A proper opt-out from Religion in ETB schools seems about to happen

Michael Nugent

Finally, in ETB schools, a proper opt-out from religion seems about to happen, with alternative subjects being offered at the start of the year, based on proposals that Atheist Ireland has been intensively lobbying for in recent years.

The Irish Times has seen records of a coming Ministerial Circular that Atheist Ireland first asked the Minister for Education to issue in 2016, after our first Freedom of Information campaign about respecting human rights in the State Religious Education course.

We have since intensified our lobbying on the issue with our recent FOI campaign on religion in ETB schools. We met the Department of Education on this issue last December, along with the Evangelical Alliance of Ireland and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of Ireland.

Based on today’s Irish Times report, it looks as if we may be on the verge of a very significant breakthrough for atheist, minority faith, and secular students in ETB schools. Some excerpts from the Irish Times report:

“Pupils in State-run secondary schools are to be given the option of opting out of religious instruction and studying alternative subjects on an annual basis. It will affect tens of thousands of students in 275 of the State’s 700-plus secondary schools run by Education and Training Boards (ETBs)…”

“Many community colleges, for example, provide two hours of religious instruction each week. These schools will need to organise alternative classes for these students…”

“Instead of waiting for a parent to request a withdrawal and then having to make alternative arrangements for the pupil for class periods concerned, pupils who do not choose religious instruction should be timetabled by the school for alternative subjects…”

“Groups such as Atheist Ireland say non-Catholic children who seek to opt out of religion in community schools are regularly discriminated against under current rules. It has pointed to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act which found that ETBs in areas such as Tipperary, for example, have rules which state that children who opt out of religion should not have access to other classes, as it would give them an “unfair advantage” over other pupils. Records also show the head of Tipperary ETB told schools principals in 2015 that the “spirit of our schools is Catholic and this needs to be addressed in all policies”…”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/state-run-secondary-school-pupils-may-opt-out-of-religion-classes-1.3391353

.

Peregrinus

Interesting. And no doubt a very cheering outcome for AI's efforts.

Per the IT report, under the draft circular ETB schools must "at the outset of the school year clearly indicate what arrangements are in place for those who choose not to participate in religious instruction”. That means, I think, they must be proactively planning for this and informing parents (and, indirectly, students) of the possibility of opting out and of the alternatives that will be provided for those who opt out. That's likely to increase the take-up of the opt-out option, I'd have thought.

But there's more: "Pupils who do not choose religious instruction should be timetabled by the school for alternative subjects." This should be "integrated with the school’s processes for establishing subject choices generally". So the alternative arrangements for those who opt out should not be library time, or supervised or unsupervised study. They should be alternative subjects, and you'll choose them at the same time, and in the same way, as you make your other subject choices.

Which on the one hand is positive, but on the other could cause a problem. All other things being equal, this will require schools to provide more classes, more instruction, than they do at present, since they'lll have to provide an alternative to religion. Will schools get additional resources to provide this additional teaching? I'm guessing, no. So that's going to cause a bit of a squeeze that will be felt elsewhere in the school. The easiest way for schools to handle this is going to be to timetable religion against a subject that they already provide, but that has low demand. So, just like you have to choose one of economics, chemistry and business studies, you might have to choose one of religion or Latin, say. Which isn't necessarily ideal for the atheist or secular student who has no interest in or aptitude for Latin. In some instances students may feel that they are worse off, since they won't have the option of doing homework or private study during the religion period; they'll have to take a subject which, given their druthers, they wouldn't choose to take.

JayRoc

What's the issue with just having students who want to opt out go to the library for a study session during religion classes?

I would have been happy to have that opportunity when I was in school.

Cabaal

JayRoc wrote: »

What's the issue with just having students who want to opt out go to the library for a study session during religion classes?

I would have been happy to have that opportunity when I was in school.

They'll claim its supervision,

Peregrinus

JayRoc wrote: »

What's the issue with just having students who want to opt out go to the library for a study session during religion classes?

I would have been happy to have that opportunity when I was in school.

I think there's a feeling that time spent in a study session in the library is "wasted"; that pupils who have to do this are disadvantaged, relative to those who are receiving instruction from a teacher.

FWIW, I would have thought myself that in the senior years a couple of study sessions a week could be very beneficial. But, yeah, in the junior years they would have basically been doss sessions.

tringle

JayRoc wrote: »

What's the issue with just having students who want to opt out go to the library for a study session during religion classes?

I would have been happy to have that opportunity when I was in school.

Because it is seen as giving these students an unfair advantage over others. They have extra time to study and therefore the potential to achieve better.

Peregrinus

tringle wrote: »

Because it is seen as giving these students an unfair advantage over others. They have extra time to study and therefore the potential to achieve better.

Interesting! My perception is that the prejudice is the other way - a "study session" is seen as less valuable than an instruction period.

Regardless, I think the real driver here may not be a perception that study is either better or worse than instruction; it's a desire to "normalise" religion as just another subject option in the timetable, which students weigh up against the alternatives, rather than having it ring-fenced and specially treated and therefore impliedly accorded a special status.

JayRoc

Peregrinus wrote: »

Interesting! My perception is that the prejudice is the other way - a "study session" is seen as less valuable than an instruction period.

I suppose it depends what the student is being instructed in.

JayRoc

tringle wrote: »

Because it is seen as giving these students an unfair advantage over others. They have extra time to study and therefore the potential to achieve better.

That seems an odd argument, some students do more study than others regardless of what's timetabled. I can't really see anyone saying a kid who has the opportunity of an extra half hour's study a week has any kind of real advantage.

Peregrinus

JayRoc wrote: »

That seems an odd argument, some students do more study than others regardless of what's timetabled. I can't really see anyone saying a kid who has the opportunity of an extra half hour's study a week has any kind of real advantage.

it would be more like an extra 2 hrs a week, I think, in most cases.

JayRoc wrote: »

I suppose it depends what the student is being instructed in.

Even if you take the view that studying religion has no inherent value, isn't religion nowadays an exam subject for Leaving Cert purposes? So the students who take religion have one more arrow in the quiver, so to speak, when it comes to accumulating CAO points than the students who sit in the library and study. And that might be perceived as a disadvantage.

JayRoc

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even if you take the view that studying religion has no inherent value, isn't religion nowadays an exam subject for Leaving Cert purposes? So the students who take religion have one more arrow in the quiver, so to speak, when it comes to accumulating CAO points than the students who sit in the library and study. And that might be perceived as a disadvantage.

