Second Class!

Kiwi in IE

OH and I have just had our first meeting with the school about the dreaded communion year, which begins for Little Kiwi in September! They were brilliant in fairness, but their hands are tied in many areas by the 'patron' which is understandable. Apparently the 'Grow in Love' programme has been designed to ensure that Catholicism is drummed into them at school to make up for the fact that most children are not getting it at home, and is therefore a lot more full on than 'Alive O' was.

Little Kiwi has until this point sat in the classes and done colouring/drawing and has stayed home on mornings when there are church services. He's sitting out completely now, we don't even want him to be listening since they are now getting into 'sin', guilt and some of the more offensive concepts. He will have to remain in the class, as they cannot commit to religion being done at a fixed time for the whole year, so he will watch documentaries that are age appropriate on subjects that interest him, and that build on topics they are learning about in other subjects (countries, animals, historical events etc) on his tablet. I'm reasonably happy with this. What do you guys think? Given the school patronage situation being as it is, and the teachers/principle cannot be held responsible for that, it's probably the best we can hope for. He's not being isolated completely from his class, but nor will he be listening to bollocks.

They haven't confirmed the communion dates yet, but if it's not going to be close enough to the Easter holiday that we'll still be in NZ, we will go to the UK for either a football match or to Legoland that weekend. Not a hope that I'm going to let it appear in the eyes of an 8 year old that's it's advantageous to be Catholic, because everyone else is having parties/getting money and gifts, while he's sitting at home, or that he is going to be doing something that's harder work than religion in class all year, because we are not Catholic. I told the school as much when they initially suggested an extra work book (maths/English/Irish).

I am pretty confident that none of his friends who are taking religion will be feeling sorry for him, or that he will be feeling sorry for himself with this plan.

Kiwi in IE

If the new programme is designed to make up for the fact that Catholicism is not being drummed into children at home to the RCC's satisfaction, does that not tell them that many parents clearly don't want to do it at home? And if parents are not interested in indoctrinating their children at home, what makes them think that they want schools to compensate?

Walter H Price

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I am pretty confident that none of his friends who are taking religion will be feeling sorry for him, or that he will be feeling sorry for himself with this plan.

Its a great plan to be fair Kiwi, a fried of mine did something similar for his little girl last year , they just did a big party the weekend of the communion with all their family and friends her cousins and kids off the road and had a bouncing castle the works , except the party was for her finishing in the junior school and moving into the senior school. she had a ball got to get a special outfit which she picked herself , we all gave he cards with cash and so on , definitely don't think she felt like she missed out.

I though it was a brilliant idea and i was surprised but everyone just got on board with it and had a great day , they've already said they do the same with the confo , have a party for her finishing primary school.

magicbastarder

congrats on the pun in the thread title.

Kiwi in IE

magicbastarder wrote: »

congrats on the pun in the thread title.

I think we've done pretty well to ensure that isn't how it's going to seem to Little Kiwi and his peers, even if it is the unfortunate reality. They are hardly going to think 'I'm so glad that I get to do a religion workbook, instead of watching stuff on my tablet like he is", as would have been the case if he was doing an extra maths book, or being sent to another classroom by himself. It seems that religion is often seen as a 'soft option' (colouring/stories etc) compared to real work, so I don't want it to be replaced by real work.

HalloweenJack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

If the new programme is designed to make up for the fact that Catholicism is not being drummed into children at home to the RCC's satisfaction, does that not tell them that many parents clearly don't want to do it at home? And if parents are not interested in indoctrinating their children at home, what makes them think that they want schools to compensate?

Never let the RCC's self-importance surprise you.

They manufactured society to their liking for years and it's taken a long time to rid some of the shackles they enforced on us because it was what they believed was best for the country. They are a fighting a losing battle but too stubborn to admit defeat so they'll continue with this underhanded approach to spread their interpretation of the Bible, preying on society's most impressionable for as long as the Government lets them.

If their brainwashing techniques no longer work on adults then they have to go with the ones already brainwashed and go for the most ample to be brainwashed (impressionable kids who are yet to question authority figures).

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

If the new programme is designed to make up for the fact that Catholicism is not being drummed into children at home to the RCC's satisfaction, does that not tell them that many parents clearly don't want to do it at home? And if parents are not interested in indoctrinating their children at home, what makes them think that they want schools to compensate?

When you say apparently the Grow in Love programme has been designed to ensure that Catholicism is drummed into children at school to make up for the fact it is not being drummed into children at home to the RCC's satisfaction, and is therefore a lot more full on, was that the opinion of the school (hence the 'apparently'), or is that your own assumption (in that it is apparent to you from your own thoughts)? If it's the former, that's quite a surprising thing for the teachers to say, almost (to my mind at least) as if they hadn't familiarised themselves with the curriculum literature (not even the two page user guide!). If it's the latter, then it makes your 2nd question pretty much pointless as it's simply one assumption piled on another, don't you think?

According to one of its authors, the programme came about after “extensive consultation” with teachers, priests, parents, children and diocesan advisors about what they would like to see in a primary religious education programme, and it is the result of their creative and practical input, and takes into account the technological changes of the last 20 years, with things like an interactive website and (this is a bit you might find interesting) is more explicit about the role of parents and the role of parish in school-based religious education. Which would rather indicate that it's actually not designed to make up for the fact that Catholicism is not being drummed into children at home to the RCC's satisfaction, an indication supported by Maeve Mahon from the Faith Development Services of the diocese of Kildare and Leighlin, who says the Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum for Ireland offers a “unique opportunity to re-engage, re-imagine and re-commit with our staffs to the way in which we teach Religious Education as a core subject in our Catholic Schools, with parents as the first and best of teachers in the ways of faith and with parish as the community that nourishes and supports our faith journey.”

