Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fear of Religions...when our children are concerned

Options
  • 04-09-2014 1:34am
    #1
    actuallylike
    Registered Users Posts: 1,450 ✭✭✭


    How do,

    Right, a thread I had just opened got shut and rightly so in my eyes because it developed from something potentially sensible regarding forcing certain beliefs on others to the tired old 'go back to your old country if you don't like it'.

    To any mods, I'm not trying to reopen that debate. I wanted a discussion focussing on how religion harms our children, not a particular religion. I feel the last thread delved into Muslim bashing. Now I will bash the Islam faith all day but for reasons that weren't relevant in the last thread.

    My question now though is spurned from the responses (some potentially by me) about if you want to have faith in your schools, set up your own and do it. The whole issue I had a problem with was when taxpayers funded religious educated schools but the truth is deeper perhaps. I want the best for our children, they are at an age when they buy into anything and do not question it.

    I, myself, at 13, was taught science for the first time. The importance of forming conclusions based on evidence then the next class taught me to disregard that and have faith. This messes up children in a big way.

    So I feel that if an Islamic funded school was set up here, the fact that it wasn't state funded still wouldn't make me happy. The same way if children were been brainwashed in a Christian school or a Jewish school. I guess I'm falling into the old tirade of not wanting to sound Islamophobic when really I just want our religious free children to not be confused by Santa stories that they naturally gave up on their own.

    So there it is. I don't want Islamic focussed schools in my country, privately funded or otherwise. The same way I don't want any religious schools. This isn't because I hate religion (don't get me wrong, I do) but because I care for our children. Does anyone else feel this way?

    ps...little drunk, potentially ranting.


«134

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    actuallylike wrote: »
    My question now though is spurned from the responses (some potentially by me) about if you want to have faith in your schools, set up your own and do it. The whole issue I had a problem with was when taxpayers funded religious educated schools but the truth is deeper perhaps. I want the best for our children, they are at an age when they buy into anything and do not question it.

    I, myself, at 13, was taught science for the first time. The importance of forming conclusions based on evidence then the next class taught me to disregard that and have faith. This messes up children in a big way.

    So I feel that if an Islamic funded school was set up here, the fact that it wasn't state funded still wouldn't make me happy. The same way if children were been brainwashed in a Christian school or a Jewish school. I guess I'm falling into the old tirade of not wanting to sound Islamophobic when really I just want our religious free children to not be confused by Santa stories that they naturally gave up on their own.

    So there it is. I don't want Islamic focussed schools in my country, privately funded or otherwise. The same way I don't want any religious schools. This isn't because I hate religion (don't get me wrong, I do) but because I care for our children. Does anyone else feel this way?


    I'm tempted to reply with a lazy "won't somebody think of the children!" effort, but I won't.

    Instead I'll just say that I care about my own child more than I care about other people's children. I think if you're to go about making claims about children being brainwashed, etc, you're going to lose your target audience very quickly.

    Nobody likes to think they are forcing torture on their children, and that's exactly what happens when you use emotive language like 'brainwashing the little children', 'I care about all the little children, I don't want to see them all messed up', etc.

    What parent do you think does want that for their child? Certainly not the parents that you're aiming your message at in it's current format.

    Religious people pay taxes too, and they have just as much control over how their tax contributions are spent as you do - effectively, none.

    The issue isn't one of where your tax contributions are being spent and where you decide you want them spent. Your taxes as an individual are very small in proportion to the whole sum of Government income, contributions from millions of other tax payers who all have their own ideas about where the Government should be putting money.

    You'll effectively achieve nothing by going after Government, but you'll achieve your aims a lot easier and quicker if you focus your efforts on what you can do to make a difference in your own locality, and showing leadership, and talking to parents in your own area.

    That way you'll find out things like one child who has no books for school because their parents spent the back to school allowance on things other than books, or that parents are having to organize fundraising events for a new school roof because Government funding just isn't there.

    Other people will have different and more immediate priorities than secular idealism which is all well and good in it's own right, but you have to get involved and meet the basic necessities of the children's welfare first, and get support from parents that way, before you can start introducing your own ideas, because nobody is going to listen to you if they don't see that you're offering them something in return.

    That's as basic common sense realism, reasoning, and rational thought as it gets, and if you're going to claim that fantasy should be done away with, best place to start is with yourself.


