Opting Out of First Communion

LostinKildare

Need some advice on raising a well adjusted atheist child in Holy Catholic Ireland.

My son has just begun 2nd class in our village (Catholic) school, and he will not be making his first communion. OH, my son, and I are comfortable with this. He is not baptized, and we do not attend mass. I grew up in the US and was raised a Protestant, OH is Irish and raised a Catholic, but we are both atheists, and we've tried to raise our child to respect both believers and nonbelievers. He is adamant that he doesn't believe in God, but he understands (remarkably well for a seven-year-old) that that is an individual, personal choice.

Anyway, I need to go and discuss with the teacher and principal how they are going to deal with my son, who will be the only child in his class not making his communion. I am not expecting any trouble from them, but I would like to go in armed with some knowledge about how 2nd class religion is taught (I don't know because I didn't experience it) and what I might reasonably expect in terms of accommodation.

(I should maybe add here that we have been completely upfront with the school about our position on religion. Before enrolling him we visited the school and chatted with the principal, telling her that we are not Catholic and he is not baptized. She encouraged us to enroll him there. She retired last year, though.)

I know that parents can opt out of the indoctrination that prepares children for their first communion, but what does that mean in practice? I have been told that there is a difference between "regular" religious studies and catechism, but where is that line drawn? I am fine with him learning "moral values" and basic Christian doctrine and prayers, but not participating in Catholic rites such as confession and communion. I would not demand that he be taken out of class (the school doesn't have the staff for that, and it would mark him out as an outsider) – does it make sense for him to sit quietly and do his homework? If they ask me what I want, what should I say?

Has anyone else been in this situation? Any advice?

JimiTime

I am a Christian, but non-catholic. I went to catholic school, and was the only one who didn't make their communion. Parents had no problem with the school. They just told the teacher the situation.

Splendour

LostinKildare wrote: »

Has anyone else been in this situation? Any advice?

This not related to your post but I'm curious you got your kid into a Catholic school without him being baptised.

When my daughter made her communion there was one kid who wasn't a Catholic but she sat in on the classes and attended the service wearing a new dress so she didn't feel left out. She however was a Methodist and I appreciate your situation is different.

At this stage your son has obviously had many religious classes in the school so I can't why the communion year is bothering you now? If you look at your son's R.E. book you'll have a better idea of what is being taught.
TBH if your son is going to be atheist none of the religion teaching will have any affect anyway. I wonder how many atheists on this board went through Catholic school...

LostinKildare

Splendour wrote: »

This not related to your post but I'm curious you got your kid into a Catholic school without him being baptised.

Yes. Well either the principal was unusually open-minded and flexible, or she was concerned about keeping the enrollment numbers up high enough to safeguard all her teachers. If we were applying to one of the overcrowded schools in the nearby large town, it would have been a different story I think.

Splendour wrote: »

At this stage your son has obviously had many religious classes in the school so I can't why the communion year is bothering you now?

It's an issue now because as I understand it (and correct me if I'm misinformed), it is in this year that the heavy-duty dogma is introduced. In this year children actively profess their faith and promise to attend mass -- which would mean lying, of course. In this year they do first confession (which OH and I both object to) and first communion. Which cannot be done because our kid is unbaptised.

It's an issue because he'll be the only one in his class, so really I'm looking for advice from other parents on how best to prevent him from being unnecessarily marginalised.

ChocolateSauce

I was never baptised either. Tbh, my mother threatened to take my primary school to the supreme court if they tried to teach me Christianity as a fact. From then on I was allowed to sit quietly in class while they did religion and do homework.

I'm not suggesting you do this, but a firm stance couldn't hurt.

uriah

LostinKildare wrote: »

Yes. Well either the principal was unusually open-minded and flexible, or she was concerned about keeping the enrollment numbers up high enough to safeguard all her teachers. If we were applying to one of the overcrowded schools in the nearby large town, it would have been a different story I think.



It's an issue now because as I understand it (and correct me if I'm misinformed), it is in this year that the heavy-duty dogma is introduced. In this year children actively profess their faith and promise to attend mass -- which would mean lying, of course. In this year they do first confession (which OH and I both object to) and first communion. Which cannot be done because our kid is unbaptised.