Of course, that's their own opinion on their own programme, so they could well be wrong (they've not mentioned indoctrination or brainwashing at all for instance)... and your own thinking might be right on the money. Though their press release for the launch said "The children’s Grow in Love textbooks are designed to be used both in school and at home and each week, families are asked to help their children to do something related to Grow in Love for homework. The text books give the parents the resources to do this. ", which gives me the impression that it's actually pushing the home aspect of religious instruction to a greater degree than then previous programme. So I'd have to say my impression is a bit different from yours, and that in fact they don't want schools to compensate for the failure of parents to provide religious instruction at home, they want parents to have a more front and centre role in providing religious instruction in their homes, and are supporting them in doing so.

Maybe they're pretending to be promoting faith formation in the home, whilst secretly ensuring that Catholicism is drummed into children at school to make up for the fact that most of them are not getting it at home? They just never imagined a parent not interested in indoctrinating their child at home might opt their child out of faith formation in school... one of the classic blunders, as Vissini might say.

But the pun was definitely good!

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Of course, that's their own opinion on their own programme, so they could well be wrong (they've not mentioned indoctrination or brainwashing at all for instance)...

I think the RCC prefer terms like instil faith formation for some reason, maybe seems less sinister. You say tomato, I say regressive discriminatory practise. Was I the only one who on seeing this in the user guide



thought of this?



@kiwi, sounds like a good plan, though I wouldn't go too excessive with it as inspiring jealousy in little kiwi's peers is liable to leave him isolated. Last thing you want is to get into the 'how much can we spend on junior in this sham celebration' competition. Football match sounds cool if that's his thing, but I'd tend not to build it up too much. Makes for a nice surprise gesture on the day.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

I think the RCC prefer terms like instil faith formation for some reason, maybe seems less sinister. You say tomato, I say regressive discriminatory practise.

Hmm... remind me not to eat salad round your house so! But yes, I'm pretty sure they think they'd say they neither indoctrinate nor brainwash, it's those who want to present it as something sinister that go for the misleading terms

pauldla

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm... remind me not to eat salad round your house so! But yes, I'm pretty sure they think they'd say they neither indoctrinate nor brainwash, it's those who want to present it as something sinister that go for the misleading terms

Well I'm not sure that brainwashing is the term to use; I think that is more suitable for the process of pressuring someone into adopting beliefs different from those they already hold. Indoctrination, though, may well be more accurate, if we accept the term to mean teaching to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

Absolam

pauldla wrote: »

Well I'm not sure that brainwashing is the term to use; I think that is more suitable for the process of pressuring someone into adopting beliefs different from those they already hold. Indoctrination, though, may well be more accurate, if we accept the term to mean teaching to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

If we accept the term indoctrinate to mean teach someone to accept a set of beliefs uncritically (though personally I prefer the definition 'Indoctrination is the process of forcibly inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology by coercion'), I'd say most Irish schools fall well short; case in point the denizens of A&A who exemplify the critical unacceptance of Christian belief amongst the products of our schools. Nor less the rising numbers of the population who profess no religion despite being educated in schools which are apparently overwhelming engaged in the 'indoctrination' process.

I'd say faith formation barely rises above the level of 'ambivalent suggestion' in many schools.. well short of 'indoctrination' anyways.
Though if anyone feels they became a fervent advocate of Church doctrine due to the education they received in Ireland they might be interesting to hear from!

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm... remind me not to eat salad round your house so! But yes, I'm pretty sure they think they'd say they neither indoctrinate nor brainwash, it's those who want to present it as something sinister that go for the misleading terms

Some of us consider how Catholicism is pushed on those who don't want it as a doctrinaire and extremely offensive form of attempted proseltysation of those who are ill equipped to defend themselves. I would imagine many Irish Catholics would take a similar stance if they had to send their children to Islamic ethos schools, and only then given the opportunity to do so if they pretended to be practising Muslims.

And tomato is a fruit godammit

pauldla

Absolam wrote: »

If we accept the term indoctrinate to mean teach someone to accept a set of beliefs uncritically (though personally I prefer the definition 'Indoctrination is the process of forcibly inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology by coercion'), I'd say most Irish schools fall well short; case in point the denizens of A&A who exemplify the critical unacceptance of Christian belief amongst the products of our schools. Nor less the rising numbers of the population who profess no religion despite being educated in schools which are apparently overwhelming engaged in the 'indoctrination' process.

I'd say faith formation barely rises above the level of 'ambivalent suggestion' in many schools.. well short of 'indoctrination' anyways.
Though if anyone feels they became a fervent advocate of Church doctrine due to the education they received in Ireland they might be interesting to hear from!

To my utter amazement, that book is available to buy on Taobao (Chinese online shopping portal), and for the bargain price of 19.50 RMB (about 2.65 Euros)! I might just have to order a copy, it does look like an interesting read from the sample you linked (and thank you for that).

Not sure about your next point. It is suggested in some quarters that these Atheists are just going through a phase, doing it to be cool, to get chicks, etc. Your point would also seem to suggest an 'all-or-nothing' concept of indoctrination, would it not?

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

I'd say most Irish schools fall well short; case in point the denizens of A&A who exemplify the critical unacceptance of Christian belief amongst the products of our schools. Nor less the rising numbers of the population who profess no religion despite being educated in schools which are apparently overwhelming engaged in the 'indoctrination' process.

