New State Schools & Religion

Dades

Bishops seek religion veto on teachers in new schools

"THE Catholic Church has drawn up a list of "non-negotiable" demands in return for its involvement in new multi-denominational primary schools."

Turning to the characteristic spirit of the school, the Church side suggested a clause to the effect: "There will be an emphasis on promoting right relationship with God, self, others and creation."

Was listening to this story on the radio this morning, and looking forward to releasing the hounds in here.

CerebralCortex

Whats to be said? They have no place in any education system neither does any other religious institution.

seamus

Why are they asking for religious input at all?

Have a single class in lieu of the current religion class that provides ethical, moral and social guidance (do they call this "Social Science" in the US?). If any parent wants their child to have religious instruction they can do so after school.

Once the child hits ten, provide education on religion that includes a brief and discussion of all of the major religions, how they came about and how they intersect - perhaps as part of the history curriculum.

Dades

seamus wrote: »

Why are they asking for religious input at all?

So they don't miss lose out on indoctrinating kids when they are at their most impressionable, I assume!

adamd164

That's about the size of it. Bending over backwards to accomodate them because ... er, they were taught it themselves when they were in school. =/

philologos

Dades wrote: »

So they don't miss lose out on indoctrinating kids when they are at their most impressionable, I assume!

In some interfaith schools they allow for people of different faiths to go to their respective religious leaders / institutions if their parents will it during the religion class. I don't see much harm in that.

also, adamd I don't think most people believe because they were taught it in school. It took personal discovery to an extent for me.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

....also, adamd I don't think most people believe because they were taught it in school. It took personal discovery to an extent for me.

You've grown up in Ireland right? I you have I find shocking that you would believe the above statement to be through from the age of self awareness to the day I left secondary school I was fed catholic doctrine as was everyone else.

adamd164

Twould want to be a heck of a coincidence that you happened to discover Christianity (Catholicism?), given that you were raised here, Jakkass. What are the chances, out of every religion that's ever been established to worship every god that's ever been imagined, that you'd land on the predominant religion here. How lucky.

(course, if you're Jewish or a Muslim, feel free to enlighten me)

philologos

Hm, perhaps it might seem a coincidence that I discovered Christianity (actually Anglicanism!), given that I was in Ireland yes. However I looked to other religious texts during that time also. You could raise that point yes.

How would being Jewish or Muslim make anything different, surely if I wanted to be way out there I would have chose a Dharmic religion instead of an Abrahamic one?

Sure, Christianity was available to me in Ireland. However if it's the case that it's due to geography, what's your reason for being atheist? Were you raised atheist or did you decide later in your life?

Back to the original point however, you said it is due to schooling that one retained faith. I don't think that if I didn't take a serious look of the Bible for myself, it would have stuck for me.

adamd164

Well I think it would be different actually. The culture you were raised in was very much a Christian one. You were exposed to Christian ideals as a child. But, in all seriousness, I'd love to know how you went about ascertaining which god - out of the countless numbers that have been postulated - was the one who actually created the Universe? What were the criteria?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I remember being taught that the jews killed jesus as a child.

great times

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Hm, perhaps it might seem a coincidence that I discovered Christianity (actually Anglicanism!), given that I was in Ireland yes. However I looked to other religious texts during that time also. You could raise that point yes.

How would being Jewish or Muslim make anything different, surely if I wanted to be way out there I would have chose a Dharmic religion instead of an Abrahamic one?

Sure, Christianity was available to me in Ireland. However if it's the case that it's due to geography, what's your reason for being atheist? Were you raised atheist or did you decide later in your life?

Back to the original point however, you said it is due to schooling that one retained faith. I don't think that if I didn't take a serious look of the Bible for myself, it would have stuck for me.

Its good that you found your faith that way but in Ireland we have a situation were people are herded into a belief system and made part of it without being allowed to think for themselves. I'm pretty sure in my national school that you could have the students believing in whatever they were told was the truth. Belief is very personal and it shouldn't be taught it should be discovered like you discovered christianity and I atheism. Although adamd164 asks a good question?

philologos

Jesus was due to be martyred according to Biblical prophesy. It's not a proper statement to say that it should be appended to the Jews. Jesus was a Jew Himself.

adamd164: That's down to looking at the history etc behind the religion and the archaeology that we have to suggest that many of the things of the Bible were indeed probable.

Rev Hellfire

Mordeth wrote: »

I remember being taught that the jews killed jesus as a child.