It's an issue because he'll be the only one in his class, so really I'm looking for advice from other parents on how best to prevent him from being unnecessarily marginalised.

If your child is unbaptised, he will not be doing confession or communion or any other catholic 'sacrament' .

lostexpectation

what happens when the priest visit do you leave him in or take him out, the priest will teach it as fact, he may well be confused.

you do spend a fair bit of time in 2nd class doing stuff re communion.

LostinKildare

JimiTime wrote: »

I am a Christian, but non-catholic. I went to catholic school, and was the only one who didn't make their communion. Parents had no problem with the school. They just told the teacher the situation.

Did you stay in the classroom during religious lessons, and if so did you participate in the class or did you do something else? Did you feel uncomfortable?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I was never baptised either. Tbh, my mother threatened to take my primary school to the supreme court if they tried to teach me Christianity as a fact.

lostexpectation wrote: »

what happens when the priest visit do you leave him in or take him out, the priest will teach it as fact, he may well be confused.

I'm hoping that my son will accept the explanation that the teacher and priest are presenting it as fact because they are believers ("some people believe and some people don't, and either way is okay").

Splendour

LostinKildare wrote: »

I'm hoping that my son will accept the explanation that the teacher and priest are presenting it as fact because they are believers ("some people believe and some people don't, and either way is okay"). From all accounts the priest is a very disagreeable man, so I don't think my child will be swayed his charisma. Actually I am a little worried that he will single out my kid for criticism -- he has done similar things to others.

Ok, you sent your son to a Catholic school so you can't expect them not to teach Catholic principles. If your child is so adamant he doesn't believe in God then this shouldn't be a problem. Or are you by any chance concerned it will be?
If you think the priest may cause problems maybe you could give him a call and explain the situation to him.

R.D. aka MR.D

in my primary school, small country catholic school, there was a muslim girl. When we were getting ready for our communion she was allowed to draw or read one of the books from the library.

When we went to do the rehersals in the chapel she just went to one of the other older or younger classes while we were there.

She actually came to watch us all on the day!!

we never treated her differently, we were all jealous that she didn't have so much religion homework and learning prayers!!

i'm sure if you just say it to the teacher they won't have a problem with it.

Zillah

Splendour wrote: »

Ok, you sent your son to a Catholic school so you can't expect them not to teach Catholic principles.

Calling bull on this one. The vast majority of schools in Ireland are Catholic schools, they have an obligation to accommodate non-Catholics. Even in Dublin it can be very hard to find a non-Catholic school within a reasonable distance, in the country I'd imagine it is completely impossible. It is a preposterous position to put a parent in whereby they must bring their child to a school, the only schools available are Catholic, and they'll therefore be taught Catholicism.

ChocolateSauce

I would expect a Catholic school, by virtue of their omnipresence, to refrain from indoctrinating my child.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

Calling bull on this one. The vast majority of schools in Ireland are Catholic schools, they have an obligation to accommodate non-Catholics. Even in Dublin it can be very hard to find a non-Catholic school within a reasonable distance, in the country I'd imagine it is completely impossible. It is a preposterous position to put a parent in whereby they must bring their child to a school, the only schools available are Catholic, and they'll therefore be taught Catholicism.

Accommodating non-Catholics doesn't mean stopping teaching their ethos.

There should be more alternatives, but at the same time expecting them to change their ethos is a bit absurd.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Accommodating non-Catholics doesn't mean stopping teaching their ethos.

There should be more alternatives, but at the same time expecting them to change their ethos is a bit absurd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDbNaLqVw8c

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

Accommodating non-Catholics doesn't mean stopping teaching their ethos.

There should be more alternatives, but at the same time expecting them to change their ethos is a bit absurd.

Absurd? THIS IS A&A!

I will be glad to see the day that every last trace of the Catholic discrimination "ethos" is expunged from our nation's education system. Set aside some "personal time" where people can go kill chickens or pray to Jesus while facing Bethlehem or whatever is in vogue for the philosophically ludicrous these days, but a school having a religious "ethos" is at odds with the sort of world we live in today. Teach about world religions in RE, but don't make the non-religious, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish etc kids feel like they're freaks for not being Christian.

