Is there anything constructive I can do about this discrimination?

smacl

lazybones32 wrote: »

I don't know if the child is being treated unfairly.

It comes down to what exactly is being taught in the class, which from what I can gather as a non exam subject has a lot of leeway for the teacher. Looking at the curriculum posted earlier in the thread it does place an undue emphasis on Christianity. As such it seems entirely reasonable for parents of children opting out to be able to do so without having to attend the class.

lazybones32

....... wrote: »

Surely being told that you can either sit in silence for the duration of the class OR read a book pertaining to your own faith when you have no faith is by definition a punishment?

The kid cant do option 2 as he has no faith.

Being told to sit in silence for the duration of a class is punishment? Those darn Christians and their relentless persecution!

The young man has been told he can bring a book that pertains to a belief of his. Depending on his academic bent and desire, he could make very good use of the 80 mins. But being a teen in school, he might just fantasise about girls.

What if he says maths is his faith and he gets on with maths homework

Hotblack Desiato

lazybones32 wrote: »

But being a teen in school, he might just fantasise about girls.

It's an ETB school. There might actually be girls allowed in the same room as him. Shocking I know.

Hotblack Desiato

Frowzy wrote: »

Interesting! My son attends a CBS school but they currently have people of various religions/beliefs attending. I guess the name of the class is misleading as it's called Religion but reading the posts here I would agree that perhaps philosophy might be a better title!

That's possible but extreeeeeeeeeeemly unlikely. The RCC is not hanging onto patronage of schools like grim death for no reason. Whether overtly or covertly they'll be promoting good old fashioned catholicism as the golden ticket to eternal bliss.

Lickin2me

The kids going one way to hell 😈😈😈

Frowzy

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's possible but extreeeeeeeeeeemly unlikely. The RCC is not hanging onto patronage of schools like grim death for no reason. Whether overtly or covertly they'll be promoting good old fashioned catholicism as the golden ticket to eternal bliss.

What is extremely unlikely?

As regards schools changing, a lot depends on the principal. The aren't any brothers left in the school and the teaching staff are quite young so it's quite progressive, which I'm guessing the OPs school isn't.

techdiver

Frowzy wrote: »

What is extremely unlikely?

As regards schools changing, a lot depends on the principal. The aren't any brothers left in the school and the teaching staff are quite young so it's quite progressive, which I'm guessing the OPs school isn't.

The schools are still controlled by the church. It doesn't matter if a gay atheist is principal he will still be forced to peddle nonsense as fact in class.

Hotblack Desiato

Frowzy wrote: »

What is extremely unlikely?

This.

I guess the name of the class is misleading as it's called Religion but reading the posts here I would agree that perhaps philosophy might be a better title!

If this was the case in an RC patronage school, the local bishop would be far from impressed.

Frowzy

techdiver wrote: »

The schools are still controlled by the church. It doesn't matter if a gay atheist is principal he will still be forced to peddle nonsense as fact in class.

I'm guessing from comments here that our local school is in the minority as no religion is pushed on the students. A couple of years back a theology student came in on teaching experience but he didn't last long.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If this was the case in an RC patronage school, the local bishop would be far from impressed.

The school is called the CBS but no brothers are there anymore. Yes the bishop attends important events and from time to time mass is held, but there are currently numerous different races and religions in attendance in the school so students can opt out of mass and choose to do study instead. There is also a room provided for Muslim students who need to pray several times a day. I'm hoping that this is the way forward for our schools.

Religion class is scheduled but is more of an education of all the different beliefs than anything. They even teach about spirituality. I guess as techdiver says above the only issue seems to be renaming the class.

Having attended a convent school myself I didn't want anything shoved down my children's throats. There is only a CBS or VEC school in our town for boys to choose from for secondary school. I let my son choose himself. It was more a hurling choice than anything, but as a non religious person I've had no problems. Judging by the posts I'll count myself lucky!

neonsofa

bluewolf wrote: »

What if he says maths is his faith and he gets on with maths homework

Love it!