So you're suggesting that at no level the Catholic Church is using the primary education system as a mechanism to attempt to prop up its rapidly declining membership? I wouldn't be surprised to hear such a sentiment expressed from their hierarchy either, but as any atheist would tell you, the truth espoused by the church needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

To be fair, religion is no longer battered into children by brothers and nuns as it was just a few decades ago. I would think this is the reason for its sharp decline in more ways than one. I didn't go to a religious ethos school, but my wife still has a deep seated antipathy towards nuns, as so many of my generation do towards Christian brothers. Can't see buddy Jesus winning back so many hearts and minds.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Some of us consider how Catholicism is pushed on those who don't want it as a doctrinaire and extremely offensive form of attempted proseltysation of those who are ill equipped to defend themselves.

Sure, though some of us realise that sending a child to a Catholic school rather obviates the notion that what they are then taught could be considered doctrinaire, never mind proselytising, regardless of how offensive someone might find it to get what they did in fact sign up for.

smacl wrote: »

I would imagine many Irish Catholics would take a similar stance if they had to send their children to Islamic ethos schools, and only then given the opportunity to do so if they pretended to be practising Muslims.

I imagine they might, especially if they were the sort (though Irish Catholics historically haven't been) to not just go ahead and establish the sort of school they want instead.

smacl wrote: »

And tomato is a fruit godammit

You've something against fruit salads?

Absolam

pauldla wrote: »

Not sure about your next point. It is suggested in some quarters that these Atheists are just going through a phase, doing it to be cool, to get chicks, etc. Your point would also seem to suggest an 'all-or-nothing' concept of indoctrination, would it not?

I imagine those quarters must think they're right if they're suggesting such a thing, but whether they are or not, whether someone rejects what they were taught because they're going through a phase or because they have given it mature and prolonged consideration, the fact that they are critical and unaccepting of it at all would suggest that they have not, in fact, been taught to accept that set of beliefs uncritically, would you not say?

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

So you're suggesting that at no level the Catholic Church is using the primary education system as a mechanism to attempt to prop up its rapidly declining membership? I wouldn't be surprised to hear such a sentiment expressed from their hierarchy either, but as any atheist would tell you, the truth espoused by the church needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I can't say I did suggest that, no. I would suggest however that members of the Catholic faith who find value in any of it's teachings might well choose to send their children to a Catholic school so that they might learn something of what they value in Catholicism.

smacl wrote: »

To be fair, religion is no longer battered into children by brothers and nuns as it was just a few decades ago. I would think this is the reason for its sharp decline in more ways than one. I didn't go to a religious ethos school, but my wife still has a deep seated antipathy towards nuns, as so many of my generation do towards Christian brothers. Can't see buddy Jesus winning back so many hearts and minds.

I suspect more people are likely to be convinced of the goodness of a religion by buddy Jesus than a good thrashing from a Christian Brother myself, but I suppose it's different strokes for different foks... something I recall a particular Christian Brother saying whilst wielding his cane, in fact.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

When you say apparently the Grow in Love programme has been designed to ensure that Catholicism is drummed into children at school to make up for the fact it is not being drummed into children at home to the RCC's satisfaction, and is therefore a lot more full on, was that the opinion of the school (hence the 'apparently'), or is that your own assumption (in that it is apparent to you from your own thoughts)? If it's the former, that's quite a surprising thing for the teachers to say, almost (to my mind at least) as if they hadn't familiarised themselves with the curriculum literature (not even the two page user guide!). If it's the latter, then it makes your 2nd question pretty much pointless as it's simply one assumption piled on another, don't you think?

According to one of its authors, the programme came about after “extensive consultation” with teachers, priests, parents, children and diocesan advisors about what they would like to see in a primary religious education programme, and it is the result of their creative and practical input, and takes into account the technological changes of the last 20 years, with things like an interactive website and (this is a bit you might find interesting) is more explicit about the role of parents and the role of parish in school-based religious education. Which would rather indicate that it's actually not designed to make up for the fact that Catholicism is not being drummed into children at home to the RCC's satisfaction, an indication supported by Maeve Mahon from the Faith Development Services of the diocese of Kildare and Leighlin, who says the Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum for Ireland offers a “unique opportunity to re-engage, re-imagine and re-commit with our staffs to the way in which we teach Religious Education as a core subject in our Catholic Schools, with parents as the first and best of teachers in the ways of faith and with parish as the community that nourishes and supports our faith journey.”

Of course, that's their own opinion on their own programme, so they could well be wrong (they've not mentioned indoctrination or brainwashing at all for instance)... and your own thinking might be right on the money. Though their press release for the launch said "The children’s Grow in Love textbooks are designed to be used both in school and at home and each week, families are asked to help their children to do something related to Grow in Love for homework. The text books give the parents the resources to do this. ", which gives me the impression that it's actually pushing the home aspect of religious instruction to a greater degree than then previous programme. So I'd have to say my impression is a bit different from yours, and that in fact they don't want schools to compensate for the failure of parents to provide religious instruction at home, they want parents to have a more front and centre role in providing religious instruction in their homes, and are supporting them in doing so.

Maybe they're pretending to be promoting faith formation in the home, whilst secretly ensuring that Catholicism is drummed into children at school to make up for the fact that most of them are not getting it at home? They just never imagined a parent not interested in indoctrinating their child at home might opt their child out of faith formation in school... one of the classic blunders, as Vissini might say.

But the pun was definitely good!

I'm actually not going to get into what the principle and the teacher who we met with said in here Absolam, because I've already disclosed quite a bit that makes me identifiable. Call me paranoid, but I feel I have an obligation to protect the school. All I will say is that OH and I came out of the meeting feeling pretty delighted with their attitude, so you can take from that what you will given that you know my views.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

I can't say I did suggest that, no. I would suggest however that members of the Catholic faith who find value in any of it's teachings might well choose to send their children to a Catholic school so that they might learn something of what they value in Catholicism.

So loves being a catholic enough to send their kid to a ethos school but can't be arsed to actually go to mass each week like a good catholic or even teach core catholic beliefs at home? Such a catholic is a pretty ****ty catholic. I'd wager most parents sending their kids to catholic ethos schools don't even have a bible in the house.