Who was the imposter on the cross then ! Answers are needed !

philologos

CerebalCortex wrote:

Its good that you found your faith that way but in Ireland we have a situation were people are herded into a belief system and made part of it without being allowed to think for themselves. I'm pretty sure in my national school that you could have the students believing in whatever they were told was the truth. Belief is very personal and it shouldn't be taught it should be discovered like you discovered christianity and I atheism.

I actually think it was Muhammad of Islam, that wrote in the Qur'an there was no compulsion in religion. That's one of his statements I agree with. Jesus in the New Testament encouraged us to think about what Christianity would mean for each of us before we fully committed to it, and indeed to think about the cost of being a follower (Luke 14:25-32)

Sangre

Jakkass wrote: »

Jesus was due to be martyred according to Biblical prophesy. It's not a proper statement to say that it should be appended to the Jews. Jesus was a Jew Himself.

Typical self hating Jew!

philologos

Sangre wrote: »

Typical self hating Jew!

Is it really wrong to be critical of religious practices, and seek to reform them? I happen not to think so. Returning to Biblical truth is something that we must continually do in the Church, that's why we had the European and Anglican Reformations.

death1234567

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Whats to be said? They have no place in any education system neither does any other religious institution.

DADES wrote: »

So they don't miss lose out on indoctrinating kids when they are at their most impressionable, I assume!

Nail. Head.

seamus

To a certain extent many people will hold onto those things that they were told as a child, even if those things are inherently irrational or have been disproven or made redundant.

It's hard to come up with any specific examples of this (as society discards them, most people follows), but take any urban myth (the kind that are constantly disproven on mythbusters) and see how many people think the the myth is an actual truth. They think this because they were told at a young age that it's true and have never since questioned its veracity - it's just always been there.

One interesting one in Ireland is the concept of the seasons. Almost everyone in Ireland knows the four seasons and what months they are - we learned them from 5 years of age.

If you tell people that some countries don't have four seasons or that our Winter months aren't the Winter months in every other country, you'll get a variety of responses. Some people will be astonished, but thankful for the new information. Other people will be just plain confused and won't understand the concept. And other people will see your point of view but will attempt to argue with you, insistent that what they learned in school is the truth and that you're completely wrong.

philologos

seamus - that begs the question, how come atheists here have shed so many of these things they were taught as children?

seamus

Jakkass wrote: »

seamus - that begs the question, how come atheists here have shed so many of these things they were taught as children?

I couldn't tell you specifically, but disposing of or questioning childhood beliefs isn't limited to religion. It may be something that children are encouraged to do - so while you're being told what is true, you are also being encouraged to question these "truths".

I'm of the opinion that it's largely an educational thing - not necessarily related to how much education a person has received, but more related to a person's "appetite" for education. If you are interested in knowing more, then you are naturally going to be predisposed to questioning your existing knowledge rather than accepting it.

How does someone get a bigger "appetite" for knowledge? No idea. I'd be very interested to know or see any related studies. Though I personally suspect that a good basic level of education and positive parental feedback towards academic achievement would play a part in it.

Hellm0

Jakkass wrote: »

seamus - that begs the question, how come atheists here have shed so many of these things they were taught as children?

Luck? Intelligence? The answer to that question would have to be a generalization. Each persons faith or lack of is a personal discovery. I believe the point people are trying to make is that Christianity has such a foothold in the european/western mind that it is seen as the "default" religion(regardless of which branch). The problem of course with schools teaching religion from this perspective is that it is biased in a very open fashion, a trait not welcome in a secular and therefore equal state. Christian doctrine should be taught from the outside in and with a skeptical eye, in the same fashion as all religions.

That said at this point many customs and concepts to do with Christianity have leaked over into mainstream culture and are held not so much as doctrine in the traditional sense but as emblems of identity in Ireland, a country which has a very strong traditional culture. People who are not even very religious become enraged when such emblems are threatened(such as the American "one nation under god" thing) not so much out of religious zealotry but rather in defense of our culture. To those of us who have seen the light(or the lack thereof) these artifacts of times gone by(for instance the recent debate over serving alcohol on good friday) are offensive due to their religious content and should be removed.

philologos

Hellm0: I don't think it's fair to say that faith neccessarily corrolates with intelligence. If it's seen as the default religion, I don't know why. Arguably the people who believe through school are mostly lapset Christians as the rate of attendance is actually only in the 40% region on Sunday mornings for Roman Catholic churches anyway.