So in theory the student who stays in their RE class could have a significant chance of getting more points in their Leaving? I see what you're saying.

I guess the obvious answer is to make Religion an optional subject. Problem solved.

Peregrinus

JayRoc wrote: »

So in theory the student who stays in their RE class could have a significant chance of getting more points in their Leaving? I see what you're saying.

I guess the obvious answer is to make Religion an optional subject. Problem solved.

We're going round in circles here.

It is being made an optional subject. The question is, what's the other option to be? If the other option is "self-directed study in the library" then those who opt out of religion would have a smaller number of exam subjects out of which to accumulate their CAO score. So the intention seems to be that there's to be an option between religion and one or more other subjects.

Which could be unfortunate for the student who has to take, e.g., Latin in order not to have to study religion.

JayRoc

Peregrinus wrote: »

We're going round in circles here.

It is being made an optional subject. The question is, what's the other option to be? If the other option is "self-directed study in the library" then those who opt out of religion would have a smaller number of exam subjects out of which to accumulate their CAO score. So the intention seems to be that there's to be an option between religion and one or more other subjects.

Which could be unfortunate for the student who has to take, e.g., Latin in order not to have to study religion.

I meant "optional" the way every other LC subject is optional (except Maths/English/Irish?).

If a student wants to study religion as an LC subject, grand. But it shouldn't be different from any other subject; no one needs to ask to study in the library because they want to opt out of metalwork or physics. That's what I mean.

Drumpot

JayRoc wrote: »

What's the issue with just having students who want to opt out go to the library for a study session during religion classes?

I would have been happy to have that opportunity when I was in school.

Or an alternative ethics, moral and mental health option.

I don’t mind religion being an optional class but I’m concerned that we don’t have a coordinated alternative on any level that teaches or promotes basic decency to others. For all the negatives said about religion there is a message of be good to others hidden in the mantra.

The laws of unintended consequences are seldom considered when people are desperate for things to change quickly. The majority of religious people have a basic grounding in the commandments on some level. I’m not saying atheists don’t but even atheists would soak up the moral code of the day that’s set by the majority.

I think mankind shows a poor ability to maintain a decency to each other as it is and I’m not sure losing religion will be a positive in that area. We always create a more wicked way of screwing each other over, with capitalism the current religion that’s encouraging unregulated greed.

My overall point is that a vacuum will exist if or when religion (that isn’t all bad) is gone. What we choose to fill that void with could have massive ramifications. I mean replacing religion with more study is a bad idea. I think those who are anti religion are quite presumptions that it will be mostly good.

And as an aside, the problem isn’t religion, it’s people. Look at anything man made and at its core the problem is people corrupting or manipulating an ideal and lots of other people turning a blind eye or not challenging the status quo. The argument of whether or not there is a god is separate. If I live long enough I will be interested to see if the world becomes a more caring place or a more divided one without one ideal (religion) uniting people.

Peregrinus

JayRoc wrote: »

I meant "optional" the way every other LC subject is optional (except Maths/English/Irish?).

If a student wants to study religion as an LC subject, grand. But it shouldn't be different from any other subject; no one needs to ask to study in the library because they want to opt out of metalwork or physics. That's what I mean.

At leaving cert level, it's generall not a big deal to opt out of one subject and study in the library or wherever. But this is going to apply at all levels in the secondary cycle. Most schools are reluctant to let first years or second years opt out of a subject and study instead. I think the usual line will be "here are your options; you must pick one of them".

Cabaal

Drumpot wrote: »

Or an alternative ethics, moral and mental health option.

I don’t mind religion being an optional class but I’m concerned that we don’t have a coordinated alternative on any level that teaches or promotes basic decency to others. For all the negatives said about religion there is a message of be good to others hidden in the mantra.

There's also an underlying message of hating and discriminating people in religion too,

if you need religion for your morals you arent a very good person, your mere suggestion that it is needed is extremely insulting to those that don't have a religion.

Drumpot

Cabaal wrote: »

There's also an underlying message of hating and discriminating people in religion too,

if you need religion for your morals you arent a very good person, your mere suggestion that it is needed is extremely insulting to those that don't have a religion.

I didn’t say it was needed, you completely misunderstood the point. Where did I say or imply you aren’t a good person if you aren’t religious?

Your default negative prejudicial stance towards religion highlights the inability of some people to stand back and at least try and keep the positives from religion.

Mankind will always find reasons to hate and discriminate, look at race and woman causes. Look at xenophobia. Most wars are about resources or power or some other non religious interest done under the name of democracy, defence etc etc etc. Abolishing religion doesn't fix these human instincts, it will just move to something else.

Michael Nugent

Here are responses to this development from Atheist Ireland, the Evangelical Alliance of Ireland, and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of Ireland:

Michael Nugent, Chairperson of Atheist Ireland, says: “Over time, this move could change the entire culture of religious influence in Irish schools. It will mean that parents and students in ETB schools will finally have an option to study instead of being indoctrinated. As more families choose this option, there will be pressure for the State to insist that denominational schools do the same. This will become the new norm for respecting human rights in Irish schools.”

Jane Donnelly, Human Rights Officer of Atheist Ireland, says: “ETB schools were meant to be the State-run alternative to denominational schools, but our Freedom of Information campaign has shown that ETBs have as strong a Catholic ethos as denominational schools. This new change will mean that ETBs will have to provide atheist, minority faith, and secular families with an objective education that does not indoctrinate students into Catholicism. We will intensify pressure for all State-funded schools to have to do this.”

Pastor Nick Park, Executive Director, Evangelical Alliance Ireland, says: “It is baffling why religious indoctrination into one particular denomination should have any place at all in the curriculum of State-run schools. However, allowing children of minority faiths, or indeed of no faith at all, to opt out and study alternative subjects is an important step in the right direction. It will reassure our youngest citizens that they are valued and affirmed in this State, and that their human rights and dignity are acknowledged, irrespective of their adherence or non-adherence to any religious faith.”

Imam Ibrahim Noonan, Imam for Ireland of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, says: “The importance of this step forward in the correct direction cannot be underestimated, as no one faith should have monopoly in the state curriculum and those children belong to minority faiths or those who belong to no faith should never be forced to participate in any religious indoctrination that they don't want to. this is the basic human right of all children regardless of their religious background or none religious background or whatever particular community they belong to, they should be treated with full dignity and respect.”