Most parents send their kids to a catholic ethos school because it just happens to also be the local school, your post is suggesting parents have choice when the reality of the situation shows the vast majority of little or no choice.

Your continued defense of this situation is utterly laughable at this stage, I'm not sure who you think believes you because its not anyone here.

Kiwi in IE

smacl wrote: »

@kiwi, sounds like a good plan, though I wouldn't go too excessive with it as inspiring jealousy in little kiwi's peers is liable to leave him isolated. Last thing you want is to get into the 'how much can we spend on junior in this sham celebration' competition. Football match sounds cool if that's his thing, but I'd tend not to build it up too much. Makes for a nice surprise gesture on the day.

Hey Smaci, inspiring jealousy is definitely not the goal, but avoidance of sympathy because he's having to do extra real work (Maths, Irish, English) or having to leave the class like kids do when they are being 'bold' and not getting a communion payout. I don't want it to look like he is at any sort of a disadvantage and that is my main goal in all of this next to indoctrination avoidance. Little Kiwi is really into football, would kick a ball all day from morning to night and wants nothing more to watch his favourite team in a match. His birthday is in June and the Premier League finishes at the end of May, so if that's what we end up doing, it will be an early birthday present (albeit a very big birthday present), and he will know nothing about it being a communion alternative. He will have something great to talk about with his football mad mates on the Monday however, when they are taking img about how much money they made. If Little Kiwi were to make that amount of money, he would want to spend it going to a match anyway, so he will be sorted.

smacl

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

He will have something great to talk about with his football mad mates on the Monday however

Jesus bearing a fistful of euros or Ronaldo putting one in the back of the net? Daddy or chips? Choices, choices. Could make for an entertaining conversation for sure.

anothernight

I did something like that when I was in primary school. My class was tiny and the parents of all pupils bar two (mine and another) ticked the "catholic" box on the religious education form. My parents were protestant and my friend's parents were atheist. The school didn't have the funds to hire a teacher just for me, especially when my parents weren't bothered either way (they were firmly in the religion-at-home camp) so my friend and I had alternative classes with our tutor which usually involved reading or drawing and fun educational things. It was mostly child-led with the teacher being more of a guide than a teacher. Officially, we were doing "ethics" but there was no curriculum for that at primary level afaik. In reality we could be doing anything from analysing poems to planting flowers or painting a mural.

It was really, really good and it's one of my best memories from primary school.

If I were you I would encourage your son to put some thinking into what he wants to do/learn during that time. Without guidance it's easy to focus on passing the time rather than learning, and it can become a bad habit.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Sure, though some of us realise that sending a child to a Catholic school rather obviates the notion that what they are then taught could be considered doctrinaire, never mind proselytising, regardless of how offensive someone might find it to get what they did in fact sign up for.

Unfortunately, and especially in rural Ireland, choice of school is rather like choice of car colour when the model T first came out. If broader religious practise is any indicator, I'd guess that most Irish Catholics are indifferent to religious instruction in school. Communions, Christenings, Confirmations etc... all make for an excuse for a day out and a good opportunity for parents and grandparents to show off their progeny but you won't see many of them at mass the following Sunday.

I imagine they might, especially if they were the sort (though Irish Catholics historically haven't been) to not just go ahead and establish the sort of school they want instead.

Change is certainly happening. Delighted that my youngest will be joining a second level ET school this autumn in its first year, and heard from a meeting last night that another proposed second level ET in south Dublin has already received in excess of five thousand expressions of interest. Unfortunately, this is cold comfort to those who have no viable choice other than a Catholic ethos school, and the rate of change is certainly not keeping up with demand.

You've something against fruit salads?

Ok, you got me there. I love all salads equally. Just keep that goddamn pineapple off of my pizza :pac:

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

I suspect more people are likely to be convinced of the goodness of a religion by buddy Jesus than a good thrashing from a Christian Brother myself, but I suppose it's different strokes for different foks... something I recall a particular Christian Brother saying whilst wielding his cane, in fact.

No doubt, but once it became unacceptable for the clergy to openly terrorise school children both vocation rates and church attendance rates collapsed. Could be that the Christian Brother's cane was all that was propping up Catholicism in this country. People who were once kept in line with a carrot and stick have long since left the flock, what with the stick gone, and bigger juicier carrots available on the interweb.

Akrasia

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

OH and I have just had our first meeting with the school about the dreaded communion year, which begins for Little Kiwi in September! They were brilliant in fairness, but their hands are tied in many areas by the 'patron' which is understandable. Apparently the 'Grow in Love' programme has been designed to ensure that Catholicism is drummed into them at school to make up for the fact that most children are not getting it at home, and is therefore a lot more full on than 'Alive O' was.

Little Kiwi has until this point sat in the classes and done colouring/drawing and has stayed home on mornings when there are church services. He's sitting out completely now, we don't even want him to be listening since they are now getting into 'sin', guilt and some of the more offensive concepts. He will have to remain in the class, as they cannot commit to religion being done at a fixed time for the whole year, so he will watch documentaries that are age appropriate on subjects that interest him, and that build on topics they are learning about in other subjects (countries, animals, historical events etc) on his tablet. I'm reasonably happy with this. What do you guys think? Given the school patronage situation being as it is, and the teachers/principle cannot be held responsible for that, it's probably the best we can hope for. He's not being isolated completely from his class, but nor will he be listening to bollocks.

They haven't confirmed the communion dates yet, but if it's not going to be close enough to the Easter holiday that we'll still be in NZ, we will go to the UK for either a football match or to Legoland that weekend. Not a hope that I'm going to let it appear in the eyes of an 8 year old that's it's advantageous to be Catholic, because everyone else is having parties/getting money and gifts, while he's sitting at home, or that he is going to be doing something that's harder work than religion in class all year, because we are not Catholic. I told the school as much when they initially suggested an extra work book (maths/English/Irish).

