Religion in junior infants

Neyite

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I think this is important too.

Many of the strongly opposed to Catholicism posters here are so because of the strong Catholic influence they had in their own lives.

It's almost like a teenager rebelling against certain rules - if you're told to do one thing, you automatically want to do another!

As a youngster, I was 'made' go to Mass when I was younger. I rarely go at all now. I've made my own choices about religion since I was about 13!

How condescending and dismissive of you to assume we are all just throwing hormonal strops.

purplecow1977

inocybe wrote: »

Marriage, not loving relationship. To me that is horrifying, and someone posing Catholic morality as sex education is also horrifying to me.

In the talk we had, they stressed loving relationship, and gave an example of marriage.

If you do not want your child taking part in such a conversation, air your discomfort with the class teacher. I'd have no problem sending your child to another class whilst we were doing that lesson, should that be what the parent wants.

purplecow1977

Neyite wrote: »

How condescending and dismissive of you to assume we are all just throwing hormonal strops.

You misinterpreted. But, as you will.

inocybe

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Exactly. Given a choice, I think any parent would prefer their son/daughter to be pregnant as part of a loving relationship, rather than a single parent. It doesn't mean that the single parent does any less of a job, but it is twice as hard. Given a choice, we'd all choose the 'ideal' in such a situation.

I find that offensive, my family is ideal! This is the kind of attitude I've met all along from the school, and it stinks. I had the principal tell me that 'unfortunately' my type of family is becoming more common. I can take that small minded outlook, but don't you dare put that onto my child.

purplecow1977

inocybe wrote: »

I find that offensive, my family is ideal! This is the kind of attitude I've met all along from the school, and it stinks. I had the principal tell me that 'unfortunately' my type of family is becoming more common. I can take that small indeed outlook, but don't you dare put that into my child.

I don't teach about ideals in my class because I teach families of all sorts and sizes so you can relax.

I understand this is a sore topic for you, but that probably says more in itself than anything.

purplecow1977

2 things never to discuss with strangers: money & religion!!! :cool:

tehbaggins

purplecow1977 wrote: »

We are not in Norway.

All subjects are not offered/available in all secondary schools in Ireland because sufficient teachers are not sanctioned by the DES

There are several posters that have stated certain subjects had to be studied outside of the school they attended.

I know we're not in Norway, I'm just offering a different point of view.

But the quality of education and the availability of teachers should surely be a matter for the state and schools to sort out, no? The way things are described here it seems to me that it's the students that are made to suffer and commute between schools when that should be something that the state and the schools should sort out in stead?

Gerry T

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Again, my mother was of similar opinion and she isn't and wasn't religious.

Wanting someone to wait until they are in a loving and respectful relationship isn't wrong. It doesn't mean they actually will, but it was certainly at the back of my mind so in a way discouraged me from having sex when I was younger.

Would you agree that people can have a loving and respectful relationship outside of marriage, while young, and possibly have sex.

tehbaggins

purplecow1977 wrote: »

In the talk we had, they stressed loving relationship, and gave an example of marriage.

If you do not want your child taking part in such a conversation, air your discomfort with the class teacher. I'd have no problem sending your child to another class whilst we were doing that lesson, should that be what the parent wants.

The point is that the schools shouldn't have that conversation with the kids in the first place. Morality questions should be left to the parents and the parents alone. If the parents wish to impose religion on their kids, they should be the ones that have to go private, not the rest of us that want the kids to learn reading, writing, maths and most importantly, critical thought!

purplecow1977

tehbaggins wrote: »

I know we're not in Norway, I'm just offering a different point of view.

But the quality of education and the availability of teachers should surely be a matter for the state and schools to sort out, no? The way things are described here it seems to me that it's the students that are made to suffer and commute between schools when that should be something that the state and the schools should sort out in stead?

A minority perhaps are 'suffering'.

I imagine that if that was fixed in the morning, there would be something else to complain about next week. Too much Irish, not enough Irish, not enough PE, too much sport, too much money, too many books, too few books, too much homework, not enough homework.

Now if we get to the 'classes too big' argument, I'm in!

Part of the problem is that because teachers are paid by the government, everyone feels they have an input on how classrooms should function 'because I pay for it'!!

One eyed Jack

tehbaggins wrote: »

Surely a requirement from a university should be offered at all the schools, no? That's the way it works in Norway where I went through education at least. As long as you passed your exams after 12 years of school, you would get into any university study you wanted, depending on your grades. All secondary/high schools in the country are obliged to offer all the courses and if you're on the general education path, those classes are by and large mandatory.

The other option in the Norwegian system is the trades, where you're going into apprenticeships after 11 years and where the classes in years 10 and 11 are geared towards your chosen trade.

And in what way am I jumping to a conclusion here? I merely posed a question.

That's in Finland though. You're doing the same thing in eyeballing what they're doing in your homeland as other posters are doing eyeballing Germany, the US and France as though the systems they have set up in these countries are the ideal we should be aiming for. They're not, and far from it in some cases. You can't just appropriate systems from other societies like that and expect they will simoly work in Ireland. No country works like that. All you're doing is cherry picking what you or someone else sees as the best bits of other systems in other countries and just expecting that they should magically work together.