As for Christianity being taught with a skeptical eye, I think that it should be yes, but I think it should be only taught by people who have correct qualifications in the study of Christianity at the same time.

Hellm0 wrote:

To those of us who have seen the light(or the lack thereof) these artifacts of times gone by(for instance the recent debate over serving alcohol on good friday) are offensive due to their religious content and should be removed.

Well surely it is up to the Christian populace to be adhering to this rule, and what better way to test it in some regards than to allow certain things to happen and see how popular they are.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

how come atheists here have shed so many of these things they were taught as children?

I can't speak for anybody else, but in my case, I found out that when I studied greek, that the text of the NT does not correspond to the understanding that people have of it; when I read up on history after school, I found out that the history I was taught in school was completely one-sided; intellectually, no serious debate ever took place in school about religion (even failing to notice that the story does not make sense); reading up on social research indicated that being religious does not make you a better person, and frequently makes one worse, particularly in groups; more history showed that the churches have endlessly abused their power and privilege; biology showed me that you do not need an external agent to create the illusion of design, and so on and so on.

You could probably pick out some of these reasons, or similar ones, as the ones why you don't believe that Santa Claus or Zeus exists; I just extend exactly the same reasoning a bit further and conclude that your god doesn't exist either, and that religion is at best, useless cultural baggage, and at worst, a direct threat to stability.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

I can't speak for anybody else, but in my case, I found out that when I studied greek, that the text of the NT does not correspond to the understanding that people have of it;

That's highly interesting, but surely Christian scholars and theologians have been studying the Scriptures for centuries. Asides from this, we have concordances (such as Strongs) and various Biblical commentaries to look to also.

robindch wrote:

biology showed me that you do not need an external agent to create the illusion of design, and so on and so on.

Again, a very interesting point that we could discuss for a bit. But surely because there is no necessity (in your opinion) for an external agent to be involved in design, that doesn't really shed any light on it being more or less true.

Hellm0

Jakkass wrote: »

Hellm0: I don't think it's fair to say that faith neccessarily corrolates with intelligence.

Of course you wouldn't, you being a man of faith:P That said my post did state that any answer to your question would be a generalization, the two I posed were merely opinion.

Jakkass wrote: »

If it's seen as the default religion, I don't know why.

Because Christians throughout the ages have murdered, lied and cheated in the name of spreading their religion. That of course is true of many other faiths however when you look at Christianities track record there is no denying innocent blood has been shed in the name of Jesus(look at south America). Ireland is just another victim.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for Christianity being taught with a skeptical eye, I think that it should be yes, but I think it should be only taught by people who have correct qualifications in the study of Christianity at the same time.

So you agree with me but only if there is a Christian teacher? That doesn't fit

Jakkass wrote: »

Well surely it is up to the Christian populace to be adhering to this rule, and what better way to test it in some regards than to allow certain things to happen and see how popular they are.

Good Friday is not popular it's tolerated. There would be no public outcry if drink were to be served, if anything people would be happy I should think.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

seamus - that begs the question, how come atheists here have shed so many of these things they were taught as children?

Isn't that question kind of moot? That people can shake off what they are taught as children does not make it okay to teach them anything.

School ends at about 3pm. If a parent wants their child to be raised a catholic, then there are plenty of hours left in the day to do it. And Sundays of course.

But I wonder who really wants all these little catholics - the parents or the church? How many of these parents actually go to mass, or have anything but the fluffiest notion of catholic doctrine?

seamus

Hellm0 wrote: »

Good Friday is not popular it's tolerated. There would be no public outcry if drink were to be served, if anything people would be happy I should think.

At this point, I would say that Good Friday is treated as a national joke. Because drink cannot be sold, Good Friday has now become one of the biggest party nights of the year.

The reason we still have it is political will. If a politician was to attempt to abolish the rule, some Catholic bishop or priest would condemn it as a move against the Catholic church, accuse the politician in question of not being a Catholic and then the politician would have to air their laundry in public.

It's much easier to be a politician with undisclosed religious views than to be an atheist/agnostic politician. There just isn't enough public pressure to abolish the rule because nobody gives it all that much thought.

Xhristy

This post has been deleted.

Tim Robbins

It's clear Hannafin is fence sitting on this issue. Terrified of upsetting someone. It's a simple issue, you either favour equality or you don't.