Michael Nugent

Drumpot wrote: »

I don’t mind religion being an optional class but I’m concerned that we don’t have a coordinated alternative on any level that teaches or promotes basic decency to others.

The NCCA tried to bring in just such an alternative for primary schools, after lobbying by Atheist Ireland (the proposed objective curriculum on teaching about religions, beliefs, and ethics) but the Catholic Church has so far succeeded in blocking it from happening.

oldrnwisr

Drumpot wrote: »

I don’t mind religion being an optional class but I’m concerned that we don’t have a coordinated alternative on any level that teaches or promotes basic decency to others. For all the negatives said about religion there is a message of be good to others hidden in the mantra.

There are several problems with your line of argument here.

Firstly, the idea of being good to others depends not only on the religion you're talking about but also the identities of the person involved. Abrahamic religions talk about being good to other members of the in-group. There's no sense of a shared humanity. If there was you wouldn't have passages like these:

" Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’"
1 Samuel 15:3

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me."
Matthew 10:34-37

"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah (disbelief) is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
Surah 2:191

In the Abrahamic religions from Judaism to Christianity to Islam there is a distinct sense of us and them. There's no indication of a shared humanity. So when the commandment says do not kill, it only means your fellow Israelites not humans in general.

Secondly, the moral pronouncements you recognise as good or beneficial didn't originate with religion to begin with. It's not like there was primitive humans killed each other left right and centre in a totally amoral culture until one day somebody brought the civilising influence of religion. That's a narrative espoused by certain religions but it's not one borne out by history. The moral rules found in the commandments actually predate the text by 800 years.

Drumpot wrote: »

The laws of unintended consequences are seldom considered when people are desperate for things to change quickly. The majority of religious people have a basic grounding in the commandments on some level. I’m not saying atheists don’t but even atheists would soak up the moral code of the day that’s set by the majority.

That's a very Christian-centric view of the matter. The majority of religious people aren't Christian, therefore wouldn't have any grounding in the commandments.

But what good are the commandments. Is not boiling a goat in its own mothers milk really that important. How important is observing the feast of weeks? And putting aside all the stuff that is in the commandments, what about all the stuff that isn't in the commandments. What happened to don't be a dick? Don't rape people, especially children. Don't own people.

Most people ignore the majority of the commandments meaning that they've already filtered those commandments through their own moral compass. So they don't need the commandments to guide them, they've already got a guide.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even if you take the view that studying religion has no inherent value, isn't religion nowadays an exam subject for Leaving Cert purposes? So the students who take religion have one more arrow in the quiver, so to speak, when it comes to accumulating CAO points than the students who sit in the library and study. And that might be perceived as a disadvantage.

No, it doesn't work like that because students will only do a certain number of subjects for the LC, which means dropping others. So if they were taking religion at LC level, they might have dropped geography or history in order to do that. Very few take religion at LC level.
On the other hand, all are required to have the 2 hours mandatory religion during the earlier years of secondary school, prior to the time they make their final LC subject choices. Which for most students, means they have been studying a subject for years but they will never sit a LC exam in it.

Also, its important to distinguish between a subject called "Religion" and the religious instruction/indoctrination of students into one particular religion. Its the latter that most people are against.

IMO religion should be a mandatory part of secondary education, in the first few years before the LC cycle. But it should be part of a general social education or "civics" class which would provide a basic knowledge of the different religions and political systems around the world, as well as a grounding in other social concepts such as ethics and philosophy. They could throw in the old sex education there too, with with discussions around the notion as "consent" and gender equality. All of these wold be best discussed in a general context of social education.

Drumpot

oldrnwisr wrote: »

There are several problems with your line of argument here.

Firstly, the idea of being good to others depends not only on the religion you're talking about but also the identities of the person involved. Abrahamic religions talk about being good to other members of the in-group. There's no sense of a shared humanity. If there was you wouldn't have passages like these:

" Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’"
1 Samuel 15:3

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me."
Matthew 10:34-37

"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah (disbelief) is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
Surah 2:191

In the Abrahamic religions from Judaism to Christianity to Islam there is a distinct sense of us and them. There's no indication of a shared humanity. So when the commandment says do not kill, it only means your fellow Israelites not humans in general.

Secondly, the moral pronouncements you recognise as good or beneficial didn't originate with religion to begin with. It's not like there was primitive humans killed each other left right and centre in a totally amoral culture until one day somebody brought the civilising influence of religion. That's a narrative espoused by certain religions but it's not one borne out by history. The moral rules found in the commandments actually predate the text by 800 years.




That's a very Christian-centric view of the matter. The majority of religious people aren't Christian, therefore wouldn't have any grounding in the commandments.

But what good are the commandments. Is not boiling a goat in its own mothers milk really that important. How important is observing the feast of weeks? And putting aside all the stuff that is in the commandments, what about all the stuff that isn't in the commandments. What happened to don't be a dick? Don't rape people, especially children. Don't own people.

Most people ignore the majority of the commandments meaning that they've already filtered those commandments through their own moral compass. So they don't need the commandments to guide them, they've already got a guide.

I am talking about human behavior , you are identifying religion as the problem which I refute. I think the issues suggested here as being absorbed in Religion will just be transferred elsewhere because at its core is human corruption.

Considering the challenges facing the Catholic Church I think it’s a great opportunity to force it to change for the better, not scrap it entirely. It’s like the way we missed a great opportunity for reform the country and banks after the crash but pathetically presumed a change of party represented meaningful change!

I wasn’t suggesting that Catholicism or religion had an exclusive ownership of the don’t be a dick mantra. I was saying that most practicing Catholics that I know , at least, would think the commandments are the “be decent to others” mantra. I’m not saying it cannot continue without religion I just worry that in 3 generations time, where will people get their basic principles? Money and capitalism seems to be a major driver of most people’s lives. It’s just another form of faith IMO and it’s certainly not less corrupt or better then religion. But this is my concern , we just replace religion with another thing that’s abused instead of fixing what we have.