CerebralCortex

Seriously as much as I enjoy a good debate you know this is only going to go one way.

Zillah

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Seriously as much as I enjoy a good debate you know this is only going to go one way.

MrPudding

Zillah wrote: »

Absurd? THIS IS A&A!

I will be glad to see the day that every last trace of the Catholic discrimination "ethos" is expunged from our nation's education system. Set aside some "personal time" where people can go kill chickens or pray to Jesus while facing Bethlehem or whatever is in vogue for the philosophically ludicrous these days, but a school having a religious "ethos" is at odds with the sort of world we live in today. Teach about world religions in RE, but don't make the non-religious, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish etc kids feel like they're freaks for not being Christian.

But what harm can it do?

MrP

seandeas

Lost in Kildare, - this thread is all BS. Why on earth are you talking to complete strangers. Talk to the teacher ! She / he is the one on the ground.

The fact that your kid has never been baptised means that they cannot receive any of the sacraments.

Also I object to your anti catholic stance and the use of words "dogma" and "indoctrination". If you have such a problem with religion, why don't you send your kid to one of those non religious schools. Or is it that you want to avail of the wonderful Catholic eduction minus the religion bit ??? you can't have it every way you know.

Actually don't bother answering that - I'm couldn't care less.

Bottom line - stop slagging off religion and go speak to the teacher.

Dades

seandeas wrote: »

Lost in Kildare, - this thread is all BS. Why on earth are you talking to complete strangers.

I take it since you're offering advice to the OP you know him/her yourself?

seandeas wrote: »

Also I object to your anti catholic stance and the use of words "dogma" and "indoctrination".

Unfortunately your objection doesn't make the use of the words any less valid.

seandeas wrote: »

If you have such a problem with religion, why don't you send your kid to one of those non religious schools.

One of the 2% of schools in Ireland, despite our tax dollars paying for all schools?

seandeas wrote: »

Actually don't bother answering that - I'm couldn't care less.

kthxbye!

CerebralCortex

seandeas wrote: »

Lost in Kildare, - this thread is all BS. Why on earth are you talking to complete strangers. Talk to the teacher ! She / he is the one on the ground.

The fact that your kid has never been baptised means that they cannot receive any of the sacraments.

Also I object to your anti catholic stance and the use of words "dogma" and "indoctrination". If you have such a problem with religion, why don't you send your kid to one of those non religious schools. Or is it that you want to avail of the wonderful Catholic eduction minus the religion bit ??? you can't have it every way you know.

Actually don't bother answering that - I'm couldn't care less.

Bottom line - stop slagging off religion and go speak to the teacher.

I'm guessing you're not an atheist, agnostic or a protestant then?

Zillah

seandeas wrote: »

Also I object to your anti catholic stance and the use of words "dogma" and "indoctrination".

We'll stop using words like "dogma" and "indoctrination" when your crappy religion stops dogmatically indoctrinating people.

If you have such a problem with religion, why don't you send your kid to one of those non religious schools

Perhaps you are unaware but our stupid government has allowed a situation whereby the Catholic Church operates 99% of the schools in the country. Most non-religious families would love to send their kids to an Educate Together school, they're wonderful, but not only do they have a waiting list five miles long, they are also few and far between, so for most parents actually sending their kids there is completely unfeasible. So we get stuck with a Catholic School whether we like it or not.

Mark Hamill

seandeas wrote: »

Also I object to your anti catholic stance and the use of words "dogma" and "indoctrination". If you have such a problem with religion, why don't you send your kid to one of those non religious schools.

Because a tax paying citizen of Ireland should be able to send their child to any of the state sponsored national schools they want. The school and curriclulum isn't supposed to discriminate based on religion.

seandeas wrote: »

Or is it that you want to avail of the wonderful Catholic eduction minus the religion bit ??? you can't have it every way you know.