Samaris

lazybones32 wrote: »

Being told to sit in silence for the duration of a class is punishment? Those darn Christians and their relentless persecution!

The young man has been told he can bring a book that pertains to a belief of his. Depending on his academic bent and desire, he could make very good use of the 80 mins. But being a teen in school, he might just fantasise about girls.

Being told to sit there in silence and do nothing for 80 mins is a punishment at that age (and probably at most ages)! He can't do other homework and his options are to bring in a book pertaining to his non-existent faith. He's probably not entirely interested in bringing in a book by Dawkins (or Other Atheist/Agnostic Author), and really, I can't blame him.

Send him to the back of the room and let him get on with his study, for heaven's sake. The teacher is only making trouble for themselves, and anyway, it's perfectly good practice for a student to sit and study while other things are happening around them. He'll need it for university libraries/cafes/random corners.

smacl

Frowzy wrote: »

It was more a hurling choice than anything, but as a non religious person I've had no problems. Judging by the posts I'll count myself lucky!

My eldest daughter was very much the same, wanting to go to the same school as her friends. Not a bad school, but the educate together secondary my youngest is attending is far better.

I think a large amount of what goes on in religion class in second level comes down to the individual teacher. I was chatting to my eldest about it last night and she'd said her teacher was very relaxed with the general emphasis on helping others, charity work and such like. While quite proactive, encouraging a number of the kids including my own to pursue the Gaisce challenge, the teacher is actually ok with them doing homework in the class if they're not interested in what's being taught. Other friends of hers have a real God botherer and a are fed a strict diet of hell-fire and brimstone. I'm guessing the OP's son has more of the latter.

passatman86

Monday morning send him in with a 'star wars' book.
He can seriously tell the teacher he is a 'jedi knight'.
I sh1t you not there is 2000 followers in ireland according to the last census.
That will really mess with the teacher play her at her own game if nothing else.


Really google it, would love to see teachers face

lazybones32

Samaris wrote: »

Being told to sit there in silence and do nothing for 80 mins is a punishment at that age (and probably at most ages)! He can't do other homework and his options are to bring in a book pertaining to his non-existent faith. He's probably not entirely interested in bringing in a book by Dawkins (or Other Atheist/Agnostic Author), and really, I can't blame him.

Send him to the back of the room and let him get on with his study, for heaven's sake. The teacher is only making trouble for themselves, and anyway, it's perfectly good practice for a student to sit and study while other things are happening around them. He'll need it for university libraries/cafes/random corners.

I see now that i need to spell things out clearly.
If the boy has any spark of creativity or resourcefulness, he has permission to bring in a book that pertains to a belief. That belief can be mechanics, woodwork, physics, biology, sociology, computer programming, finance, etc. As long as that book isn't on the syllabus, he is abiding by the rule set by the teacher but it can be related to a subject (though he'd have a job explaining a belief in a language). It's easy for me as a 60 year old to give such advice to a teen, whereas back theni had a one-track mind and no desire for school.

As i already wrote, depending on his willingness and desire to actually learn something course-related, his options aren't that limited. How am i the only one who sees the opportunity presented? (Maybe i'm not preoccupied with being persecuted, punished or discriminated against?)

There's no point telling me to let him go to the back and study. The teacher has him up front and has laid ground rules. That's the reality of the situation. Maybe OP could use this opportunity to teach his son, that sometimes requests are made by those in positions more senior than us and we have to comply - whether we agree or not. He'll encounter that for definite and probably for most of his working life.

See, there are many, many ways to skin this cat but i'm tired of writing.

looksee

There are several angles to this question:

1. Should religion be taught in school at all?
-If yes, should it be specific to Christian/RC beliefs
-Or should it be general information about religious beliefs.

2. Should students be allowed to opt out of the subject if it is Christian specific?

3. If it is a general study of religions then is there any need for an opt out, any more than history or geography.

4. Does the op's son genuinely not wish to have religion imposed on him or is this just a way of making a point and being cool in class?
- Does his general behaviour suggest that if he were to sit at the back of the class he would be disruptive?