In terms of historical reference , I’m not sure how relevant this is to my point.. Im not defending or excusing all religious practice , I’m relating to the positive elements that religion brings. One of these things is billions of people having a basic code of conduct that in many cases unites communities that might not otherwise be connected. Your presumption seems to be that positive elements of religion will continue through osmosis. Theoretically that might be the case but this won’t happen if the vacuum of no religion creates an existential anxiety that atheism doesn’t necessarily address.

Of course you can quote conflict and instances where it’s been corrupted and abusive but what man made thing hasn’t ? Human instinct of greed and power is not helped in anyway by the decline of religion. How many people don’t instinctively do whatever their basic instincts are telling them because there is a sub conscious “i might pay for it in the afterlife?” Voice niggling in their minds? How many people take comfort in religion in a way it helps them be a productive member of society? What about the community elements ? The charitable elements.?

None of these are exclusive to religion but there is a place where it’s practiced. Quoting ancient scriptures or interpretations don’t really hold much relevance today. Modern society is quicker to call out radical instances of abuse or destructive (killing , raping, child abuse etc) behaviors. People who use religion as an excuse for atrocities or their own gains are called out on it. I think a healthy balance of atheists , religious and agnostics is better then no religion.

I’m not defending religion, I’m saying it’s not all bad. WE haven’t a clue what sort of society will be created with the vacuum it’s abolition will create. I assume you aren’t suggesting that only good things will come from the end of religion cause that’s a ridiculously naieve assumption to hold.

recedite

Drumpot wrote: »

... the positive elements that religion brings. One of these things is billions of people having a basic code of conduct that in many cases unites communities that might not otherwise be connected.

Religion does provide social cohesion, but not on the scale of "billions". Only on a small scale. Even our own small island has seen much religious conflict, because not everyone was the same religion.

You are right though, that the schools need to facilitate education in a basic codes of conduct that everyone can agree on. Its just that religious instruction, or even a general "Religion" class do not adequately address this.

Drumpot

recedite wrote: »

Religion does provide social cohesion, but not on the scale of "billions". Only on a small scale. Even our own small island has seen much religious conflict, because not everyone was the same religion.

You are right though, that the schools need to facilitate education in a basic codes of conduct that everyone can agree on. Its just that religious instruction, or even a general "Religion" class do not adequately address this.

That is true, religion causes conflict but so does man made constructions like invisible country borders, language or even economic preferences. Religion can actually overcome some of these issues but like you said can cause other problems . I suppose I’m just convinced this human deficiency will just find some other “cause” or faith to latch onto. I wouldn’t be rejoicing the death of religion until I see how things settle down and we see how the world chose to move On!

I’m listening to Buddhism for beginners and I can certainly say, the message I am getting, at its core is about feeling at home in the world and trying to promote and see the best in the world. About respecting all things.

Now they talk about god and this is where I used to wince but now I default to my agnostic (I don’t know so don’t worry about that part). I more think of god as nature, by that I mean I believe in nature and that I’m just a part of nature. In life and death. That I’m only stardust and that my energy goes somewhere after I die as i believe is scientific fact. But I don’t know what that is and try not to think to much about it.

Can I ask does atheism Ireland have any sort of message promoting community, good morals etc ? I am genuinely curious because I’d like to believe that there is something that is an alternative to religion with good intentions , community spirit and general positive alternative to religious gatherings.

oldrnwisr

Drumpot wrote: »

I am talking about human behavior , you are identifying religion as the problem which I refute. I think the issues suggested here as being absorbed in Religion will just be transferred elsewhere because at its core is human corruption.

I'm not identifying religion as the problem. I'm responding to your original point here:

"For all the negatives said about religion there is a message of be good to others hidden in the mantra."

You're suggesting here that even though we can identify negative aspects of religion, there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater because religion has some positive aspects too which ought to be retained.

My point is that we don't need to retain religion to retain those positive aspects. Religion didn't invent the idea of being good to others. We don't need to keep religion if we want to keep that idea. You can be good without gods.

Drumpot wrote: »

Considering the challenges facing the Catholic Church I think it’s a great opportunity to force it to change for the better, not scrap it entirely. It’s like the way we missed a great opportunity for reform the country and banks after the crash but pathetically presumed a change of party represented meaningful change!

But why change it for the better. What useful purpose does it serve in the first place that couldn't be achieved in its absence?

Drumpot wrote: »

I wasn’t suggesting that Catholicism or religion had an exclusive ownership of the don’t be a dick mantra. I was saying that most practicing Catholics that I know , at least, would think the commandments are the “be decent to others” mantra.

Well, if you think that the commandments amount to "be decent to others" then you're wrong. Dead wrong. Even if we just restrict ourselves to the Ten Commandments that the Christians would like to acknowledge (as opposed to the real set), then the first four commandments are all about God and his ego. Then you've got killing, stealing, adultery, false witness and coveting. What happened to positive commandments. Like being nice to each other. That's not in there.
But of course, the commandments do actually extend beyond 10, just in case nobody ever explained that to you. So why is slavery in the commandments. Why couldn't that be outlawed? Why was slavery defended for hundreds of years by appeals to the commandments?

Drumpot wrote: »

I’m not saying it cannot continue without religion I just worry that in 3 generations time, where will people get their basic principles? Money and capitalism seems to be a major driver of most people’s lives. It’s just another form of faith IMO and it’s certainly not less corrupt or better then religion. But this is my concern , we just replace religion with another thing that’s abused instead of fixing what we have.

Where will people get their basic principles? From the same place they got them before Christianity or Judaism or religion. From the fact that moral guidelines are an emergent property of civilisation. They're the basic rules which are necessary for a cohesive society.

Take this, for example:



This is the stele of Hammurabi, an extant copy of the code of Hammurabi a Babylonian law code dating to 1754 BCE. For reference that's 804 years before Genesis was completed. The code includes laws governing trade, slander, divorce etc. We didn't need Christianity or Judaism to come along to teach us that murder was wrong. People already knew that.

You say you're worried about the effect in several generations time will be of eradicating religion. Well don't worry because it's all good news. Religiosity negatively affects societal health. This has been documented in several studies. I apologise I don't have primary links for you but I will try and post them later if time allows. In the meantime, this LA Times article has a summary of the outcomes:

"It is the highly secularized countries that tend to fare the best in terms of crime rates, prosperity, equality, freedom, democracy, women's rights, human rights, educational attainment and life expectancy. (Although there are exceptions, such as Vietnam and China, which have famously poor human rights records.) And those nations with the highest rates of religiosity tend to be the most problem-ridden in terms of high violent crime rates, high infant mortality rates, high poverty rates and high rates of corruption.