The "wonderful catholic education system" has nothing to do with it being catholic (and isn't so wonderful in my opinion either)

seandeas wrote: »

Actually don't bother answering that - I'm couldn't care less.

Troll.

LostinKildare

Wow I wasn't expecting some of the feedback I've gotten. If I may clarify:

* I sent my son to a Catholic school because that is what is here. And it is an excellent school. I do not expect them to change their ethos. They accepted him without a baptismal cert -- thankfully! I know that the Protestant school in town would not have -- knowing that he would not be taking the sacraments in 2nd class and would need to be accommodated. The previous principal advised me to decide how I would prefer him to be accommodated, and having no experience of it myself, I am looking for advice.

* I am not anti-Catholic or anti-religion. When I was growing up I attended public (secular) schools but received a liberal Protestant religious education in church and Sunday School. Which I loved and am grateful for in many ways. The only problem I had with my own religious education is that I did not have the requisite faith, and that caused a lot of internal turmoil during my childhood. So when my little materialist kid says "I don't believe Jesus made a dead man alive again -- is that okay?" then I say "yes that's fine. Some people believe and some people don't." That doesn't make me anti-Catholic.

Splendour wrote: »

Ok, you sent your son to a Catholic school so you can't expect them not to teach Catholic principles. If your child is so adamant he doesn't believe in God then this shouldn't be a problem. Or are you by any chance concerned it will be?

I don't expect them not to teach Catholic principles. And I am not "concerned" that by going to a Catholic school he will become a believer. I am not concerned because if he does then that would be okay, as I have often told him. Knowing him, I don't think that will happen, but I am not concerned about it.

Jakkass wrote: »

Accommodating non-Catholics doesn't mean stopping teaching their ethos.

There should be more alternatives, but at the same time expecting them to change their ethos is a bit absurd.

Again, I don't expect them to change their ethos.

seandeas wrote: »

Also I object to your anti catholic stance and the use of words "dogma" and "indoctrination". If you have such a problem with religion, why don't you send your kid to one of those non religious schools. Or is it that you want to avail of the wonderful Catholic eduction minus the religion bit ??? you can't have it every way you know.

Actually don't bother answering that - I'm couldn't care less.

Bottom line - stop slagging off religion and go speak to the teacher.

Good grief. I am not anti-Catholic and I do not have a problem with religion. I am not slagging off religion. AFAIK "dogma" and "indoctrination" as I've used them do not have negative connotations. "Dogma" is the body of doctrines or tenets specific to a faith; "indoctrination" is instruction in a particular doctrine. I'm not making a judgement with those terms. What other words should be used to refer to the very specific religious teaching that prepares a person for receiving sacraments? Perhaps substituting "doctrine" for "dogma" will cause less offense.

The previous principal of the school made the distinction to me between "general" religious teaching (sharing, taking care of the planet, helping the poor, Bible stories, etc.) that begins in Junior Infants and the "indoctrination" in 2nd class that prepares the kids for the sacraments. As I see it, transubstantiation, for example, is "doctrine," whereas feeding the poor and caring for the sick is not.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

We'll stop using words like "dogma" and "indoctrination" when your crappy religion stops dogmatically indoctrinating people.

Is it indoctrination to teach a child about faith? We have still yet to clarify this.

LostinKildare wrote: »

The previous principal of the school made the distinction to me between "general" religious teaching (sharing, taking care of the planet, helping the poor, Bible stories, etc.) that begins in Junior Infants and the "indoctrination" in 2nd class that prepares the kids for the sacraments. As I see it, transubstantiation, for example, is "doctrine," whereas feeding the poor and caring for the sick is not.

I can't help but find it a bit ironic that you are accusing this school of indoctrination, when you yourself have said the following in your OP:

LostinKildare wrote: »

Need some advice on raising a well adjusted atheist child in Holy Catholic Ireland.

Is teaching a child about atheism or atheist principles any different to teaching a child about faith?

Having said that, I do think that initiation procedures (in Catholicism such as First Communion and Confirmation) should be on an opt-in basis rather than an opt-out basis.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

Is it indoctrination to teach a child about faith? We have still yet to clarify this.