In a Republic "all children should be cherished equally". She could solve this problem, simply and quickly. But she is terrified she might cause a few negative comments from church goers and loose some vote.

Another FF politician with no concept of right and wrong. I doubt very much Jesus would fence sit or discriminate on this issue.

Xhristy

This post has been deleted.

philologos

Dades wrote: »

Isn't that question kind of moot? That people can shake off what they are taught as children does not make it okay to teach them anything.

That wasn't my motive in asking the question. I was merely trying to outline why you as atheists and agnostics are clearly different from the rest of the populace who you claim have been "indoctrinated" by religion. I didn't mean it in that context, apologies for any confusion caused.

Xhristy wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't take the Islamic argument any above the Christian. In terms of the English translations of the Qur'an (or meanings if you will that word to be used), not only do the translations differ, the verse structure also differs so if one quotes Sura 5:110 in one translation, the other may be 5 verses down on the Sura, making it difficult not only to read but to reference from.

Dades wrote:

But I wonder who really wants all these little catholics - the parents or the church? How many of these parents actually go to mass, or have anything but the fluffiest notion of catholic doctrine?

Again, a good argument, I cannot speak for the Roman Catholic Church (I'm an Anglican). However if parents are enrolling their children in faith schools they should be aware of the ethos of the school first surely?

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

However if parents are enrolling their children in faith schools they should be aware of the ethos of the school first surely?

Ah but the current debate is over the (Catholic) church's demands to intervene in non-denominational schools. The nerve! As an Anglican you can surely see from an objective pov how this can't be allowed?

As for the "faith" schools - they account for 3,000 out of 3,200 (or something) of all schools in Ireland, funded for the most part by taxpayers money.

finlma

As a primary teacher I for one will be delighted if religion is taken out of schools. I have to "teach" it every day but I do my best not too mention the God word and I teach all my class about evolution - try to open their eyes and minds. I use my daily half hour of religion a day to teach morals and how to be a good person rather than anything else. But I still hate the fact that children are forced (they are forced) to pray and view statues and other Catholic rubbish every day. Of course that effects them - if the person they look up to is force feeding them religious mumbo jumbo every day, they will take it on board. Some of them will lack the intelligence in later life to think for themselves and to question what they were taught.

philologos

Hellm0 wrote: »

Of course you wouldn't, you being a man of faith:P That said my post did state that any answer to your question would be a generalization, the two I posed were merely opinion.

If you are saying that Christians are less intelligent than the rest of the secular population surely you have reasons to believe in this?

Hellm0 wrote: »

Because Christians throughout the ages have murdered, lied and cheated in the name of spreading their religion. That of course is true of many other faiths however when you look at Christianities track record there is no denying innocent blood has been shed in the name of Jesus(look at south America). Ireland is just another victim.

Yes, a few have yes. I think that it's incorrect to paint a picture. Personally I do not feel answerable to defend people who have murdered in the path. They were clearly in it for their own goals, not for the truth of Christianity. I find it interesting that the first Apostles never used violence to put their views across, and thats the reason why the faith spread as it did in the first place by peaceful means. I cringe over the accounts of the First Crusade in Jerusalem as much as anyone else does, as it deviated from the true intentions of the Gospel.

Hellm0 wrote: »

So you agree with me but only if there is a Christian teacher? That doesn't fit

If someone is to teach children Christianity, they should be experienced enough in the faith to teach it. That is all I'm suggesting. Like I would like for someone to be experienced enough in Judaism to teach me Judaism, and the same applies for any faith on the course. I think that respective faith community speakers and guests should be encouraged to visit in order for people to get a clear mind on the faith, that means interaction with the churches for Christianity, and interaction with the synagogues for Judaism etc. Hopefully this is the path religious education will take in the future.

Hellm0 wrote: »

Good Friday is not popular it's tolerated. There would be no public outcry if drink were to be served, if anything people would be happy I should think.

Perhaps not popular in the non-Christian field. However it's not it's purpose. The day exists for Christians to keep it holy in remembering that this is a remembrance for the sacred Crucifixion of Jesus Christ by which we may be all taken from the slavery of sin through faith in Him. I for one do not wish to impose it on anyone apart from those who are willing to be a part of our community.

Dades wrote:

Ah but the current debate is over the (Catholic) church's demands to intervene in non-denominational schools. The nerve! As an Anglican you can surely see from an objective pov how this can't be allowed?