  • Options
    #3
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    actuallylike wrote: »

    So there it is. I don't want Islamic focussed schools in my country, privately funded or otherwise. The same way I don't want any religious schools. This isn't because I hate religion (don't get me wrong, I do) but because I care for our children. Does anyone else feel this way?

    ps...little drunk, potentially ranting.

    What you are essentially doing therefore is setting down a personal moral framework that you think acceptable and then forcing this framework onto parents who would feel differently. Your position is no different to the notion that one MUST have a religious education. Social engineering by legislation is not something a free society should adhere to.


  • Options
    #4
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    jank wrote: »
    Your position is no different to the notion that one MUST have a religious education.
    No it's not.


  • Options
    #5
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No it's not.

    A great well thought out rebuttal.

    Banning parents from putting their child into a school with a religious ethos is the same as banning parents from putting their children into a school with a secular ethos, even if both secular and religious schools were privately funded. Its the same thing.


  • Options
    #6
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    jank wrote: »
    A great well thought out rebuttal.

    Banning parents from putting their child into a school with a religious ethos is the same as banning parents from putting their children into a school with a secular ethos, even if both secular and religious schools were privately funded. Its the same thing.

    I wouldn't feel happy about a homeopathy clinic and any number of privately funded things but I also wouldn't feel happy if the state forcibly banned them. To use the cliched example of peace. It can't be purely political, it has to be born from a mutual desire of both parties. I'd love if homeopathy wasn't as popular as it is. However much I'd love that, forcing the state to ban it is never going to get people to understand why it's a crock of sht. It'll just alienate them and impede on their autonomy.

    Same goes for Islamic schools. I don't like faith schools. Don't agree they should be banned though.

    So I broadly agree with the op. As they have not mentioned forcibly legislating you made that assumption. It may pan out to be true or it may be false but it's an assumption that could easily mislead others. (It initially did for me)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    SmilingLurker
    Registered Users Posts: 222 ✭✭SmilingLurker


    I am against faith schools, but they should not be banned.

    Schools should be secular in nature and should be free and open to all. After core school time if indoctrination is required (it does mean teaching of doctrine, negative associations may be well earned, but that is for another day) it should be done outside of school time at no expense to the taxpayer. It could be accommodated in schools the same way private courses are throughout the country.

    Non secular free schools should get no funding at all, but should keep to standard curricula. No fobbing off of evolution or sex education. The state should not fund any fee paying or restrictive institutions. For the record I went to a fee paying school in South Dublin.

    Free education is the best social mobility mechanism we have. Every should go to their local free school. Going to a privately funded religious class after school may be a choice I disagree with, but support.

    I will tolerate and would not ban religion.


  • Options
    #8
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    When we move into the area of banning religious education altogether, we hit a problem area. It is very hard to objectively define where indoctrination ends and child-abuse begins.

    I keep thinking back on those kids I met in Las Vegas. They were the children of some of those nutjobs led my Mr Harold Camping. In stead of being in school they were handing out religious flyers on the strip. They had been taught that Armageddon was going to happen in a few months, that God was going to destroy most of the world and kill most of the people in it, and that all they could do was try to save a few souls and hope like hell their own God would not murder them in a few months time. They were between 13 and 16 years old.

    I don't think there are many people who would not consider that child-abuse. It certainly made my blood boil: what a terrible thing to do to a child! And yet, the right to teach your children your religious beliefs protects exactly this kind of thing.

    But how are we to legislate against something like this? You would have to create some sort of standard for what is acceptable to teach a child and what is not... and it is hard to see how we could do that in practical terms. The result could potentially be both draconian and stifling.

    To some extent we DO decide what is acceptable and what is not, however. Some "moral frameworks" are considered so universal by us that we do not tolerate teaching children something else. So anyone teaching children that torture is OK would simply not be allowed to teach.

    And yet, once the religious label is applied this apparently goes out the window: if you teach a kid that God murders and tortures and that this is all A-ok then all of a sudden the very idea of making that impossible is considered persecution.

    I have not yet come up with a satisfactory conclusion - I would love to protect the future versions of those kids I met in Vegas, and I really feel we have a duty to do so, and I am not convinced that stopping something awful like that is "forcing a moral framework on people". Or rather, I think it is, but that is something we do all the time anyway: it is just that we give religious ones special consideration for some reason.