About? No of course not. I think kids should learn all about the major world religions in RE class. Indoctrination is the stuff where the rituals and beliefs of a single religion are integrated into the school life. For example, mass, communion and confirmation.

Basically, in an Irish context, if it is the sort of thing where a non-Catholic child would need to be left out, I'd consider it indoctrination.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

...Is teaching a child about atheism or atheist principles any different to teaching a child about faith?...

Actually Jakk makes a good point. I think raising a child explicitly as an atheist is an exercise in futility and a waste of energy tbh. What's wrong with just raising the child with your values and by making no effort on the religion front the atheism is implicit? How do even raise a child atheist? Do you spend an hour a week preaching to them what's incorrect about theism? Baffled?

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

About? No of course not. I think kids should learn all about the major world religions in RE class. Indoctrination is the stuff where the rituals and beliefs of a single religion are integrated into the school life. For example, mass, communion and confirmation.

Let's say that mass, communion and confirmation were excluded for arguments sake.

If people were taught about Christian morality, Christian ethics, the nature of God, and the act of salvation by Jesus Christ, as a basis to make a decision for themselves at a later date, is that indoctrination?

Zillah wrote: »

Basically, in an Irish context, if it is the sort of thing where a non-Catholic child would need to be left out, I'd consider it indoctrination.

Indoctrination isn't dependant on which group you are in. Either something is being drilled into your skull or it isn't. I can't say I ever experienced anything that could be considered "indoctrination" in either my primary or secondary education at schools with a Christian ethos.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Actually Jakk makes a good point.

That must be a first :pac:

Goduznt Xzst

LostinKildare wrote: »

The previous principal advised me to decide how I would prefer him to be accommodated, and having no experience of it myself, I am looking for advice.

Just ask for your child to be excluded from all religious activities and classes. Don't worry about this possibly ostracizing your child, it won't. My parents, not being Catholic, asked for me to be excluded from all Religion classes and activities. I loved it, while all the other kids where being bored to sleep by the Priest, I was at the back of the room mixing all the different colored playdough into one large greeny-brown mass to mold into slimer from Ghostbusters.

A lot of the kids where actually jealous of me for how much time I got to hang out in the Lego and play corner.

LostinKildare wrote: »

I don't expect them not to teach Catholic principles. And I am not "concerned" that by going to a Catholic school he will become a believer. I am not concerned because if he does then that would be okay, as I have often told him. Knowing him, I don't think that will happen, but I am not concerned about it.

You should expect them not to teach your child Catholic Principles. Afair, Religious doctrine is not interwoven into every subject of primary school (been a while so things may have changed). Your principle should have no issue with excluding your child from Religious teachings and speeches from the Priest, I'm sure many different faiths have requested it before you.

At communion, if you are worried your child will feel excluded, don't. The big thing about communion is the money and toys the kids receive after it (rather than the actual communion itself). My parents got around this by promising me a Gameboy if I got 100% in the weekly spelling exams for a month. When all the other kids had their communion toys, I had my Gameboy.

I can honestly say, in all my years in primary school, the topic of Religion with the other kids never came up once. In fact, even nowadays, it's odd for the topic of Religion to come up with people.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Let's say that mass, communion and confirmation were excluded for arguments sake.

If people were taught about Christian morality, Christian ethics, the nature of God, and the act of salvation by Jesus Christ, as a basis to make a decision for themselves at a later date, is that indoctrination?

Yes but in a school setting how many times would you be allowed to say that to someone before it became "drilled into your skull"? At which point what's the purpose of having a Christian ethos in the first place? Unless you think if all people are thought correctly about Christianity they'll become Christians which brings us back to indoctrination.

Jakkass wrote: »

Indoctrination isn't dependant on which group you are in. Either something is being drilled into your skull or it isn't. I can't say I ever experienced anything that could be considered "indoctrination" in either my primary or secondary education at schools with a Christian ethos.



That must be a first :pac:

It's obvious you weren't educated outside of the Pale.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

Let's say that mass, communion and confirmation were excluded for arguments sake.

If people were taught about Christian morality, Christian ethics, the nature of God, and the act of salvation by Jesus Christ, as a basis to make a decision for themselves at a later date, is that indoctrination?