Indeed, yes. I think that children should be encouraged to visit their own retrospective pastors, or to be taught of faith by their parents. I totally agree with you. Unless they are in a faith school this is the way that it must be done. Non-denominational, multifaith means precisely that. Apologies for deviating off the topic.

finlma wrote:

As a primary teacher I for one will be delighted if religion is taken out of schools.

I don't think the point concerns removing faith from faith schools, it's in relation to non-denominational schools.

finlma wrote:

I have to "teach" it every day but I do my best not too mention the God word and I teach all my class about evolution - try to open their eyes and minds. I use my daily half hour of religion a day to teach morals and how to be a good person rather than anything else. But I still hate the fact that children are forced (they are forced) to pray and view statues and other Catholic rubbish every day. Of course that effects them.

Do you teach in a Roman Catholic ethos school? Then surely you should know that is their objective, and the parents should have consulted the ethos of the school prior to sending them if they did not want them to be brought up in a Catholic background. If you are so opposed to teaching them religion, why don't you move on to a non-denominational school?

robindch

finlma wrote: »

As a primary teacher I for one will be delighted if religion is taken out of schools.

Good to hear!

In your experience, could you estimate very loosely the percentage of primary school teachers who are teaching religion as fact? Is a majority, or a minority? And how do other teachers feel about it?

And how would you classify the susceptibility of young kids to teaching religion as fact? What percentage of kids will lap it up without question?

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, yes. I think that children should be encouraged to visit their own retrospective pastors, or to be taught of faith by their parents. I totally agree with you. Unless they are in a faith school this is the way that it must be done. Non-denominational, multifaith means precisely that. Apologies for deviating off the topic.

I think the topic was always going to spread to catholic schools tbh.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you are so opposed to teaching them religion, why don't you move on to a non-denominational school?

Given the ratio of non-denom schools to (publicly funded) catholic schools, I would imagine this isn't usually a realistic option.

Your points about "faith" schools would be valid if we, the non-denominational taxpayer, didn't pay for the running of those schools!

Dades

Parents demand right to pick schools for children

Respondents were also asked what one kind of school they would choose for their children from four options provided. The most popular choice was a Catholic school (47pc) followed by a 'State-run school in which all religions are taught' (37pc).

Only a small minority of people (11pc) favour schools in which no religion is taught.

Iona Institute director David Quinn said: "What these poll findings show is that there is very little support for those who want to replace publicly funded denominational schools with State-run multi-denominational or non-denominational schools.

Oddly enough that "very little support" seems to me to add up to 48%...

The poll has been conducted ahead of a conference on denominational schools organised by The Iona Institute and 'The Word' magazine. 'In Defence of Denominational Schools' will be held in the Tara Towers Hotel on April 4.

I wonder if PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins will be sneaking into this.

Galvasean

In primary school religion class was basically just learning about Jesus, Moses, Adam and Eve etc.
Stupid class, where's my Xenu!!!?

finlma

Jakkass wrote: »

If you are so opposed to teaching them religion, why don't you move on to a non-denominational school?

It is extremely difficult to get a job in non-denominational schools without being prepared to move home, which I am not prepared to do.

robindch wrote: »

In your experience, could you estimate very loosely the percentage of primary school teachers who are teaching religion as fact? Is a majority, or a minority? And how do other teachers feel about it?

The majority would teach it as fact from my experience but there are some who don't. It is a difficult topic to bring up in the staffroom as working in a Catholic school you can't go around promoting that you don't believe in the school's ethos. That said I'm not afraid to voice my opinion in front of certain teachers. I don't feel I've anything to hide but at the same time my job is at steak.

robindch wrote: »

And how would you classify the susceptibility of young kids to teaching religion as fact? What percentage of kids will lap it up without question?

I could tell the younger children that Jesus was a twenty foot lizard with 3 heads they would believe me. The older children do take in most of what I say but they do bring in some beliefs from their parents - some would be more reverend than others. None of them leave my class more reverend than when they came in, that's for sure. I show the older children a Karl Sagan clip to explain evolution and where they came from. Any Bible questions I tell them to ask their parents.

Dades

finlma wrote: »

I don't feel I've anything to hide but at the same time my job is at steak.

