who think that religion should not be part of a kid's education.

I do know lots of people though who think it's wrong to require a teacher to pretend that one religion is true while all other ones are false. And who think it's wrong to indoctrinate impressionable, trusting kids with religious ideas before they are wise enough to see through its toxic mirage.

Gerry T

robindch wrote: »

And there are very few people indeed -- none whom I know -- who think that religion should not be part of a kid's education.

I do know lots of people though who think it's wrong to require a teacher to pretend that one religion is true while all other ones are false. And who think it's wrong to indoctrinate impressionable, trusting kids with religious ideas before they are wise enough to see through its toxic mirage.

A education in Religion in my opinion is important, its tied to so many historical events it would be wrong to not mention it. So yes teach kids but leave out the indoctrination.
Sure the bible thinks the universe is 10,000 years old. If you disagree you don't fully believe in the bible, can you pick out the bits that you agree with and ignore the bits you don't ?

Czarcasm

Gerry T wrote: »

A education in Religion in my opinion is important, its tied to so many historical events it would be wrong to not mention it. So yes teach kids but leave out the indoctrination.
Sure the bible thinks the universe is 10,000 years old. If you disagree you don't fully believe in the bible, can you pick out the bits that you agree with and ignore the bits you don't ?

Depends on your religious persuasion and the veracity of your belief really -

http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu340.htm

Circumcision of course being one of the most hotly debated and contentious topics as it has been suggested in some quarters that the only reason the APA approved of the procedure was so that people of Jewish faith could have it covered by their medical insurance. That kind of conspiracy thinking ignores the fact that circumcision is also practiced by adherents of Islamic faith.

smacl

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Personally I believe its impossible that children could be thought anything meaningful about human history and our society, without reference to religion.

Same could be said about war, but teaching my kids about about Nazi Germany doesn't mean I want them to join Hitler youth

So long as the State imposes obligations and standards regarding children's education, and effectively imposes itself in the education of children, then I believe that the State must also be involved in the religious education of the Children also.

Total and utter rubbish, on a couple of different counts. Firstly, education about religion is not the same as religious instruction. Secondly, secular education has been shown to be a successful way of avoid religious conflict within schools in modern multicultural societies.

I'm not gonna get into an argument about why Religion can't be left out of the overall category of what is "education" it simply can't - unless you have a very archaic understanding of what religion actually is, and well that's an entirely different debate.

Posting your opinions as fact in terms of what you can and can't do regarding education and religion in this country in this forum has already entered you into an argument. My opinion for what its worth is that religion epitomises a large part of the worst aspects of what is archaic, dogmatic, and regressive in our society. As such, I for one don't believe there is any place for state funded religious instruction.

robindch

Gerry T wrote: »

So yes teach kids but leave out the indoctrination.

Couldn't agree more.

Gerry T wrote: »

[...] can you pick out the bits that you agree with and ignore the bits you don't ?

That's what the religious do, so I don't see why not.

Brian Shanahan

littlemac1980 wrote: »

<snip>

That is a whole lot of special pleading for what is, after all, only your personal opinion.

Regarding religion's influence on our culture, history &c. that can be easily dealt with when it comes up within the appropriate subject, e.g. talk about the religious mania which caused the pyramids be built or the crusades be undertaken in the appropriate periods in history class, how the elegance of the poetry and literature of the KJV came about in English class (it would be a great way to bring in the spur propoganda and patronage often gave to literature) and so on.

As regards religious instruction, Ireland is a democratic and secular country with obligations to the personal and intellectual development of all its citizens. For those reasons it is highly inappropriate for the state to be forcing a religious ethos into education as it does currently. The true obligation of the state is to do the opposite of what you are calling for and give each and every child in the country a secular education. If the parents want their children brought up religiously then they can ensure it is done themselves, other parents' children shouldn't have to have their (the first set of parents) religion forced upon them simply because the first pair are too lazy to take their kids to Sunday school.

littlemac1980

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

snip

You misunderstand. I'm not advocating any particular approach to teaching religion, or about religion, as the case may be. I'm simply stating religion can't just be ignored. Whatever you believe, choosing the option to ignore religion is choosing to ignore a fundamental part of humanity and human education.

My comments in relation to the State's role in religious education is not my view on the ideal situation, it's an observation and opinion based (on rightly or wrongly) what is the present situation.

I have pointed out some issues that might occur if another approach is adopted, but those are just passing thoughts to evoke further consideration and analysis.

Brian Shanahan

littlemac1980 wrote: »

You misunderstand. I'm not advocating any particular approach to teaching religion, or about religion, as the case may be. I'm simply stating religion can't just be ignored. Whatever you believe, choosing the option to ignore religion is choosing to ignore a fundamental part of humanity and human education.

In your previous post you explicitly stated that the state has to be involved in children's religious education, as it has an obligation to provide religious or belief instructions in line with the children's parents.

This post and that post are mutually incompatible. You cannot have a state performing religious instruction in its schools without putting in place a particular approach to religious instruction in schools. That would be like building a suspension bridge without first drawing up plans or modelling the tensions on the suspension spans.