Indoctrination isn't dependant on which group you are in. Either something is being drilled into your skull or it isn't. I can't say I ever experienced anything that could be considered "indoctrination" in either my primary or secondary education at schools with a Christian ethos.

I think you're missing the key element of my point, which is that no one religion should be given exclusive treatment. Yes, by all means, when doing a class on Christianity teach them all about Christian beliefs; Jesus, salvation, Biblical morality etc. Next week do a class on Buddhism, the Four Noble Truths etc.

I don't think you necessarily need it "drilled into your skull" for something to be indoctrination. The example I have earlier was communion. Here we see children all over the country being guided into a religious ritual as part of their normal day to day life in school. It is presented as though it were simply correct and the done thing, as opposed to one ritual from one religion in a world of thousands of different belief structures. Not to mention that the kids have not a hope in hell of actually understanding what exactly is going on, nor to understand the elaborate context in which these events are taking place. I consider that indoctrination.

Less extreme, but indoctrination none the less, would an RE class where they learned nothing but Christian beliefs and the salvation of Jesus Christ, presenting it as though it were the only, or the only valid, option.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Yes but in a school setting how many times would you be allowed to say that to someone before it became "drilled into your skull"? At which point what's the purpose of having a Christian ethos in the first place? Unless you think if all people are thought correctly about Christianity they'll become Christians which brings us back to indoctrination.

I don't see what has to be so "indoctrinating" about it. What is clear to me is that if a school has a Christian ethos, it has a Christian ethos.

I think the best in terms of primary teaching you can do is explain Biblical ethics concerning how people relate to one another and how we regard and respect one another. Perhaps a reading of parables and a discussion of the themes that are contained within.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

It's obvious you weren't educated outside of the Pale.

I went to three primary schools, and one secondary. All of which were COI ethos. Perhaps Catholicism is taught in a very different manner.

1 of these primary schools was in Laois, the other in Kildare. So not exclusively Dublin.

Zillah wrote: »

I think you're missing the key element of my point, which is that no one religion should be given exclusive treatment. Yes, by all means, when doing a class on Christianity teach them all about Christian beliefs; Jesus, salvation, Biblical morality etc. Next week do a class on Buddhism, the Four Noble Truths etc.

We are discussing faith schools here, and how they teach their ethos. Perhaps another section of class could be used to discuss world religions, but I think it's entirely unfair to force schools to dismiss faith based teaching. If one wants that one should seek for secular alternatives instead.

Zillah wrote: »

I don't think you necessarily need it "drilled into your skull" for something to be indoctrination. The example I have earlier was communion. Here we see children all over the country being guided into a religious ritual as part of their normal day to day life in school. It is presented as though it were simply correct and the done thing, as opposed to one ritual from one religion in a world of thousands of different belief structures. Not to mention that the kids have not a hope in hell of actually understanding what exactly is going on, nor to understand the elaborate context in which these events are taking place. I consider that indoctrination.

Right lets deal with that then. I personally think that any education on Christianity should be less ritual orientated, and more Biblically oriented towards what the faith actually says rather than how it is implemented.

If it is the ritual part that is bothering you, that can be easily dealt with.

It is taught from a perspective, that we believe this. However, I don't think questioning was ever discouraged when I was in school.

So are you saying, it is more how it is taught that is indoctrination rather than the principle of it being taught.

In faith schools, it is obvious that one of their purposes is to pass on faith to another generation. However, there is no reason why this cannot be taught without questioning or open discussion.

Zillah wrote: »

Less extreme, but indoctrination none the less, would an RE class where they learned nothing but Christian beliefs and the salvation of Jesus Christ, presenting it as though it were the only, or the only valid, option.

The definition of indoctrination seems to be based on the principle of it being unquestioned. If it allows questioning, and discussion, I certainly cannot see it as indoctrination in any sense.

pts

In my mind it is how it is taught that is important. If the approach is "there once lived a man called Jesus. He was the son of God and died for our sins" I think that is indoctrination. Because it is taught like any other fact in the classroom.