I am pretty confident that none of his friends who are taking religion will be feeling sorry for him, or that he will be feeling sorry for himself with this plan.

Sounds like a good plan Kiwi
We'll probably end up doing something similar

Have you considered educational apps on the tablet too?

Scratch Jr is available for Android now and your child could learn the fundamentals of coding while having a bit of fun and avoiding religion all at the same time, and your child will be able to show you afterwards the projects he's been working on at school and you can help him with ideas and resources to help him advance.

There are other 'games' that teach maths, science, geography and language skills

kylith

Absolam wrote: »

...(though personally I prefer the definition 'Indoctrination is the process of forcibly inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology by coercion')...

I'd call telling children 'believe this or burn in hell' coercion.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I'm actually not going to get into what the principle and the teacher who we met with said in here Absolam, because I've already disclosed quite a bit that makes me identifiable. Call me paranoid, but I feel I have an obligation to protect the school. All I will say is that OH and I came out of the meeting feeling pretty delighted with their attitude, so you can take from that what you will given that you know my views.

I think the most probable thing I can take from it (given that I know your views) is that no, the opinion of the school is not that the Grow in Love programme has been designed to ensure that Catholicism is drummed into children at school to make up for the fact it is not being drummed into children at home to the RCC's satisfaction, and this is in fact your own assumption. If it were the opinion of the school, I can't see what protection they'd be afforded by you attempting to give the impression it's their opinion without saying so outright, so I think we can dismiss that particular line fairly readily.

I have a feeling that you left the school delighted with their attitude because it simply didn't conform to what you expected it to be; an expectation based not on what schools do but what you think they do. I also have a feeling that that attitude will be similarly delightful to you throughout Little Kiwis education (and I sincerely hope it will too) barring the odd bump in the road, because I think most schools, regardless of ethos, are primarily interested in providing the best education they can to their pupils.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

So loves being a catholic enough to send their kid to a ethos school but can't be arsed to actually go to mass each week like a good catholic or even teach core catholic beliefs at home? Such a catholic is a pretty ****ty catholic. I'd wager most parents sending their kids to catholic ethos schools don't even have a bible in the house.

Maybe. If they aren't all that bothered about how they observe their faith they're probably not all that bothered about your opinion of how they observe their faith though, to be fair. I'm not sure possession of a bible would make them more Catholic, but I think it's one of the books you have to get for religion class at some stage, so if it does, then sending their kids to catholic ethos schools will make them more catholic in the end, eh?

Cabaal wrote: »

Most parents send their kids to a catholic ethos school because it just happens to also be the local school, your post is suggesting parents have choice when the reality of the situation shows the vast majority of little or no choice.

Little choice is still choice though, isn't it? I'm happy to agree that parents don't have as much choice as they'd like, and most parents wouldn't choose to educate at home even if it meant relaxing (or abandoning) their principles to avoid doing it. For what it's worth, my own opinion is most parents send their children to Catholic ethos schools because they believe that particular school will offer the best possible education they can afford to their child; location seems less significant than quality in my experience.

Cabaal wrote: »

Your continued defense of this situation is utterly laughable at this stage, I'm not sure who you think believes you because its not anyone here.

You keep saying things like that as if they're meaningful in some way. You do understand that it doesn't amount to an argument, or even a criticism, don't you?

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Unfortunately, and especially in rural Ireland, choice of school is rather like choice of car colour when the model T first came out. If broader religious practise is any indicator, I'd guess that most Irish Catholics are indifferent to religious instruction in school. Communions, Christenings, Confirmations etc... all make for an excuse for a day out and a good opportunity for parents and grandparents to show off their progeny but you won't see many of them at mass the following Sunday.

I imagine that as more parents decide to provide choice, more choice will become available, though in rural areas I think having a choice of schools will always be a secondary consideration next to simply having schools. The degree to which parents want their children to be instructed in their religion is obviously up to them; personally I wouldn't be inclined to say they must have seminary level instruction just because they want a Catholic ethos.

smacl wrote: »

Change is certainly happening. Delighted that my youngest will be joining a second level ET school this autumn in its first year, and heard from a meeting last night that another proposed second level ET in south Dublin has already received in excess of five thousand expressions of interest. Unfortunately, this is cold comfort to those who have no viable choice other than a Catholic ethos school, and the rate of change is certainly not keeping up with demand.

Sure, change happens all the time, and it's driven by demand, so the rate of change will always be behind it. The more involvement parents have with their childrens education the better in my opinion, and I think such involvement can only improve the quantity and quality of choice available.

smacl wrote: »

Ok, you got me there. I love all salads equally. Just keep that goddamn pineapple off of my pizza :pac:

Suspiciously like virtue signalling there... tut tut tut!

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

No doubt, but once it became unacceptable for the clergy to openly terrorise school children both vocation rates and church attendance rates collapsed. Could be that the Christian Brother's cane was all that was propping up Catholicism in this country. People who were once kept in line with a carrot and stick have long since left the flock, what with the stick gone, and bigger juicier carrots available on the interweb.

I can't say I'd draw a correllation between terrorising children and vocation rates and church attendance, any more than I'd draw a correlation between corporal punishment by parents and birth or marriage rates.... I think you're simply stretching yourself beyond credibility there.
If you accept that people were once kept in line with a carrot and stick and have long since left the flock because they're not any more, then all the other who were also kept in line with a carrot and stick would also have left the flock, but they haven't; in fact considerably more remain than have left. There's probably a bit more to it than you think

Absolam

kylith wrote: »

I'd call telling children 'believe this or burn in hell' coercion.