Even with all the problems in education in Ireland at the moment, we're still year on year producing some excellent graduates from both second and third level education. That seems to me at least to suggest that the problem isn't the system, the problem is the people in the system that either don't want to work, or don't know how to work. That's a problem that starts at home, not in the school.

inocybe

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I don't teach about ideals in my class because I teach families of all sorts and sizes so you can relax.

I understand this is a sore topic for you, but that probably says more in itself than anything.

Yes it's a sore topic because I have no choice but to send my child to a school where he is made to feel different and lesser. I want him to be educated in facts not religious fiction.

Neyite

purplecow1977 wrote: »

You misinterpreted. But, as you will.

Please, explain where I misinterpreted your post? I quoted the entire thing. I'll quote it in its entirety again:

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I think this is important too.

Many of the strongly opposed to Catholicism posters here are so because of the strong Catholic influence they had in their own lives.

It's almost like a teenager rebelling against certain rules - if you're told to do one thing, you automatically want to do another!

As a youngster, I was 'made' go to Mass when I was younger. I rarely go at all now. I've made my own choices about religion since I was about 13!

You said that people posting here who are opposed to Catholicism are doing so because they had a bad experience and are acting like teens rebelling.

I've not had a bad experience with Catholicism. I was raised in a very devout home, and indeed was very devout until my teens. But, just like you made your own choices and decisions, so did I. But I'm the one having the teen strop?

purplecow1977

tehbaggins wrote: »

The point is that the schools shouldn't have that conversation with the kids in the first place. Morality questions should be left to the parents and the parents alone.

Really? Someone else will be on here in a minute complaining if we DON'T teach morality! I think you'll find that the minute a child enters Junior Infants, morality and life lessons are being taught so I think you'd need to reevaluate how you think classrooms actually operate.

tehbaggins wrote: »

If the parents wish to impose religion on their kids, they should be the ones that have to go private, not the rest of us that want the kids to learn reading, writing, maths and most importantly, critical thought![/QUOTE]


So you're insinuating that I don't teach my children that, because I work in a Catholic school? That's great discussion & debate :rolleyes:

purplecow1977

Neyite wrote: »

Please, explain where I misinterpreted your post? I quoted the entire thing. I'll quote it in its entirety again:


You said that people posting here who are opposed to Catholicism are doing so because they had a bad experience and are acting like teens rebelling.

I've not had a bad experience with Catholicism. I was raised in a very devout home, and indeed was very devout until my teens. But, just like you made your own choices and decisions, so did I. But I'm the one having the teen strop?

You missed the latter sentence

When we're told to do one thing, we nearly instinctively want to do the other

I'm not explaining again. You will interpret what you wish, in the manner you wish, and tone is not easily understood through texts.

purplecow1977

inocybe wrote: »

Yes it's a sore topic because I have no choice but to send my child to a school where he is made to feel different and lesser. I want him to be educated in facts not religious fiction.

Home school is always an option then Considering schools are such bad places!

One eyed Jack

purplecow1977 wrote: »

2 things never to discuss with strangers: money & religion!!! :cool:

And politics! :P

purplecow1977

Gerry T wrote: »

Would you agree that people can have a loving and respectful relationship outside of marriage, while young, and possibly have sex.

Marriage was given as an example.

zeffabelli

inocybe wrote: »

Yes it's a sore topic because I have no choice but to send my child to a school where he is made to feel different and lesser. I want him to be educated in facts not religious fiction.

Back when I was in school, which was NOT religious btw, I recall some of the kids of single mothers being teased about their mothers vibrators.....this was around the age of 9. Now that is mean, I have never come across that kind of thing here.

You want a progressive education with sex ed and a lift off social conservatism.... that's the other side of it.

tehbaggins

purplecow1977 wrote: »

So you're insinuating that I don't teach my children that, because I work in a Catholic school? That's great discussion & debate :rolleyes:

I'd say that the two are practically mutually exclusive. If you both preach and teach, you come off as a hypocrite. You can't say "Obey God and all that's in the Bible is true!" in one period and then in the next say "Be sure you only use reliable sources and don't go in for anything but hard, empirical evidence!" once the subject changes from religion to science. Kids are smart and they will see through you, as I'm sure you've experience yourself several times over.

purplecow1977

zeffabelli wrote: »

Back when I was in school, which was NOT religious btw, I recall some of the kids of single mothers being teased about their mothers vibrators.....this was around the age of 9. Now that is mean, I have never come across that kind of thing here.

I suppose it was the teacher that encouraged that sort of carry on! :rolleyes:

purplecow1977

tehbaggins wrote: »

I'd say that the two are practically mutually exclusive. If you both preach and teach, you come off as a hypocrite. You can't say "Obey God and all that's in the Bible is true!" in one period and then in the next say "Be sure you only use reliable sources and don't go in for anything but hard, empirical evidence!" once the subject changes from religion to science. Kids are smart and they will see through you, as I'm sure you've experience yourself several times over.