However I don't have a problem with an approach more like "There is a religious belief call Christianity. They believe that there once lived a man called Jesus. They also believe that he was the son of God and died for our sins. No one knows if this is the case or not, but many people have strong opinions on it. Next week we will be talking about Buddhism...."

EDIT: Super Trouper Björn Ulvaeus weighs in: "Religion and schools don't mix".

gaynorvader

pts wrote: »

In my mind it is how it is taught that is important. If the approach is "there once lived a man called Jesus. He was the son of God and died for out sins" I think that is indoctrination. Because it is taught like any other fact in the classroom.

However I don't have a problem with an approach more like "There is a religious belief call Christianity. They believe that there once lived a man called Jesus. They also believe that he was the son of God and died for out sins. No one knows if this is the case or not, but many people have strong opinions on it. Next week we will be talking about Buddhism...."

Agreed; it entirely depends on how the religion is being presented to the child. When I was in RE I was frequently told to put my head down if I was being too argumentative (this was in secondary school) with the teacher. Also the teacher had a habit of beating us over the head with complicated arguments (to us at the time anyway) such as "define belief", etc. It's not fair for an adult to debate against a child as the child doesn't have the knowledge to defend itself.

LostinKildare

Jakkass wrote: »

I can't help but find it a bit ironic that you are accusing this school of indoctrination, when you yourself have said the following in your OP:

Need some advice on raising a well adjusted atheist child in Holy Catholic Ireland.

Is teaching a child about atheism or atheist principles any different to teaching a child about faith?

I am not accusing them of indoctrination. As I have said, I use "indoctrination" neutrally. (It is helpful to know that people view "indoctrination" and "dogma" as particularly negative terms, though -- I won't go swinging them around so thoughtlessly when I'm talking to the teacher)

I don't think that I am teaching him about atheism or atheist principles. To me, atheism is a state of being, not a doctrine. I am not trying to mold him into a "well adjusted atheist child." He is an atheist child, at this point in time anyway, simply because he doesn't believe in God, and having had that same experience -- of religious teaching but no faith -- I am trying to ensure that he remains well adjusted in a situation where he may feel marginalised.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Actually Jakk makes a good point. I think raising a child explicitly as an atheist is an exercise in futility and a waste of energy tbh. What's wrong with just raising the child with your values and by making no effort on the religion front the atheism is implicit? How do even raise a child atheist? Do you spend an hour a week preaching to them what's incorrect about theism? Baffled?

Yes, I agree. I'm not sure how one would raise a child explicitly as an atheist. So far I have raised mine in much the same way most of the Irish lapsed Catholics I know have: Catholic school, Christmas plays, basic Western Christian moral values (for lack of a better term), and never going to mass except for special social occasions. The only differences I can see are that he was not baptised as a matter of course, and that he knows that his parents don't believe in God and have assured him that it's okay if he doesn't too. I guess that is how you raise an atheist.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

We are discussing faith schools here

Oh right yeah. Silly me thinking we were going to only have a minor disagreement.

What I am saying is that the notion of a "faith school" is an oxymoron. The purpose of a school is to educate. I'm saying that I fundamentally reject the notion that religion should be involved in schooling in any way beyond it being another subject to learn about.

In faith schools, it is obvious that one of their purposes is to pass on faith to another generation.

Hence the problem. You're turning a school (aka, "place of education") into an indoctrination centre. If a parent wants to bring their child up in a religion that should be done at home or in a church. School is for learning facts, not made up stuff that soothes existential angst.

The definition of indoctrination seems to be based on the principle of it being unquestioned. If it allows questioning, and discussion, I certainly cannot see it as indoctrination in any sense.

I have little doubt you mean token questioning that in the end hopes to result in a successfully indoctrinated child, ready to do God's work. Devious, manipulative indoctrination is indoctrination none the less.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

What I am saying is that the notion of a "faith school" is an oxymoron. The purpose of a school is to educate. I'm saying that I fundamentally reject the notion that religion should be involved in schooling in any way beyond it being another subject to learn about.