Me too.. at least if they believe in hell. I'm not sure very many primary school teachers do tell their pupils 'believe this or burn in hell' though. I can't say mine ever did, and I'd say I had a quintessentially Irish Catholic education.

I've no doubt that there are still a few old school nuns out there who'll relish telling their charges that the wages of certain sins are eternal damnation (even if repentance always saves), though there may not be too many left. Perhaps Kiwi can tell us if Little Kiwi ever heard his teachers threaten his classmates in such a fashion?

Disgruntled Badger

If he's happy to sit in on the class and do something else then he sounds up to handling this. What's the worst that can happen...he decides to make his communion? Doesn't sound like it. It might prompt him to question his, their and your values, and that's a good thing, right? I shouldn't worry about the Roman Church. Their magic isn't what it used to be!

King Mob

Absolam wrote: »

For what it's worth, my own opinion is most parents send their children to Catholic ethos schools because they believe that particular school will offer the best possible education they can afford to their child; location seems less significant than quality in my experience.

And then sometimes they can't even get into that school because they haven't been baptised, so are discriminated against when places are offered.

Just because that's never affected you, in your experience, it doesn't mean that it doesn't or can't affect other people. Nor does it make that situation acceptable.

And as for atheists (and non-Christian/non-catholic religious people) who are teachers, and have to remain in the closet about it for fear of losing or not finding a job, tough **** to them too?

Absolam

King Mob wrote: »

And then sometimes they can't even get into that school because they haven't been baptised, so are discriminated against when places are offered.

That's true, just as they may be discriminated against if they're not from the local area, or don't have siblings in the school, or can't pay the fees, or all the other reasons they could be discriminated against in the admissions process. Which is definitely a great argument for expanding the school.

King Mob wrote: »

Just because that's never affected you, in your experience, it doesn't mean that it doesn't or can't affect other people. Nor does it make that situation acceptable.

Whether or not it has affected me or anyone else doesn't mean that anyone other than parents is responsible for making the situation more acceptable to them though.

King Mob wrote: »

And as for atheists (and non-Christian/non-catholic religious people) who are teachers, and have to remain in the closet about it for fear of losing or not finding a job, tough **** to them too?

Whew, big leap there. First off, I never said tough **** to anyone... that's all you! Secondly, if someone can do the job, then I don't see why they should be disallowed due to their religious point of view. Unless the job is providing a religious point of view that they can't actually provide. So if an atheist (or non-Christian/non-catholic religious person, whatever...) is capable of being an atheist (or whatever) whilst advocating a religious ethos inimical to their own, fair enough, let them do the job. If they can't, I don't see why the job should be changed to suit them.

pauldla

Absolam wrote: »

I imagine those quarters must think they're right if they're suggesting such a thing, but whether they are or not, whether someone rejects what they were taught because they're going through a phase or because they have given it mature and prolonged consideration, the fact that they are critical and unaccepting of it at all would suggest that they have not, in fact, been taught to accept that set of beliefs uncritically, would you not say?

In other words:

If they are accepting, then they have been taught to accept beliefs uncritically.
They are not accepting.
Therefore, they have not been taught to accept beliefs uncritically.

Is this the point you are arguing?

Absolam

pauldla wrote: »

In other words:

If they are accepting, then they have been taught to accept beliefs uncritically.
They are not accepting.
Therefore, they have not been taught to accept beliefs uncritically.

Is this the point you are arguing?

Not quite; if they do not accept the beliefs being taught, and particularly do not accept them in an uncritical fashion, then they have not been taught to accept those beliefs uncritically, they have simply been taught those beliefs. Which is to say, they have received religious instruction not religious indoctrination.

El_Duderino 09

Absolam wrote:

I'd say faith formation barely rises above the level of 'ambivalent suggestion' in many schools.. well short of 'indoctrination' anyways. Though if anyone feels they became a fervent advocate of Church doctrine due to the education they received in Ireland they might be interesting to hear from!

I was taught by a woman who trained as a nun before leaving to have a family. She was the most uncritical thinker about religion that I have ever met. She drilled the doctrine into us after the era of canes, but it still stuck and I became very religious/superstitious.

My religiousness fell apart throughout secondary school but it definately worked on me far a while.

Absolam

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I was taught by a woman who trained as a nun before leaving to have a family. She was the most uncritical thinker about religion that I have ever met. She drilled the doctrine into us after the era of canes, but it still stuck and I became very religious/superstitious. My religiousness fell apart throughout secondary school but it definately worked on me far a while.

There you go then; not exactly worthy of the term indoctrination if you've abandoned the concepts before you've even become a teenager, though I suspect saying it 'stuck' may be a bit of an overstatement given the timescale involved. I think it's fair to say most small children are inclined to believing in things anyway, wouldn't you say?

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not sure possession of a bible would make them more Catholic,

You're right,
After all why should a religious person own and read the book that their whole religion is based on, thats just a crazy idea. What was I thinking?

but I think it's one of the books you have to get for religion class at some stage,

No its not,
You get prayer books at communion time and you get the standard religion book and they do artwork, but kids are in no way asked to get a bible. Not sure where you are pulling that nugget from.

Little choice is still choice though, isn't it?

Indeed it is, and thats why many white people didn't see the issue about black people sitting at the back of the bus. The black people still had a choice to sit on the bus didn't they?

You might be ok with a sub standard system that discriminates against 5 year olds but I'm not,

For what it's worth, my own opinion is most parents send their children to Catholic ethos schools because they believe that particular school will offer the best possible education they can afford to their child; location seems less significant than quality in my experience.

You've basically nothing to backup this claim due to the high saturation of catholic ethos schools, by all means if you had say a whole area with non ethos schools and then 1x ethos school which was massively over subscribed then it might support your claim.