Take homicide. According to the United Nations' 2011 Global Study on Homicide, of the 10 nations with the highest homicide rates, all are very religious, and many — such as Colombia, Mexico, El Salvador and Brazil — are among the most theistic nations in the world. Of the nations with the lowest homicide rates, nearly all are very secular, with seven ranking among the least theistic nations, such as Sweden, Japan, Norway and the Netherlands."

People can and do get their basic principles from sources other than religion. In fact, if the only reason you don't murder people is because your holy book says so, then something has gone really wrong in your education.


There are quite a few explanations of how to import moral guidelines without reference to religion or Gods. These are two that spring to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ

This is part of a 3-part series from QualiaSoup. I would recommend watching the full series to get the full effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk

Drumpot wrote: »

In terms of historical reference , I’m not sure how relevant this is to my point.. Im not defending or excusing all religious practice , I’m relating to the positive elements that religion brings. One of these things is billions of people having a basic code of conduct that in many cases unites communities that might not otherwise be connected. Your presumption seems to be that positive elements of religion will continue through osmosis. Theoretically that might be the case but this won’t happen if the vacuum of no religion creates an existential anxiety that atheism doesn’t necessarily address.

The historical references as I've already explained above is that people knew how to be moral before religion came along. The positive elements that religion brings can and have been achieved in the absence of religion. So there is no need to retain religion just so we can retain those positive elements.

No, I'm not suggesting that morality will continue through osmosis. We will still need to educate people about morality, it's just that we won't need to wrap it up in the guise of religion or an edict from some higher being to do so.

Oh, and one final point here. What good is a code of conduct if so many people ignore it? OK, so there's 2 billion Christians. How many instances of murder, adultery, theft, false witness, coveting, blasphemy, working on Sunday and making graven images occur among those 2 billion? Hmmm?

Drumpot wrote: »

Of course you can quote conflict and instances where it’s been corrupted and abusive but what man made thing hasn’t ? Human instinct of greed and power is not helped in anyway by the decline of religion. How many people don’t instinctively do whatever their basic instincts are telling them because there is a sub conscious “i might pay for it in the afterlife?” Voice niggling in their minds? How many people take comfort in religion in a way it helps them be a productive member of society? What about the community elements ? The charitable elements.?

Well, first of all, that would be the subset of people who have religion with an afterlife. Secondly, it would be the smaller subset of those whose religion promises some kind of punishment in the afterlife. But regarding that idea, I think Gerald Broflovski said it best in South Park:

“It's all about being a good person now. You see, Christians use Hell as a way to scare people into believing what they believe. But to believe in something just because you're afraid of the consequences if you dont believe in something is no reason to believe in something. Understand?”

nozzferrahhtoo

Drumpot wrote: »

Or an alternative ethics, moral and mental health option.

I certainly would not be opposed to thati n principle. I would also consider a philosophy option. Hell even sticking a module in the curriculum based entirely on reading and discussing Sophie's World would give a more interesting grounding in ethics, morality and philosophy that anything I have seen implemented in a religion class.

I would love to see a module on the fallacies as well. Teach people what they are, how to identify and avoid them. While a module teaching some of the methodologies of science or epidemiology could be massively beneficial to many people. Imagine the changes rags like the Daily Mail would have to make to their sensationalist nonsense stories if they were selling to a populace educated to even the minor standards encompassed in Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" book.

Drumpot wrote: »

For all the negatives said about religion there is a message of be good to others hidden in the mantra.

Well to steal a line from a writer far better than I "Religion gives people bad reasons to be good, where good reasons are available".

I prefer to take a Bigger Picture view of such things and not just consider what the "good message" might be in the core of something like religion. I also consider the cost that comes with implementing it in that way. Religion is essentially packaging for a product (morality) and the packaging itself is harmful and comes at a great cost. If you could disseminate a product without the harmful packaging, you would likely take that option. And I think we can disseminate the "Good parts" without any requirement for religion at all. Let alone teaching any particular religion as true.

The "good hidden" in things is not just limited to religion either. If you take the most nonsense diet fads for example, like the Cayenne Pepper diet, the reason you get so many testimonies from people claiming the diet works.......... is that the nonsense is always built around a useful core. And with fad diets they USUALLY start by getting people drinking more water, eating less processed foods, and cooking with fresh ingredients. Then they build up all the costly and completely unsubstantiated and sometimes harmful nonsense around that.

But the cost of religion can be dire and divisive. And sometimes.... like the parents who lovingly watch their own children die from painful and terminal but actually sometimes easily treatable illnesses........... positively malicious and murderous. And when objections to things like Homosexual marriage and Stem Cell research and much more come from religiously motivated nonsense..... the costs rack up. And for all the "good messages" you imagine we can distil from Religion.......... it simply does not scale with the costs, the harms, the damage, and the divisions that it causes.

Drumpot wrote: »

I think mankind shows a poor ability to maintain a decency to each other as it is and I’m not sure losing religion will be a positive in that area.

There is the old adage of "Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things, but getting good people to do bad things often needs religion". I am less pessimistic about humanity than you appear to be. I believe people are generally good. And will continue to be good to themselves and others when the systems around them allow. And books like "The better angels of our nature" actually are looking at the global figures and seeing that we are in fact getting more and more decent to each other year on year. At least in terms of violence and violent crimes.

Losing religion would dissolve one more potential for division in our species. And not just a simple division, but one that is by it's very nature and definition an irreconcilable one. Due to the simple but not repeated enough fact that there is not a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer that even suggests there is a god............ differences of opinion on that god, it's opinions, or it's mandates are not readily reconcilable. Our world is, and likely always will be, full of divisions. But many of them simple take data and conversation about that data to ultimately reconcile. This can not so readily be done with something that is devoid of data or evidence or reasoning. You can not, as they say, reason people out of positions they did not reason themselves into.

Drumpot wrote: »

Can I ask does atheism Ireland have any sort of message promoting community, good morals etc ?

I believe they are working on a book on the subject which they are going to try and get into all school libraries. They also promote and run a "Good without gods" group on Kiva for ethical charity and so forth. And they generally reach to Humanism for community and morality issues I think.