I guess time will tell! :cool:

You can't argue with ignorance.

tehbaggins

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I guess time will tell! :cool:

You can't argue with ignorance.

Touché!

zeffabelli

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I suppose it was the teacher that encouraged that sort of carry on! :rolleyes:

My point is that its as much of a secular stigma as it is a religious one: the sexual deviancy of the single mother invalidated by the absence of a husband.

Its open season.

purplecow1977

tehbaggins wrote: »

Touché!

I work damn hard at my job so don't appreciate comments about my ability (or inability!) to teach my children to read, write, do Maths or think creatively based on the Catholic ethos of my workplace.

Many teachers would prefer to work in non/multi demoninational schools because they fit in better with their own personal ethos. Many teachers are not of Catholic ethos but teach religion anyway because that's what we are employed to do.

Majority of people are agreed that religion should be removed from schools, (although I'd like some sort of religious education, Buddhism is fascinating) but at the moment, teachers are doing the best that they can with the resources that are available and I detest reading comments that suggest otherwise.

One eyed Jack

tehbaggins wrote: »

The point is that the schools shouldn't have that conversation with the kids in the first place. Morality questions should be left to the parents and the parents alone. If the parents wish to impose religion on their kids, they should be the ones that have to go private, not the rest of us that want the kids to learn reading, writing, maths and most importantly, critical thought!

There's another way you could look at that - if parents don't want their children to be taught in a religious ethos shool, then they should send their children to schools which do not have a religious ethos rather than expect that not only should their children be exempted from religious education, but that other parents children should also be denied a religious education. The majority of parents in Ireland want their children to attend religious ethos schools. You are part of a minority that wants something else. Your demands are not being met within the current system, so the onus is upon you to work towards that change and do whatever it takes to make that change happen.

Other people are quite satisfied with the current setup or the system would have changed long ago. They're not the people with a complaint, and making fun of them or ridiculing them or insinuating that they don't care that their children aren't learning reading, writing maths and most importantly as you put it - critical thought (not much of that on display in this thread either tbh for all the talk that's done about it), is insulting, and simply won't get you anywhere because it's exactly that attitude that will lead to people dismissing your concerns and in turn dismissing you. It's nasty when it happens, and that's why in an online echo chamber where your majority opinion holds sway, it's easier to be dismissive of the minority, but isn't that exactly what you're complaining about in the real world happening to you?

"You get back what you put out there" is something I've always lived by, and that's a lesson I try to instill in my child too.

Alf Veedersane

I don't expect the school top be the sole teacher in my daughter's life soi would be happy that I could offer some balance to anything I believed was too deeply mired in religion.

But I don't think the majority of primary school teachers currently teaching are religious zealots so it's not something I will lose sleep over.

tehbaggins

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's another way you could look at that - if parents don't want their children to be taught in a religious ethos shool, then they should send their children to schools which do not have a religious ethos rather than expect that not only should their children be exempted from religious education, but that other parents children should also be denied a religious education. The majority of parents in Ireland want their children to attend religious ethos schools. You are part of a minority that wants something else. Your demands are not being met within the current system, so the onus is upon you to work towards that change and do whatever it takes to make that change happen.

The problem is that there simply isn't enough schools to meet demand. I believe you vastly underestimate the number of people that would send their kids to a secular school if they had the choice or the option of doing so.

Looking at the Department of Education and Skills school finder website, there are a mere 14 schools in Dublin inside the M50 that are listed as "multi-denominational. Worth noting is that the schools are "multi-denominational" and not "secular" or "non-religious". In fact, there are NO schools in Ireland that are actually listed as non-religious. And that's a huge problem for a great number of people.

Alf Veedersane

tehbaggins wrote: »

Looking at the Department of Education and Skills school finder website, there are a mere 14 schools in Dublin inside the M50 that are listed as "multi-denominational. Worth noting is that the schools are "multi-denominational" and not "secular" or "non-religious". In fact, there are NO schools in Ireland that are actually listed as non-religious. And that's a huge problem for a great number of people.

I'm not religious and I don't get why a multi-denominational school would be such a huge problem for someone.

A core principle of Educate Together is that children of all social, cultural and religious backgrounds are equally respected.

So why would there be a problem with that?

One eyed Jack

tehbaggins wrote: »

The problem is that there simply isn't enough schools to meet demand. I believe you vastly underestimate the number of people that would send their kids to a secular school if they had the choice or the option of doing so.

You're the second person in this thread to make this claim, and I believe it was Marcello Truzzi said it best when he said -

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

Coined and popularised by Carl Sagan of course, but the very fact that you could make such a bold claim without evidence shows a flaw in your own critical thinking abilities.

Looking at the Department of Education and Skills school finder website, there are a mere 14 schools in Dublin inside the M50 that are listed as "multi-denominational. Worth noting is that the schools are "multi-denominational" and not "secular" or "non-religious". In fact, there are NO schools in Ireland that are actually listed as non-religious. And that's a huge problem for a great number of people.

Care to put a figure on that, or is it simply another extraordinary claim you expect I should take at face value without question?