But the reality is people send their kids to ethos schools....because its also the local school.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

There you go then; not exactly worthy of the term indoctrination if you've abandoned the concepts before you've even become a teenager, though I suspect saying it 'stuck' may be a bit of an overstatement given the timescale involved. I think it's fair to say most small children are inclined to believing in things anyway, wouldn't you say?

So you're arguing teaching religion in school isn't indoctrination because some people question it? If the religion teaching is that ineffective then perhaps they might want to pull it out of school altogether or at the very least rethink it?

If you stuck a kid into our school system at 5 and the kid lives at 17 and during all that time they went to history class but at the end they didn't believe any of the stuff they were told happened in history class, wouldn't you consider that a major problem? Even if it applied to say 10-15% of the class?

At the end of the day the catholic faith "stories" are believed to have actually happened, having teenagers leave the education system not believing these stories happened shows they have a broken system but yet they insist on wasting school money and resources on it.

I think its best leave the religion to the parents and the priests and leave the school teach non-faith subjects only. After all, this would ensure the religious buildings in each town and village are full each week wouldn't it?

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

You're right,
After all why should a religious person own and read the book that their whole religion is based on, thats just a crazy idea. What was I thinking?

I don't know, were you just making up your own rules for someone elses religion?

Cabaal wrote: »

No its not,
You get prayer books at communion time and you get the standard religion book and they do artwork, but kids are in no way asked to get a bible. Not sure where you are pulling that nugget from.

Yeah, it is :-) Or at least it certainly was in the school I went to.

Cabaal wrote: »

Indeed it is, and thats why many white people didn't see the issue about black people sitting at the back of the bus. The black people still had a choice to sit on the bus didn't they?

So... something you don't like mysteriously equals something people generally don't like therefore related to another statement? I think you need to try a bit harder with that one!

Cabaal wrote: »

You might be ok with a sub standard system that discriminates against 5 year olds but I'm not,

Well, the system certainly isn't sub standard; Irish education rates quite well on most world metrics, as has been discussed on the other threads. And it's not the system discriminating, it's schools. I think you know both of those already though, didn't you?

Cabaal wrote: »

You've basically nothing to backup this claim due to the high saturation of catholic ethos schools, by all means if you had say a whole area with non ethos schools and then 1x ethos school which was massively over subscribed then it might support your claim. But the reality is people send their kids to ethos schools....because its also the local school.

What, because most schools have a Catholic ethos it's difficult to say parents prefer schools that are better over schools that are closer? I suppose the converse is also true then, it's difficult to say parents prefer schools that are closer over schools that are better for the same reasons?

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

So you're arguing teaching religion in school isn't indoctrination because some people question it? If the religion teaching is that ineffective then perhaps they might want to pull it out of school altogether or at the very least rethink it?

Nope, I'm arguing that someone who has been indocrtrinated accepts what they have been indoctrinated with uncritically; that's the definition offered by pauldla. If they don't accept it, or are critical of it, then they have not been indoctrinated. If the intention of schools is to indoctrinate then perhaps they should pull it out of school altogether or at the very least rethink it.. but if their intention is instruction then obviously they don't need to, eh?

Cabaal wrote: »

If you stuck a kid into our school system at 5 and the kid lives at 17 and during all that time they went to history class but at the end they didn't believe any of the stuff they were told happened in history class, wouldn't you consider that a major problem? Even if it applied to say 10-15% of the class?

If they didn't accept it uncritically no, i wouldn't consider it a problem, I'd consider it an indication that they'd been educated rather than indoctrinated. Would you not?

Cabaal wrote: »

At the end of the day the catholic faith "stories" are believed to have actually happened, having teenagers leave the education system not believing these stories happened shows they have a broken system but yet they insist on wasting school money and resources on it.

But if the purpose of teaching the stories is to instil an ethos founded on those stories, the it's fine that they leave the system not believing the stories, so long as they have a positive sense of the ethos, isn't it? In which case the money and resources are well spent within a working system (which also delivers a world class education).

Cabaal wrote: »

I think its best leave the religion to the parents and the priests and leave the school teach non-faith subjects only. After all, this would ensure the religious buildings in each town and village are full each week wouldn't it?

I doubt it, though the new curriculum certainly seems oriented towards increasing participation in parishes. Maybe allowing parents to continue offering faith education both in schools and at home (as well as in religious buildings in each town and village) means all three will go hand in hand as it were...

jcd5971

Not one usually for these topics as to be brutally honest the majority in these religion posts are severely biased to say the least and that's both the pro and anti Brigade...... However this one popped up on trending page so..

I think op is as right as he can be, op is not religious but placed the child in a religious run school and rather than try to adopt their faith or force his lack of faith on them has made a sound plan to take young one on a trip of substance enough so that will neither cause jealousy from fellow students or make him jealous of them.

Akrasia

Absolam wrote: »

There you go then; not exactly worthy of the term indoctrination if you've abandoned the concepts before you've even become a teenager, though I suspect saying it 'stuck' may be a bit of an overstatement given the timescale involved. I think it's fair to say most small children are inclined to believing in things anyway, wouldn't you say?

So it's not child abuse if it doesn't leave permanent scars?

I believed in the sin and hell and shame aspects of christianity when I was in pre-school and I was genuinely scared going to bed if I forgot to say my bedtime prayer or died before going to confession or that my parents or siblings might end up in hell.

Your formative years are primary school. Having a bunch of priests and nuns telling you that you're an inherently bad and 'sinful' person who can only be 'saved' by constantly begging a 'lord' for forgiveness is an objectively bad way to raise children.

I raise my own kids to think for themselves, to question authority and to have confidence and that if they work hard and put in the effort, that they can accomplish things that they can be proud of.