  • Options
    #9
    actuallylike
    Registered Users Posts: 1,450 ✭✭✭actuallylike


    Oooh my head :confused:

    Few drinks on board last night makes me go off on a rant. thanks for the replies though. I agree with everyone above to be honest. Setting down a moral framework as much as I'd like to (everyone thinks their own morals are sound I guess) is clearly not the way to go, other than on my own children. What I was thinking to be honest was a when children are refused blood transfusions due their parents beliefs, the state steps in, why not here. But I understand that a moral view isn't really up there with rejecting medical science. I guess a compromise is acceptable like mentioned above. Faith based schools should be allowed but no contradicting facts (eveolution, etc.). That would be difficult though to monitor though. I can't help but remember my Catholic sex education when they told me that "everyone feels gay at some point in puberty, just ignore it and it'll go away". Surely a direct influence of the church's view on a susceptible, adolescent boy. Anyway, life is short and I'll worry about my own kids (if I have some).


  • Options
    #10
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Ethically the state stepping in is a bit messy. Ok, we allow it. The analogy I should have used was vaccination. I'd prefer if everyone got vaccinated but I'd never want the state to bind them into doing so. It'd have to be their own choice.

    Education is a tough cookie, we already have a state curriculum. Having a curriculum is one thing banning other ideas from being taught is another. We still do it. You can't teach racism, anti-Semitism. Certain things that society just won't tolerate. (Or things that society does now tolerate but the law hasn't caught up yet so they remain legally banned). I don't think I'd be comfortable living in a society where religion wasn't tolerated. Individual welfare is important. Deciding where to draw the line in the sand between welfare of the individual, their autonomy and the welfare of others isn't easy. I'd always lean towards individual freedoms first then work backwards and keep the restrictions as limited as possible.


  • Options
    #11
    Morgase
    Registered Users Posts: 737 ✭✭✭Morgase


    It's my opinion that state-funded schools should be completely secular, rather than religious or multi-denominational. If parents want to send their kids to Sunday School, fair enough. I do think that having the religious ethos permeating so many aspects of the school day does amount to brainwashing. I'd like to see that limited to Sunday School, and I wonder just how many Irish parents would actually be bothered to bring them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    I am in favour of banning 'faith schools' because:
    1 - I am opposed to segregating children by race and religion.
    What hope do we have for an intercultural society when the children divided up and kept seperate from a young age.

    Interculturalism is the sharing of a common space where diversity of culture enriches us all. (but cultural practises that do not respect the principles of equality, democracy and respect for human rights are not acceptable)

    Multi-culturalism is (in my opinion) a failed experiment that in the long term, results in stratification of cultures with little interaction between ethnic groups.

    2. I am opposed to indoctrination in the schools.

    Children are very vulnerable to indoctrination. I believe strongly that schools should teach the kids how to think for themselves. I am not opposed to teaching about religion in schools, but I am opposed to teaching children that one religion is true. There are a lot of children growing up in fundamentalist families, so if those parents get to indoctrinate their children at home, and then get to choose a fundamentalist 'faith school', the poor kids could spend their entire lives immersed in one narrow world view, and this severely limits the childs opportunities to develop independent critical thinking skills.


  • Options
    #13
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    actuallylike wrote: »
    Oooh my head :confused:

    Few drinks on board last night makes me go off on a rant. thanks for the replies though. I agree with everyone above to be honest. Setting down a moral framework as much as I'd like to (everyone thinks their own morals are sound I guess) is clearly not the way to go, other than on my own children. What I was thinking to be honest was a when children are refused blood transfusions due their parents beliefs, the state steps in, why not here. But I understand that a moral view isn't really up there with rejecting medical science. I guess a compromise is acceptable like mentioned above. Faith based schools should be allowed but no contradicting facts (eveolution, etc.). That would be difficult though to monitor though. I can't help but remember my Catholic sex education when they told me that "everyone feels gay at some point in puberty, just ignore it and it'll go away". Surely a direct influence of the church's view on a susceptible, adolescent boy. Anyway, life is short and I'll worry about my own kids (if I have some).

    Heheh plenty of water and something to eat is generally best:)

    No-one wants the state to step in and tell us what to think. And yet, in many cases that is exactly what the state does already: teaching racism for instance is simply not permitted. We consider equality one of the basic beliefs of our state.