5. If he is genuine and normally not a smart-arse then the teacher is being unreasonable in insisting that he sit at the front of the class and not do homework.

I have my suspicions which of 4 or 5 is relevant in this case, but my teaching experience has made me a bit cynical in this kind of situation.

I love Sean nos

Get this and/or these.

Michael Nugent

Choochtown wrote: »

Any advice would be welcomed.

Choochtown, I haven't read the whole thread yet, but please email Jane Donnelly, Human Rights Officer of Atheist Ireland, at humanrights@atheist.ie. Also, cc me at chair@atheist.ie

Jane is on holiday until next week, but when she is back we will definitely be able to help you with this.

Gangu

OP, any update?

dr.fuzzenstein

lazybones32 wrote: »

There's no point telling me to let him go to the back and study. The teacher has him up front and has laid ground rules. That's the reality of the situation. Maybe OP could use this opportunity to teach his son, that sometimes requests are made by those in positions more senior than us and we have to comply - whether we agree or not. He'll encounter that for definite and probably for most of his working life.

See, there are many, many ways to skin this cat but i'm tired of writing.

Times have changed. I know the older generation are more of a mindset that "those what are above us know better and who are we to question their decisions".
But times have changed, people have realised that " those above" are no smarter or wiser and sometimes they are spiteful and petty as is the case with the OP.
When I went to school there was religious education. But there were also ethics classes for the non religious. This was in the 80's!
So in that respect Ireland is still stuck in the 60's and 70's and people need to stand up and say That's not good enough!
Religion should have no place in schools, but at the VERY least, there should be an alternative.

Because what the school is doing is forcing that pupil to be present at a religious class.
They don't have the resources? Lame excuse, they should make the resources.
If there was a true alternative, people would take it, but they're too afraid in a country where you have to pretend to have religion and go through bulls*t baptismal in order to get in. So they shut up, toe the line and tuck the tail in.
Seriously, if people can't see that's wrong, they're blind.

Samaris

lazybones32 wrote: »

I see now that i need to spell things out clearly.
If the boy has any spark of creativity or resourcefulness, he has permission to bring in a book that pertains to a belief. That belief can be mechanics, woodwork, physics, biology, sociology, computer programming, finance, etc. As long as that book isn't on the syllabus, he is abiding by the rule set by the teacher but it can be related to a subject (though he'd have a job explaining a belief in a language). It's easy for me as a 60 year old to give such advice to a teen, whereas back theni had a one-track mind and no desire for school.

As i already wrote, depending on his willingness and desire to actually learn something course-related, his options aren't that limited. How am i the only one who sees the opportunity presented? (Maybe i'm not preoccupied with being persecuted, punished or discriminated against?)

There's no point telling me to let him go to the back and study. The teacher has him up front and has laid ground rules. That's the reality of the situation. Maybe OP could use this opportunity to teach his son, that sometimes requests are made by those in positions more senior than us and we have to comply - whether we agree or not. He'll encounter that for definite and probably for most of his working life.

See, there are many, many ways to skin this cat but i'm tired of writing.

Well, the bringing in a book about something else is attempting to slink around the teacher's words, since he (and probably you!) know very well what the teacher meant (I'm not sure I could convincingly argue that I "believe" in ecology the same way that someone "believes" in religion, but it's a bit of sophistry that probably would have appealed as worth a shot at six/seventeen.). -If- the teacher will appreciate that asking a non-religious person to bring in a book relevant to their faith is ridiculous, they might let him off with it, but given the approach so far (unknown factors, such as mischief-making, aside), I'm not convinced they would.

That was a rather unnecessary dig, I don't think you specified you meant a non-religious "belief" and I took the word in the context it was presented.