You shouldn't be forced to moove.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

"THE Catholic Church has drawn up a list of "non-negotiable" demands in return for its involvement in new multi-denominational primary schools."

hmmm... The Minister for Education and the INTO seem to have other ideas:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0325/education.html?RTEMAILID

Mary Hanafin wrote:

Hanafin says Church will not have teacher veto

The Minister for Education has said there is no question of the Catholic Church being allowed to impose a veto on the appointment of staff to a new type of State primary school that is due to be piloted in three areas of Dublin in September. Speaking at the INTO conference in Killarney, Mary Hanafin annnounced her intention to hold a public conference to discuss the new model of multi-denominational school, and the impact of a new diverse pupil body in schools generally.

Ms Hanafin said it was important to discuss these issues in a public forum. She said the conference would be held later this year. The event will focus on the challenges of a changing society for new and existing schools, concentrating on schools ethos and approach to religious instruction. It will also discuss the implications of this for school enrolment policies.

Referring to the new model of State-run primary schools planned, the minister said the Government had very deliberately decided to make these schools multi-faceted rather than non-denominational. She said the Government wants them to cater for all children of all faiths and of none. But Fine Gael Education spokesman Brian Hayes has described Minister Hanafin's announcement of the one-day conference 'as the barest of fig leaves to cover her complete inaction in this area'.

Deputy Hayes said it is unacceptable that the Minister has offered a toothless conference that will last a few hours when a comprehensive debate bringing in all education partners and political parties is needed. The question over the new inclusive schools and how they should be run has generated significant controversy.

Earlier the INTO said it will oppose a demand by the Catholic Church for a veto over teachers who provide religious instruction to Catholic pupils in new multi-denominational schools. The veto is one of several demands made by bishops in private talks on a new primary school model with the Department of Education. The details were revealed in documents released to the Irish Independent under Freedom of Information.

robindch

BTW, I notice that that infernal word "ethos" is being bandied about again, as though it explained anything other than the desire for unsupervised control. My eyes water every time I see it!

Tim Robbins

finlma wrote: »

As a primary teacher I for one will be delighted if religion is taken out of schools. I have to "teach" it every day but I do my best not too mention the God word and I teach all my class about evolution - try to open their eyes and minds. I use my daily half hour of religion a day to teach morals and how to be a good person rather than anything else. But I still hate the fact that children are forced (they are forced) to pray and view statues and other Catholic rubbish every day. Of course that effects them - if the person they look up to is force feeding them religious mumbo jumbo every day, they will take it on board. Some of them will lack the intelligence in later life to think for themselves and to question what they were taught.

Good for you. It's a pity we haven't more teachers like yourself.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

hmmm... The Minister for Education and the INTO seem to have other ideas:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0325/education.html?RTEMAILID

She doesn't need a public forum, that is just her way of wasting tax payers money so she doesn't have to say what has to be said.

A public forum is usually a sign of political weakness.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

My eyes water every time I see it!

Keep taking the drops!

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Keep taking the drops!

No, I think that any intelligent person will see that I'm being persecuted! Quick, open up a persecution thread!

pH

Tim Robbins wrote:

finlma wrote:

As a primary teacher I for one will be delighted if religion is taken out of schools. I have to "teach" it every day but I do my best not too mention the God word and I teach all my class about evolution - try to open their eyes and minds. I use my daily half hour of religion a day to teach morals and how to be a good person rather than anything else. But I still hate the fact that children are forced (they are forced) to pray and view statues and other Catholic rubbish every day. Of course that effects them - if the person they look up to is force feeding them religious mumbo jumbo every day, they will take it on board. Some of them will lack the intelligence in later life to think for themselves and to question what they were taught.

Good for you. It's a pity we haven't more teachers like yourself.

I'd prefer them slightly better at spelling

finlma

pH wrote: »

I'd prefer them slightly better at spelling

Touche - I just type too quickly

On the "ethos" word - every school has to have an "ethos" to describe itself.

robindch

finlma wrote: »

On the "ethos" word - every school has to have an "ethos" to describe itself.

No doubt, but the word is used to legitimate the control of schools full of susceptible kids by the religious. It sounds like a nice harmless word, but it hides something rather horrible. Look out for how it's used...

philologos

robindch wrote: »

No doubt, but the word is used to legitimate the control of schools full of susceptible kids by the religious. It sounds like a nice harmless word, but it hides something rather horrible. Look out for how it's used...

It's funny, before I looked at this thread, I wouldn't have thought that atheists would view us in a similar manner to the Hitler Youth. However I agree, I personally think that some religious based schools should teach with questioning as well.