    For some reason we all tip-toe around religion so much where this is concerned, however - me included! I am having difficulty explaining to myself why, however. It seems to be part and parcel of the special treatment religious ideas get as compared to political or philosophical ones.

    If I wanted to teach sexist ideas in schools, people would have a problem with that. Put on a funny hat and do it in the name of religion, and no-one is bothered.


  • Options
    #14
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Morgase wrote: »
    It's my opinion that state-funded schools should be completely secular, rather than religious or multi-denominational. If parents want to send their kids to Sunday School, fair enough. I do think that having the religious ethos permeating so many aspects of the school day does amount to brainwashing. I'd like to see that limited to Sunday School, and I wonder just how many Irish parents would actually be bothered to bring them.
    Probably a lot fewer than the number of parents who bring their children to Mass every sunday, (and that's a low number)

    The church know that most parents are not going to put any effort into 'faith formation' so they need to do it themselves, and the best way to get their hands on innocent children for 1000 hours a year is to control the schools and set the 'ethos'.


  • Options
    #15
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Vivisectus wrote: »

    But how are we to legislate against something like this? You would have to create some sort of standard for what is acceptable to teach a child and what is not

    Simple, only teach stuff that we either have strong evidence for or in cases where evidence is kind of sparse (like opinions on why politician X started war Y) based off a logical rational appraisal of the available known evidence of the situation and persons involved (counter arguments based off the same methodology to be also taught).

    In the case of religions, a general overview of beliefs and practises of adherents, the contents of their holy books, where they deviate from and contribute to modern ethical standards and anything else appropriate to a general balanced understanding of all religions and their lack of a rational or evidential basis to be allowed. Teaching of their impact on other areas is also allowed and encouraged, as long as it is balanced showing both bad and good. No indoctrination allowed.


  • Options
    #16
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    actuallylike wrote: »
    I, myself, at 13, was taught science for the first time. The importance of forming conclusions based on evidence then the next class taught me to disregard that and have faith. This messes up children in a big way.

    In short, this is silly.

    Children learn to form conclusions base don evidence as toddlers - they don't have to wait until they're 13. The notion that Science, as delivered strictly in schools, is, somehow, the silver bullet for a perfectly rational world is silly. Just as silly as thinking that Religion, as delivered in schools is, somehow the silver bullet for a perfectly moral and loving world.

    Studying science and religion together is not difficult or challenging for a child. You are grossly underestimating their ability to understand the world.


  • Options
    #17
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,720 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Studying science and religion together is not difficult or challenging for a child. You are grossly underestimating their ability to understand the world.

    Agreed, but the question of whether teaching religion is potentially damaging to the child goes well beyond this. Specifically, indoctrinating a child with religious instruction in a religion that the child does not subscribe to could be detrimental, as you will be left in the situation where the child's parents and teachers are teaching opposing versions of the truth, which places one or other as a liar. You also have the issue that religious instruction takes time from the already busy academic timetable, as discussed here.

    While I've no problem with religious instruction being taught in school, it should be solely on an optional extra curricular basis.


  • Options
    #18
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    smacl wrote: »
    ....Specifically, indoctrinating a child with religious instruction in a religion that the child does not subscribe to could be detrimental, as you will be left in the situation where the child's parents and teachers are teaching opposing versions of the truth, which places one or other as a liar.

    This is vastly over exaggerated. There is very little (perhaps zero) in any of the e.g. maths, science, English, Irish, History, Geography...etc courses that are in conflict with what is thought in religion classes in Irish Schools - and vice versa. Where do you think the conflict lies?
    smacl wrote: »
    You also have the issue that religious instruction takes time from the already busy academic timetable, as discussed here

    True, but if you go down the route of evaluating all elements of the school day (particularly at primary level) with "utility" in mind you'd start drawing lines through music, playtime, PE, etc before too long.
    smacl wrote: »
    While I've no problem with religious instruction being taught in school, it should be solely on an optional extra curricular basis.

    This ignores the reality that Roman Catholic schools, for example, are part of their parish communities. In this light, having religion as an "optional extra" makes no sense.


  • Options
    #19
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Simple, only teach stuff that we either have strong evidence for or in cases where evidence is kind of sparse (like opinions on why politician X started war Y) based off a logical rational appraisal of the available known evidence of the situation and persons involved (counter arguments based off the same methodology to be also taught).