Alternately, it could be pointed out that he'll have to take instruction from those more senior to him and, even if it is blatantly ridiculous/unfair/unhelpful to the situation, it is best to just do it because authority should be obeyed - anyway, if you are just following authority, anything that goes wrong is the fault of authority. I learned that it worked better to approach the person one on one and try to explain why this won't work that way rather than in front of a group, but appeal to authority is also a viable lesson. S/he probably won't back down in front of the class, but might accept a private conversation.

So, yeah, plenty of ways to skin the cat, but I'm not sure how many will help the situation. (I'd have probably tried bringing in a non-school history book and see where that got me - similar to your suggestion - , but I liked history then.)

volchitsa

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Practically, you and the school are in a bind. You have permission to absent your child from the school/ they must have some legal issues/duties if he remains .

I can understand why your child has been given a specific seating arrangement, as I'm sure,likewise, that you would rather not have your child's best friend sitting beside him in a maths class, if the friend had opted out of maths. There is going to be a bit of messing, we all know that.

I don't think this is discrimination, it would be fair enough that your kid may not do homework in the class.

But, s/he should be allowed to use that time to quietly read a text book relating to subjects that s/he is taking/opting into.

I think you could reasonably defend that position to the head teacher.

Face to face friendly chat would be my advice.

It's discrimination because it's a nonsense subject, based on a myth.
Hardly surprising they find it hard to control those who know they're talking nonsense. If he had to sit up at the front during Toothfairy and Santa Claus class, and read Norse Myths or other comparable myths, would that be a good use of his time?

volchitsa

looksee wrote: »

There are several angles to this question:

1. Should religion be taught in school at all?
-If yes, should it be specific to Christian/RC beliefs
-Or should it be general information about religious beliefs.

2. Should students be allowed to opt out of the subject if it is Christian specific?

3. If it is a general study of religions then is there any need for an opt out, any more than history or geography.

4. Does the op's son genuinely not wish to have religion imposed on him or is this just a way of making a point and being cool in class?
- Does his general behaviour suggest that if he were to sit at the back of the class he would be disruptive?

5. If he is genuine and normally not a smart-arse then the teacher is being unreasonable in insisting that he sit at the front of the class and not do homework.

I have my suspicions which of 4 or 5 is relevant in this case, but my teaching experience has made me a bit cynical in this kind of situation.

I get your point about number 4, but TBF the school system has made this stick to beat itself with by insisting that non believers sit through classes which have no more sense to them than, as I said above, stories about the doings of the Greek or the Norse gods being taught as fact.

It's long past time for religious education classes to be learning about the various religions, not learning off the rules of one particular doctrine. The problem of course being that the state has shirked its duties by allowing one religion to run most of the state schools as religious schools with state money.

Choochtown

I've been offline for a couple of days but have spent a while this morning reading through the thread.

Many thanks for all the advice and opinions (even those I strongly disagreed with!)

The situation has been resolved. I made an appointment and went to see the principal but not before doing my homework first. School rules and regulations which I have signed (yes I know I should have read them) state clearly that he must be in class or removed under parental supervision. Also it is school policy that he must read a "faith-based" book during class.

My meeting with the principal was centred around only one thing: Why my son was picked at the start of every class and told that he must sit at the front and centre of the room whilst everyone else in the entire class is allowed to sit where they want. My son is then admonished in front of the class if he tries to do some schoolwork. That to me is discrimination and totally unacceptable.

Luckily (but rightly in my opinion) the principal knew the score. The teacher in question is a bitter old man whose "religion" classes have been littered with such classics as "Muslims are terrorists" and "Athiests have no moral guidance" which was the reason my son asked to be removed in the first place. My son got a genuine apology from the principal and a begrudging one from the teacher. I managed to convince them that his faith was in his studies and he will be studying one of his leaving Cert subjects during the class. Moreover for the next religion class (next Tuesday) he will be treated like everyone else in his class and allowed to sit where he wants.

A few posters here have questioned the sitting at the front, suggesting that it may be that my son is disruptive. He has never been in trouble at the school before and moreover would not even bring in "the god delusion" into class as he did not want to antagonise the teacher. I asked the principal if the international students who are exempt from Irish were made to sit at the front of the Irish class.