Sam Harris might be your go to guy for an atheist promoting an alternative view of morality and ethics. He, like you, has an interest in Buddism which colors a lot of what he writes. And he wrote a book called "The Moral Landscape" on the concept of a substantiated and sometimes scientific approach to morality and what constitutes good and bad.

Sleepy

Wonderful news.

My eldest has just chosen his subjects for the local Community College he'll be starting in next September (which is a VEC so should fall under this ruling?). Wonder how long it'll take for the optional subjects to be offered in place of religion?

Drumpot

@ oldnwiser and nozzferahhtto

I Agree with your sentiments. Thanks for the explanations and patience. It was not my intention to come across dismissive and on reflection I could have summarized my concerns with “I would like an alternative community to replace what I feel are some of the better habits or practices that I took or try to take from religion”. It doesn’t require a belief in a god but I would like it to encourage that we show our environment , planet and other living entities more respect.

I do have an extremely negative view of humanity. I feel it’s obvious that the world and every animal in it, would be better without us. I also think our instincts for more and self absorbed nature will be the end of us.

I agree that most people are trying to be good with good intentions but also believe they can be led astray. Like the Germans under hitler. I think it was called the 10-80-10 scenario where you have 10% or a population who are radical one way or another and 80% who will follow one of these trains of thought.

I don’t feel like getting rid of religion will help this in built defect of man. I’d like to think that another , better community will rise but I’m anxious people will just place all their faith in monetary goals.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

IMO religion should be a mandatory part of secondary education, in the first few years before the LC cycle. But it should be part of a general social education or "civics" class which would provide a basic knowledge of the different religions and political systems around the world, as well as a grounding in other social concepts such as ethics and philosophy.

Religious patronage schools simply cannot be trusted to deliver such a programme in a neutral fashion however - even if they draw a distinction between religious education and indoctrination and make the latter strictly optional, they will be tempted and indeed under pressure from the patron to paint their own religion in a positive light in the RE class.

Hotblack Desiato

Sleepy wrote: »

Wonderful news.

My eldest has just chosen his subjects for the local Community College he'll be starting in next September (which is a VEC so should fall under this ruling?). Wonder how long it'll take for the optional subjects to be offered in place of religion?

We're hoping to get our kids into a joint patronage ET/ETB secondary in a few years time (we're a bit outside the area and it has several ETs feeding into it so places are far from assured)

Anyway this school makes religion completely optional from day 1 and those not taking it just choose another subject.

Michael Nugent

The directive will be issued today, Monday. See report in Irish Times.

State schools expect many pupils to opt out of religion classes following directive

recedite

Interesting that the newspaper report differentiates between "State-run" secondary schools and state-funded ones. I wonder if the actual circular will make that distinction.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Interesting that the newspaper report differentiates between "State-run" secondary schools and state-funded ones. I wonder if the actual circular will make that distinction.

Interesting, but not unexpected. Surely the whole point about the schools that are not classed as "state-run" is that the state doesn't run them? So the state doesn't get to prescribe things like subject choices and timetabling policies. That's the job of the people who run the school.

recedite

Well no, a Dept of Education circular would apply to all state funded schools. Its laying down the law. It seems they now want to "give effect to the pupil's constitutional right to opt out of religious instruction".

However I don't see how you can give effect to peoples constitutional rights in some schools, but not others.

The added complication here is that religious-run schools can point to the infamous Section 7 in equality legislation which gives them an opt-out from anti-discrimination laws. But IMO if that opt-out is incompatible with the constitution, then the constitution wins.

The fault line here is really between religious-run and secular-run schools. Not between state-run and privately-run. If the state would admit that, then they would see that the problem is with the opt-out provision in our equality legislation.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Well no, a Dept of Education circular would apply to all state funded schools. Its laying down the law. It seems they now want to "give effect to the pupil's constitutional right to opt out of religious instruction".

However I don't see how you can give effect to peoples constitutional rights in some schools, but not others.

You're reducing this to an oversimplistic binary. There may be more than one way of arranging matters so that people's constitutional rights are respected. So far as the state itself is concerned, it must decide, out of the constitutionally-permissible ways in which to give effect to this particular constitutional right, which one it will implement. However it doesn't have anyu right to tell non-state bodies, or private individuals, how they must give effect to this right. It can tell them that they must, but not how they must.

recedite wrote: »

The added complication here is that religious-run schools can point to the infamous Section 7 in equality legislation which gives them an opt-out from anti-discrimination laws. But IMO if that opt-out is incompatible with the constitution, then the constitution wins.

In pretty well everybody's opinion, if s. 7 is compatible with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. The difference of opinion is about whether s. 7 is incompatible with the Constitution.

[/QUOTE]The fault line here is really between religious-run and secular-run schools. Not between state-run and privately-run. If the state would admit that, then they would see that the problem is with the opt-out provision in our equality legislation.[/QUOTE]
The s. 7 exemptions are irrelevant here. Nothing in s.7 deals with subject choices in schools, and schools which make religion mandatory and/or provide no alternative to religion do not rely on s. 7 to justify this practice.

expectationlost

Religious instruction and worship in certain second level schools in the context of Article 44.2.4 of the Constitution of Ireland and Section 30 of the Education Act 1998 http://ift.tt/2Fds3pX

http://ift.tt/2o9c8Se sor .mp3
Education Minister talks about the constitution re ETB schools (to avoid having to pay for extra classses) but when it come to religious run schools he refers to Admission bill which is being created for parents to sign away their rights

recedite

I see from the actual circular (linked to by expectationlost) that they are trying to confine these new-found constitutional rights to just the ETB schools. And they are admitting that the former policy of these schools was a sneaky RC ethos, which they can no longer get away with.

The NCCA developed curriculum for Religious Education currently also serves to meet the religious instruction requirements of the Catholic Church and schools can continue this arrangement for pupils whose parents elect for Catholic religious instruction or other parents who wish to follow the NCCA curriculum, and where that is the case it is important in the information provided to parents that they are made fully aware that the curriculum is not necessarily confined to learning about religions.

Thanks to Atheist Ireland who have "done the state some service" by outing these sometimes hidden ETB policies through their recent FOI campaign, and then publicising the results.

Interesting also that the ET schools are referred to as "non-denominational" in the circular, but AFAIK, ET normally refer to themselves as "multidenominational".
I think this reference is meant to give the illusion that pupils are only being denied their constitutional rights in one type of state-funded school, and that all others can carry on as before. The circular tries to divert attention away from state-funded religious schools, where by rights pupils should also be given a practical opt-out facility from religious instruction.