    In the case of religions, a general overview of beliefs and practises of adherents, the contents of their holy books, where they deviate from and contribute to modern ethical standards and anything else appropriate to a general balanced understanding of all religions and their lack of a rational or evidential basis to be allowed. Teaching of their impact on other areas is also allowed and encouraged, as long as it is balanced showing both bad and good. No indoctrination allowed.

    I was going to go on about how even the scientific consensus cannot be considered an objective truth, but then I thought to myself "What the HELL am I waffling about?" and realized I do not really see a downside to this at all.


  • Options
    #20
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Ethically the state stepping in is a bit messy. Ok, we allow it. The analogy I should have used was vaccination. I'd prefer if everyone got vaccinated but I'd never want the state to bind them into doing so. It'd have to be their own choice.

    The state forcing vaccinations (after they were shown to be safe and effective of course) is perfectly a legitimate and valid use of its powers. I don't want to see any of my children (if ever I have any) go down with serious preventable illness, because some hippy idiot who thinks repeatedly filtered water and read once on the girl against flouride propoganda scare-mongering website that MMR causes cancer or autism or whatever other idiocy that she decides to peddle. Public health is far too important a matter to be letting people decide on their prejudices and uninformed opinions. Similarly the state should use its powers to enforce a secular education in all state funded schools, if you want a religiously indoctrinated education for your children let you a) pay for it yourself, and b) let it not be allowed to be accredited by any state examination board without the school being extensively vetted to ensure proper education.


  • Options
    #21
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Teaching kids the philosophy of science can imo only be a good thing. As would teaching them to be skeptical. Particularly nowadays where information is so freely available but some of it is pure fluff and misinformation but still spreads like wildfire.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Similarly the state should use its powers to enforce a secular education in all state funded schools,

    The State doesn't have this power.


  • Options
    #23
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,720 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    This is vastly over exaggerated. There is very little (perhaps zero) in any of the e.g. maths, science, English, Irish, History, Geography...etc courses that are in conflict with what is thought in religion classes in Irish Schools - and vice versa. Where do you think the conflict lies?

    Let me see, maybe that some omniscient omnipresent deity exists and is watching us all the time, to the extent that if we do anything bad, He'll know all about it and punish us disproportionately in the long term. Excessive fear and guilt. Unhealthy and damaging in my book.
    True, but if you go down the route of evaluating all elements of the school day (particularly at primary level) with "utility" in mind you'd start drawing lines through music, playtime, PE, etc before too long.

    Nope, all of these have value entirely independent of religious background. Religious instruction to someone who doesn't want it has at best no value, and at worst negative value.
    This ignores the reality that Roman Catholic schools, for example, are part of their parish communities. In this light, having religion as an "optional extra" makes no sense.

    Yet if they became more secular as part of a transfer of patronage they would remain part of the community. It makes plenty of sense. It is also worth remembering that most members of these communities are no longer going to mass, and have generated practically no priests or nuns in many years. This rather suggests that religion is not that high on their agenda, and continuing to teach it as an integrated part of the curriculum is actually nonsensical.


  • Options
    #24
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    smacl wrote: »
    Let me see, maybe that some omniscient omnipresent deity exists and is watching us all the time, to the extent that if we do anything bad, He'll know all about it and punish us disproportionately in the long term. Excessive fear and guilt. Unhealthy and damaging in my book.

    If you believe that today's religion classes produce excessive fear and guilt amongst children then I suggest that you're not overly familiar with their content.

    You haven't given any example of a conflict between any non-religion class and a religion class though. Nothing that would stimulate a child to think that one teacher might not be telling the truth or causing confusion.


  • Options
    #25
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    If you believe that today's religion classes produce excessive fear and guilt amongst children then I suggest that you're not overly familiar with their content.

    You haven't given any example of a conflict between any non-religion class and a religion class though. Nothing that would stimulate a child to think that one teacher might not be telling the truth or causing confusion.

    Alive O texts encourage children to thank God for giving them life, to thank God for nature, to thank God for the wonderful world around them, and other things that are in direct conflict with science. How can a teacher teach children that a 'miracle' meant thousands were fed from a few loaves and fishes while in the next lesson teach them numeracy skills for maths? Even as a five year old my brother saw this for the nonsense it was, but got into trouble for challenging the 'miracle' stories.
    Having friends who are currently negotiating the first communion merry go round I can assure you children are still, as they were in my day, making up sins for first confession and worrying about whether God saw them being bold, and they were taught these things in school.