So, barring a u-turn next Tuesday where the teacher stops my son working or he makes him sit at the front, I think things are resolved.
As for the supposed philosophical thinking and mindfulness class that religion classes are supposed to be ... maybe that's a battle that should be fought by the parents of the 27 other students in that class.

mahamageehad

Absolutely delighted it worked out for you OP!

Samaris

Glad it worked out! Hopefully things will be settled by next Tuesday and the teacher will have gotten over whatever upset he may or may not have about it.

Lucy8080

I opted out of this thread voluntarily.

I'm opting back in to say I'm happy for the o.p. and the o.p.s kid that this situation is resolved (hopefully).

There is a lot more info in the o.p.s last post ,that clears up the suspicions and speculations that an advice request will entail.

Best of luck to that child of yours o.p.

Mark Hamill

Frowzy wrote: »

Actually I have already explained my reasons in my previous posts. If the contributor can't be bothered to read my posts then that's not my problem. As a moderator Robindch I would have expected you to read my posts before reprimanding me. The poster called me out once and I responded, lazy moderating there!

I was in fact trying to be polite in my posts by not blatantly accusing the poster of cherry-picking from my posts. He twice has said that I claim Religion teaches patience and tolerance when my quote was actually that I feel the class, when taught properly, can teach understanding and patience as well as tolerance. That isn't being pedantic either as it's quite different.

I have explained in my posts that I don't feel that we can be patient or tolerant if we don't understand another's beliefs. Therefore because I have already explained my viewpoint it is like a cross examination as the poster has not explained why he disagrees with me. This how a debate and/or discussion works. Otherwise this is not a discussion board but a he who shouts loudest board.

Which ever forum a person is on they are entitled to their opinion, I never understood the phrase "The Antis" before but I'm beginning to. Another poster here has hinted that I may have a blind faith when I clearly stated in my first post that I am not religious. If you're not going to read my posts how can you argue with them?

Perhaps if all if these people had paid attention in religion, LCVP, civics and debating class they would be able to carry out a more balanced discussion without pointing fingers. However perhaps they opted out!!

To repeat myself: none of this (or what you said before) really answers my questions:
How does a religion class actually teach of this?
Why should it be taught specifically through religion classes when patience and tolerance go far beyond religious beliefs?
These are simple questions, your continued avoidance of answering these indicates that you don't actually have an answer to them. I don't know where you learned to debate, but where I learned taught me not to make claims that I couldn't justify just because I feel/want them to be right.

looksee

Mod: Frowzy, if you have comments to make about moderation you should take them to feedback. Mark Hamill asked a question about your views and you refused to answer it on the basis that you had already answered it, which you had not in the context that MH was querying. Robindch simply pointed out that in a discussion forum you engage in the discussion.

Mark Hamill did not say that you had claimed that religion teaches patience and tolerance. He said that you had claimed these could be taught in religion class. His question is - why is a religion class specifically suited to this teaching, even allowing for the fact that other religions can be discussed? The syllabus makes it clear that this course is intended to be Christian, even Roman Catholic based. This is not necessary for teaching about different religions and/or moral and ethical behaviour.

smacl

looksee wrote: »

The syllabus makes it clear that this course is intended to be Christian, even Roman Catholic based. This is not necessary for teaching about different religions and/or moral and ethical behaviour.

The syllabus as published by the NCCA for senior cycle religious education makes no references to Catholicism. It does give undue emphasis to Christianity, to the point that by my reading it assumes Christianity to be the one true religion while being careful to avoid explicitly stating this. It could be seen as replacing direct religious instruction with Christian apologetics and clearly conflates morality, truth and justice with religion, thus propping up the church while trying to appear pluralistic. I can't see any reason why this would be anything other than an optional subject for the religiously inclined, and would certainly see it as an intrusion on freedom of religious expression for anyone other than a Christian.