Oh, and I am not ignoring religion in education, just relegating it to its proper place in a secular education, i.e. bring it up in the necessary and important subjects when it becomes an element for learning and or discussion, but cutting out the frankly unnecessary and dangerous religious instruction elements (of which we have 2.5 hours per week currently in primary school plus extra hours spent for communions, comformations, bar mitzvahs or whatever else you suscribe to in your personal iron-age superstitions).

Esel

Future (enlightened) generations will, I hope, shudder and laugh nervously at the idea of state indoctrination of children in religion (of whatever variety).

Teach them how religious beliefs affected history. Teach them how humanity learned from that, and how people were killed en masse in the latter half of the second millennium (and in the early years * of the third millennium - AD counting, give or take a few thousand years...) Teach them about the various, different, religious calendars as well. Teach them how people who were indoctrinated from the cradle, via this book or that book, went on to hate and even kill people of the other book.

For book, read religion. For religion, read nationalism. For nationalism, read tribe. For tribe, read family. For family...

* Hoping that we can all learn to live in peace, before the next asteroid strike - after which death will come, sooner or later.

tl/dr Don't be a hater.

littlemac1980

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

In your previous post you explicitly stated that the state has to be involved in children's religious education, as it has an obligation to provide religious or belief instructions in line with the children's parents.

This post and that post are mutually incompatible. You cannot have a state performing religious instruction in its schools without putting in place a particular approach to religious instruction in schools. That would be like building a suspension bridge without first drawing up plans or modelling the tensions on the suspension spans.

Here's exactly what I said.

In the first post:

littlemac1980 wrote: »

I think that people are entitled to have their children educated in accordance with their own beliefs. In a country where the state imposes certain standards of education, and requires attendance to state run institutions for the purpose of education, and imposes serious penalties for the breach of those obligations, then the State has an obligation to provide religious/belief education also which accords with the Parents beliefs.

...

So long as the State imposes obligations and standards regarding children's education, and effectively imposes itself in the education of children, then I believe that the State must also be involved in the religious education of the Children also.

In the second post:

littlemac1980 wrote: »

My comments in relation to the State's role in religious education is not my view on the ideal situation, it's an observation and opinion based (on rightly or wrongly) what is the present situation.

I've also never stated in either of my posts that the State should provide religious instruction, which you have referred to in your second post as something I have stated. That's incorrect.

In fact the implication in my first post, if there may be said to be one, is that as people are entitled to have their children educated in relation to religion in a manner that accords with their own religious beliefs, then there would be an expectation that their children are not instructed in a religion which doesn't accord with such belief.

Once again such an approach (as with any approach to religious education is fraught with practical difficulties), but choosing to ignore religious education altogether doesn't overcome such difficulties, and for the reason I've already stated such an approach fails to properly educate, i.e. it's a "Heads in the Sand" approach.

Hotblack Desiato

littlemac1980 wrote: »

In fact the implication in my first post, if there may be said to be one, is that as people are entitled to have their children educated in relation to religion in a manner that accords with their own religious beliefs

And if their religious belief is that catholicism (or whatever) is the one true faith, then what? and what about the rights of parents who do not share that belief?

then there would be an expectation that their children are not instructed in a religion which doesn't accord with such belief.

That is an explicit constitutional right (and often violated.)

Once again such an approach (as with any approach to religious education is fraught with practical difficulties), but choosing to ignore religious education altogether doesn't overcome such difficulties, and for the reason I've already stated such an approach fails to properly educate, i.e. it's a "Heads in the Sand" approach.

Who exactly is proposing to exclude religion altogether?
You need to be clear here on the difference between religious education (educating about religions and non-belief) and religious instruction (X is the one true faith.)

Someone I know who is a bit of an expert in curriculum development is fond of saying that "whenever society has an itch, the schools get scratched."

So whether we're Kafflicks, Prods, Muslamics or unhappy heathens, we've all got the same objective, which is to use the schools to implement our preferred form of social engineering.

Given that objective, I'd offer the observation based on practical experience that it only really matters for primary schools. Primary school age is when the damage (or the good) gets done. Once them pesky youngsters get to post-primary school age you can put them into any kind of school you want and tell them any guff you like about the origin of the universe, because they're not really listening anyway.

Quest

I missed the poll - but reading some of the posts above, it would have been interesting to include an option along the lines of "I think the State should fund schools which take a range of different approaches to teaching of religion, or not, approximating as best as possible the variety in parents choice."

But that might have taken up too much space...

Brian Shanahan

Quest wrote: »

I missed the poll - but reading some of the posts above, it would have been interesting to include an option along the lines of "I think the State should fund schools which take a range of different approaches to teaching of religion, or not, approximating as best as possible the variety in parents choice."

But that might have taken up too much space...

Problem there is that the system is even more redundant, and essentially unworkable, than the current one. Because you would have to set aside seperate teacher resources or time for each denomination in the school, and when even small rural locations can have children of 5 or 6 different religious denominations in their schools, and urban ones will have a lot more, then you'll soon find religious education spiralling out of control. At least under the current system you've only got the, still monstrously costly, duplication of schools to cover each denomination.

Best system is a full secular education, with religion being taught, in a neutral manner, as part of a civics class and in other subjects only when and where it becomes an important topic (e.g. the religious cause crusades in history class, or the impact of religion on music styles in music). Let the parents then decide for themselves what religious instruction their child needs and how they get it.