  • Options
    #26
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Thank you, God, for winter’s cold and winter’s warmth too.
    Thank you, God, you care for me All the winter through.
    Sign of the Cross.

    Here's an example of a prayer suggested for Junior Infants classes (link: http://education.dublindiocese.ie/junior-infants/). How can a child thank God for cold and warmth while being taught how cold and warmth in the seasons actually happens?


  • Options
    #27
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    lazygal wrote: »
    Alive O texts encourage children to thank God for giving them life, to thank God for nature, to thank God for the wonderful world around them, and other things that are in direct conflict with science. How can a teacher teach children that a 'miracle' meant thousands were fed from a few loaves and fishes while in the next lesson teach them numeracy skills for maths? Even as a five year old my brother saw this for the nonsense it was, but got into trouble for challenging the 'miracle' stories.

    You think the story of the loaves and the fishes is damaging children's numeracy skills? Mmmmm I think that you're not giving children (or teachers) enough credit there. And as a scientist who understands the physical world, I see zero conflict in thanking God for it and my part in it. You'll find that an awful lot of scientists are quite comfortable with this.


  • Options
    #28
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    lazygal wrote: »
    Thank you, God, for winter’s cold and winter’s warmth too.
    Thank you, God, you care for me All the winter through.
    Sign of the Cross.

    Here's an example of a prayer suggested for Junior Infants classes (link: http://education.dublindiocese.ie/junior-infants/). How can a child thank God for cold and warmth while being taught how cold and warmth in the seasons actually happens?

    God created the laws of physics when he made the universe. So learning the laws of physics and how they impact the earth's seasons is entirely in keeping with thanking God for them. Everything we learn of the physical world brings us closer to God. That's another reason why science is brilliant.


  • Options
    #29
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    You think the story of the loaves and the fishes is damaging children's numeracy skills? Mmmmm I think that you're not giving children (or teachers) enough credit there. And as a scientist who understands the physical world, I see zero conflict in thanking God for it and my part in it. You'll find that an awful lot of scientists are quite comfortable with this.

    And you'll find a lot of children, like my brother, who have a hard time wondering why the teacher can teach facts in one lesson and beliefs in another, and then make a child feel like they've done something wrong when the child points out the obvious inconsistencies in the miracles. How can a child be taught in one lesson that God made a mountain, and in another how geophysical forces make mountains?


  • Options
    #30
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,720 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    You haven't given any example of a conflict between any non-religion class and a religion class though. Nothing that would stimulate a child to think that one teacher might not be telling the truth or causing confusion.

    That wasn't my point though. The conflict that I'd consider damaging is what the parent is saying versus what the teacher is saying. If the teacher says God exists, and and the parent says that God does not exist, you have a problem. If the teacher as an authority figures states categorically that there is an omnipotent being watching your every move, and this being doesn't take kindly to heathens, that is potentially introducing a source of fear and confusion. If the parent then allays that fear by stating that said omnipotent being doesn't actually, and that some people have some rather strange beliefs, the child is liable to come into conflict with the teacher at a later point when they repeat this information.

    The obvious solution is not to foist unwanted religious instruction on the child in the first instance.

    Edit: Just thinking about it, another major area of conflict is in terms of morality, where morality from a religious basis tends to be absolutist and dogmatic, whereas morality from ethics tends to be contextual. Less of the 'though shalt not / never / ever' and more recognition of circumstance.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    God created the laws of physics when he made the universe. So learning the laws of physics and how they impact the earth's seasons is entirely in keeping with thanking God for them. Everything we learn of the physical world brings us closer to God. That's another reason why science is brilliant.

    It seems to me that a lot of the religious curriculum us more or less geared to produce exactly this kind of statement, helping people to deal with the inevitable cognitive dissonance that results from having to believe in ancient fairy-tales and science at the same time.

    At no point does it trouble you that the same being that made science so awesome "when he made the world" has to be something that exists outside of the laws of nature - which ultimately means that science is more or less meaningless. After all, any moment we could just see some god-magic that throws off all our careful analysis and observation!

    But many people are carefully trained to compartmentalize these different ideas. Catholic schools do a great job, spending countless hours carefully insulating the religious beliefs they instill in children from any jarring contact with reality. The result is a statement like the one above: one that features a massive internal contradiction that remains entirely unexamined.


Advertisement