Lets not be over critical though, this is still a great step forward, for the ETB schools anyway.

The ET multi-denominational schools were in the clear already. So no problem there.
The religious multi-denominational schools are lying low, hoping the spotlight will not be turned on them next.

JayRoc

Forgive my ignorance but what are "religious multi-denominational schools" as opposed to Educate Together multi-denominational schools?

Do some schools with church patronage refer to themselves as multi-denominational?

recedite

JayRoc wrote: »

Do some schools with church patronage refer to themselves as multi-denominational?

Yes, quite a lot do. There is also the "inter-denominational" label often used by gaelscoileanna, which implies catholic but with some allowances made for protestants.

lazygal

ET schools now refer to themselves as equality based. They dropped the multi denom label.

recedite

lazygal wrote: »

ET schools now refer to themselves as equality based. They dropped the multi denom label.

Well that is a relatively new idea, but for the purposes of getting state funding for their schools they were historically obliged to label themselves as "multi-denominational" because the Dept of Education felt that a "non-denominational" school would not be eligible for state funding. Due to religious instruction being considered an essential part of any education.

However we <may> now have moved on from that situation. That's why I find it interesting that the latest Dept circular includes the words "non-denominational" in it. Its as if they are now recognising that label as a real possibility.

The most recently built secondary school I know of is in Bray and will be handed over to an ET/ETB collaborative patronage. It's just about finished, but final snagging has been stalled due to the collapse of the UK based builder.
You can see from the applications for management of the proposed school that both ET and ETB described themselves as "multi-denominational" at the time. So that's what it will be, when it opens.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

Well that is a relatively new idea, but for the purposes of getting state funding for their schools they were historically obliged to label themselves as "multi-denominational" because the Dept of Education felt that a "non-denominational" school would not be eligible for state funding. Due to religious instruction being considered an essential part of any education.

However we <may> now have moved on from that situation. That's why I find it interesting that the latest Dept circular includes the words "non-denominational" in it. Its as if they are now recognising that label as a real possibility.

The most recently built secondary school I know of is in Bray and will be handed over to an ET/ETB collaborative patronage. It's just about finished, but final snagging has been stalled due to the collapse of the UK based builder.
You can see from the applications for management of the proposed school that both ET and ETB described themselves as "multi-denominational" at the time. So that's what it will be, when it opens.

it doesn't impress when the prinicpal won't distinguish between religious instruction and religion education https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/minister-a-constitutional-right-for-students-to-have-alternative-to-religion-classes-in-secondary-school-828734.html

Religion in secondary schools 'not doctrinal anymore', says principal in response to opt-out for students
Gear O’Ciaran is the Principal of Colte Raitin in Bray, and he says no child should skip religion class, regardless of their faith.
Mr O'Ciaran said: "I don't think you can say you are being educated unless you know something of the nature of religion, what it is that some people believe in different religions around the world, so that at least you can join the debate.
"The religion that is done in most secondary schools is not of a doctrinal nature anymore, and it would seem a pity if young people are completely unaware of the concepts involved.
"A youngster in first year asked me the other day 'was an atheist the same as a Protestant?'"

recedite

But the principal is right IMO.
As I mentioned before its important to distinguish between a subject called "Religion" and the religious instruction/indoctrination of students into one particular religion. Its the latter that most people are against.

"Religion" should be a mandatory part of secondary education, in the first few years before the LC cycle. But it should be part of a general social education or "civics" class which would provide a basic knowledge of the different religions and political systems around the world, as well as a grounding in other social concepts such as ethics and philosophy. They could throw in the old sex education there too, with with discussions around the notion as "consent" and gender equality. All of these would be best discussed in a general context of social education.

Every solution Bruton supports is a ham-fisted idea whose main purpose is to allow unfettered religious indoctrination and discrimination to continue in as many schools as possible. Probably coming direct from the RCC hierarchy. Its like fighting a retreating rearguard action, and if it means ditching a few schools at a time, he will allow that to happen.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

But the principal is right IMO.
As I mentioned before its important to distinguish between a subject called "Religion" and the religious instruction/indoctrination of students into one particular religion. Its the latter that most people are against.

"Religion" should be a mandatory part of secondary education, in the first few years before the LC cycle. But it should be part of a general social education or "civics" class which would provide a basic knowledge of the different religions and political systems around the world, as well as a grounding in other social concepts such as ethics and philosophy. They could throw in the old sex education there too, with with discussions around the notion as "consent" and gender equality. All of these would be best discussed in a general context of social education.

Every solution Bruton supports is a ham-fisted idea whose main purpose is to allow unfettered religious indoctrination and discrimination to continue in as many schools as possible. Probably coming direct from the RCC hierarchy. Its like fighting a retreating rearguard action, and if it means ditching a few schools at a time, he will allow that to happen.

no the principal is suggesting that the circular gets rid of religion education, it doesn't

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

no the principal is suggesting that the circular gets rid of religion education, it doesn't

He says he doesn't think it should be optional.
I think very soon the option of "alternative tuition" will prove more attractive to most pupils (and their parents), leaving just the hard core who were always in favour of RC religious instruction. The religion class itself will then become more hard core, if it survives.

Its possibly better than the current situation, but far from ideal IMO. It would be somewhat divisive, and would leave everyone lacking in a balanced education in such matters.

It might be open to individual schools to put on some kind of ethics/philosophy/religion/politics/civics class as their "alternative tuition" which could eventually take over from the old religion class. Maybe AI will come up with a proposed curriculum.

On the other hand, the individual school might decide to put on a class in something totally unrelated.

It would have been better if a new standard curriculum had been devised to replace the old biased religion class, and then just have everyone attend the new class together.

Peregrinus

You're suggesting, I think, that schools could offer two different religion/philosophy/ethics courses, one of which involves faith formation and the advancement of a particular perspective, and the other of which does not.

There's only one actual Leaving Cert exam in the area, but I suppose both courses could prepare students for that exam. Or one course might , and the other might not be exam-oriented.

I think the main practical difficulty with the proposal is that it requires twice as many religion teachers. Or, at any rate, twice as much time devoted to teaching religion courses, which has implications for the number of teachers the school will require who are qualified to teach the course. Especially if, as is usual with alternative classes, they are taught at the same time.