When i was growing up, we were told that people were given 'gifts' from god, that some people were 'gifted' athletes or musicians. As if all the hours of practice and hard work didn't come into it.

jcd5971

Akrasia wrote:

So it's not child abuse if it doesn't leave permanent scars?

This is why I stay of religious threads... I'm out

Akrasia

Absolam wrote: »

Nope, I'm arguing that someone who has been indocrtrinated accepts what they have been indoctrinated with uncritically; that's the definition offered by pauldla. If they don't accept it, or are critical of it, then they have not been indoctrinated.

What happens during catholic 'education' in primary school is the act of indoctrination, it's a process, they're engaged in 'faith formation'
That's what they call it themselves.

The fact that they are failing (in many but not all cases) is due to the increasing secularisation of Irish society. It is difficult to indoctrinate a child at school when the parents don't re-enforce it at home like good catholics would, or where the children know other kids their age with different beliefs

This is why the most evangelical and fundamentalist parents choose to send their kids to specialist schools run by their own faith, or home school their children themselves.

If the intention of schools is to indoctrinate then perhaps they should pull it out of school altogether or at the very least rethink it..

The intention of the 'patron' of the schools is to indoctrinate, but their grip on the schools is slipping. They are in decline. There aren't enough clergy, but their real problem is the 'Laity' are more secular than before. It used to be that the teachers would be frightened if the kids didn't know their catechism for when the priest came to inspect them, but now there are fewer religious teachers and principles to enforce their control.

They know that their last hope is to maintain a stricter control over a smaller number of schools, which is why they claim they are happy to release a percentage of their schools into state patronage, but those left behind will have a much stronger 'catholic ethos' hopefully (in their eyes) churning out real victims of old school indoctrination.

pauldla

Absolam wrote: »

Nope, I'm arguing that someone who has been indocrtrinated accepts what they have been indoctrinated with uncritically; that's the definition offered by pauldla. If they don't accept it, or are critical of it, then they have not been indoctrinated. If the intention of schools is to indoctrinate then perhaps they should pull it out of school altogether or at the very least rethink it.. but if their intention is instruction then obviously they don't need to, eh?
…

That is not the definition I offered. If you look back at #10 you will see I said

if we accept the term to mean teaching to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

I hope the difference in meaning from what you presented is apparent.

Absolam wrote: »

Not quite; if they do not accept the beliefs being taught, and particularly do not accept them in an uncritical fashion, then they have not been taught to accept those beliefs uncritically, they have simply been taught those beliefs. Which is to say, they have received religious instruction not religious indoctrination.

Religious instruction having no critical component, what is the difference?

Akrasia

Absolam wrote: »

Me too.. at least if they believe in hell. I'm not sure very many primary school teachers do tell their pupils 'believe this or burn in hell' though. I can't say mine ever did, and I'd say I had a quintessentially Irish Catholic education.

My little primary school had heaven, hell, purgatory and limbo

In fact, i don't see how the catholic doctrine can be taught without reference to hell and purgatory. Why do we pray for the dead if there's no purgatory?

Why do we baptise our children, why are there last rites and emergency baptisms if it wasn't for the risk that babies could go to hell or 'limbo'

We were taught about sins, some sins that are forgivable through confession, and others that are 'mortal sins' that doom you forever, but even the lesser sins would still land you in purgatory if you hadn't been to confession recently...

Every Catholic child still makes their first confession before their first communion. What are they being taught about this? That it's not important? I doubt it.

Children aren't stupid, they ask lots of questions to try and understand things, but they're also very vulnerable because they trust their teachers and adults when they are given answers to those questions.

I've no doubt that there are still a few old school nuns out there who'll relish telling their charges that the wages of certain sins are eternal damnation (even if repentance always saves), though there may not be too many left. Perhaps Kiwi can tell us if Little Kiwi ever heard his teachers threaten his classmates in such a fashion?

You don't need to bang the drum, kids have powerful imaginations, you just need to introduce the idea of hell and tell them that it is real, and children will fill in the blanks themselves.

Christy42

Absolam wrote: »

That's true, just as they may be discriminated against if they're not from the local area, or don't have siblings in the school, or can't pay the fees, or all the other reasons they could be discriminated against in the admissions process. Which is definitely a great argument for expanding the school.

Surely you should also get rid of the religious discriminatory laws as well as expanding the school. After all they won't be used if there is enough room at the school so we should get rid of them.
Also getting rid of those rules is free and can be done immediately so we may as well.
Also not being able to pay fees is not discrimination. Me not being able to afford a Ferrari is not discrimination. Someone not selling me a Ferrari because of my religion is.

Akrasia

jcd5971 wrote: »

This is why I stay of religious threads... I'm out

There are many forms of child abuse. If a mother of a child tells her son that he is not worthy of her love, but because she is so amazing and virtuous, despite the child's unworthyness, she will love him anyway, as long as he begs her to every day and praises her and confesses all of his sins to her and begs for her forgiveness

If a mother of a child treated the child the same way the 'lord father' treats everyone else, it would be an obvious form of child abuse.

Teaching 9 year old children that they are bad people who need to confess their sins to avoid hell is abhorrent to me, and I consider it to be an abuse of the child's innocence.

Some children are more vulnerable than others. The more seriously the school and the parents take it, the more vulnerable the child is.

El_Duderino 09

Absolam wrote:

There you go then; not exactly worthy of the term indoctrination if you've abandoned the concepts before you've even become a teenager, though I suspect saying it 'stuck' may be a bit of an overstatement given the timescale involved. I think it's fair to say most small children are inclined to believing in things anyway, wouldn't you say?

I accepted it unquestioningly for the time it was shoved down my throat. Once the rug was pulled from underneath, it crumbled.