And you're still left with the problem of parents, maybe from a minority religion, who object to their children being taught anything about religion, other than in accordance with the precepts of their own religion. And the problem of militantly atheistic of parents who object to any time spend studying religion. Whether or not you agree with their attitudes, both of these groups have a constitutional right to withdraw their children from both of the religion classes, so accommodation must be made for them. So you end up (from the principal's point of view) with the worst of both worlds; you have to find the resources to teach two religion courses simultaneously, and you still have to make provision, consistent with the circular, for those who opt out of both.

My guess is that what this circular will tend towards is having just one religion course offered as an optional subject, up against other non-religious options.

nozzferrahhtoo

My daughter's school here in Germany offers a Catholic Class and a general ethics class.

They do not teach them at the same time, nor even on the same day in fact, nor do they need extra teachers to deal with it.

Some kids do one or the other. Some kids do neither. A few kids I am aware of do both. Both classes are at the end of their respective day so any kids not attending either or both of them simply have a slightly earlier going home time than the kids who do. And catholic teaching is not integrated throughout the rest of the curriculum/day either so when you opt out of religion you actually are opting out.

The logistical problems you describe do not seem to manifest themselves at all. Of course getting from one scenario to the other is difficult, but with a small application of imagination and effort such a transition does not have to be a major chore.

Peregrinus

Oh, yes, it could certainly be done if the will were there. But I think the new circular doesn't encourage or facilitate this; it requires that there be a non-religious alternative to religion. So if you offer a religion class, whether at the end of the day or not, you also have to offer a non-religion class at the same time. The option of doing nothing at this time, or going home, is not supposed to be available to students.

(Presumably, because it is considered to be educationally disadvantageous. An idea that I think you could probably argue with. But, still, that's where we seem to be.)

The other problem with delivering classes at the end of the day is that, it seems to me, you need a awful lot of religion teachers, since the religion classes for every year in the school are offered at the same time. Is it possible, Nozz, that your daughter is in primary school, and that the religion classes are given by the classroom teachers? Obviously that requires all the classroom teachers to be willing/qualified to teach religion, which raises its own issues. Or are there specialist religion teachers and, if the latter, how does does timetabling all the religion classes at the same time of the day not cause a problem?

threetrees

My son attends a ETB school where Religion as a junior cert subject is a core subject and everyone does it. The school does not have religious instruction classes or worship. There are very occasional religious ceremonies which kids can opt out of with parental consent.

For my younger kids, I would love them to study another subject instead of JC Religion but it looks like the directive applies to religious instruction only and not exam subject religion. Is my thinking correct?

Peregrinus

threetrees wrote: »

My son attends a ETB school where Religion as a junior cert subject is a core subject and everyone does it. The school does not have religious instruction classes or worship. There are very occasional religious ceremonies which kids can opt out of with parental consent.

For my younger kids, I would love them to study another subject instead of JC Religion but it looks like the directive applies to religious instruction only and not exam subject religion. Is my thinking correct?

The circular only applies to certain classes of school and, even then, there's a carve-out for schools "where there is an agreement between the Education and Training Board and Educate Together whereby the school operates as a non-denominational school that is not required to provide for religious instruction". From what you say your son's school may be one of these, so it won't be affected by the new circular. It will not be required to make religion an optional subject, or to timetable another subject against it.

It is possible, though, to provide religions instruction within the context of the NCAA Religious Education course, and if a school is doing that (and is within the application of the circular) then the circular applies. The Religious Education course must be optional, one or more other courses have to offered as alternatives, and parents must be advised of the right to choose between the options offered. (And they have to be told that the Religious Education course includes Religious Instruction.)

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

So if you offer a religion class, whether at the end of the day or not, you also have to offer a non-religion class at the same time.

I genuinely did not know that. Where is this written that it has to be at the same time and not a similar system to the one I described? If that is written down somewhere it certainly should be contested. There is no good reason or basis I can think of to demand it be at the same time.

I remember the school I was in (or "college" as they insisted on calling themselves to make them sound better than everything else in the Raheny area) which was bad in most ways a school can be bad at least had some things right.

And one of those things was that school ended officially at 13:00 on a Wednesday. The other days were 16:00. Half the students went home. Many of the rest did a sport in the school. Some of us studied something (I took an applied maths class in this time for an extra subject in the leaving cert).

The idea that all students have to finish at the same time, and that some could or should not go home early while others partake in modules of their own choosing is a terrible idea.

In my daughters primary school which is somewhere between large and small.... above average size anyway..... there are a few teachers and only one of them is required to deal with the religion/ethics options. So each teacher has their own class....... then at the end of a Tuesday ONE of them teaches the kids that want the catholic class and the SAME one teaches the ethics option on a Wednesday. All in all my daugther has three teachers herself. Her own main teacher for German and Maths and Sport and other General learning.... another teacher who takes each class a couple of times a week for more arty and creative work (werken und gestallten or something this class is called) and a third one for her Ethics class of a Wednesday. The kids who are actually taught by the woman who also does ethics therefore only have 2 teachers of a week not three.

So it is neither that ALL the teachers have to be capable of teaching it OR a specialized teacher only for that is required. The duty is taken by a teacher who is already there anyway teaching a normal class during the day.

Certainly in the secondary school I was at I do not think it would have required multiple religion teachers either. There WAS multiple religion teachers anyway as RE was on the time table for all 1000 or so students every week. And in fact the two main religion teachers I recall clearly from that time.... one was also an Irish and History teacher (albeit a seriously bad one at both and his blatant repressed homosexuality coupled with his very white skin and very ginger hair obtained him the nick name "fag" because he actually looked like a walking cigarette.).... and the other was an ordained priest who also taught French (though his idea of teaching french consisted mainly of going out for a smoke while leaving us in the class watching "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" over and over) and spent most of his free time introducing students to tobacco.

In a situation where the class was simply moved to the end of the day and made optional I can not see why that would need anything but less, certainly not more, teachers. I would say it would have moved from a situation where enough teachers to teach RE to 1000 pupils would have moved to a situation where say 500 just went home, 350 just wanted RE and 150 wanted ethics for example. So you would need teachers only for half the required pupils.

And sure if that crap school could pull it off with constitutionally BAD teachers.... a decent system in a decent school with even semi competent teachers should be able to find a workable system I expect.