I don't think you have the right to dictate to other people how best they should educate their children, in the same way I don't feel that people of faith should dictate to you how best you should educate your children.

That's my problem with your argument. If your argumentation was simply, "I don't want my child to be raised in a Christian ethos school". I would acknowledge that much and think that more should be done to provide alternatives. However when the argument becomes, "I don't want any child to be raised in a Christian ethos school" that's where the issues come in.

Zillah wrote: »

Hence the problem. You're turning a school (aka, "place of education") into an indoctrination centre. If a parent wants to bring their child up in a religion that should be done at home or in a church. School is for learning facts, not made up stuff that soothes existential angst.

I haven't turned anything into anything. The paragraph above sums up my position nicely.

Zillah wrote: »

I have little doubt you mean token questioning that in the end hopes to result in a successfully indoctrinated child, ready to do God's work. Devious, manipulative indoctrination is indoctrination none the less.

Hm. I think even if the outcome was to become a Christian it's still taught in a way that isn't indoctrination. Questioning should always be a possibility in any form of education.

I became Christian after years of questioning. It's laughable given my personal experience that most believers accept Christ as a child. The focus of atheist argumentation on faith based education is just ridiculous and absurd. It's just not reality.

As for the rest of it, it's merely sensationalist language with no substance. There is absolutely nothing devious, or manipulative about teaching a child about religion and faith.

gaynorvader

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think you have the right to dictate to other people how best they should educate their children, in the same way I don't feel that people of faith should dictate to you how best you should educate your children.

That's my problem with your argument. If your argumentation was simply, "I don't want my child to be raised in a Christian ethos school". I would acknowledge that much and think that more should be done to provide alternatives. However when the argument becomes, "I don't want any child to be raised in a Christian ethos school" that's where the issues come in.

I agree with Zillah in this case; Christian parents should of course be allowed to subject their children to learning that a particular faith is true, but it should be kept out of schools (teaching children about a lot of different faiths as theories in schools is fine however IMO). Teaching children that any faith is fact should be restricted to Sunday School.

Jakkass wrote:

I haven't turned anything into anything. The paragraph above sums up my position nicely.

Hm. I think even if the outcome was to become a Christian it's still taught in a way that isn't indoctrination. Questioning should always be a possibility in any form of education.

As long as the teacher is fair in their answers. If the teacher tries to convince a child that any one religion is right, most kids are going to take what the authority figure says as fact. I remember being amazed the first time I discovered teachers could be wrong.

Jakkass wrote:

I became Christian after years of questioning. It's laughable given my personal experience that most believers accept Christ as a child. The focus of atheist argumentation on faith based education is just ridiculous and absurd. It's just not reality.

As for the rest of it, it's merely sensationalist language with no substance. There is absolutely nothing devious, or manipulative about teaching a child about religion and faith.

I agree that there is nothing devious about teaching a child about faith as long as it is not presented as fact!

Dades

Zillah wrote: »

Hence the problem. You're turning a school (aka, "place of education") into an indoctrination centre. If a parent wants to bring their child up in a religion that should be done at home or in a church. School is for learning facts, not made up stuff that soothes existential angst.

Unfortunately Jakkass (or anyone advocating faith in schools) isn't turning anything into anything it isn't already.

The stark reality is we are trying to turn indoctrination centres into schools.

philologos

gaynorvader wrote: »

I agree with Zillah in this case; Christian parents should of course be allowed to subject their children to learning that a particular faith is true, but it should be kept out of schools (teaching children about a lot of different faiths as theories in schools is fine however IMO). Teaching children that any faith is fact should be restricted to Sunday School.

Faith schools exist in practically every single country in the world. I don't see any issue for parents who wish their children to be taught about Christianity in school to have that opportunity. Likewise people who do not wish to attend a school with a religious ethos should also have that opportunity.

I don't think this is reasonable and I don't think atheists should be dictating how the majority wish to educate their children. In a pluralism we have to learn how to work together as best as possible, that involves compromise.

gaynorvader wrote: »

As long as the teacher is fair in their answers. If the teacher tries to convince a child that any one religion is right, most kids are going to take what the authority figure says as fact. I remember being amazed the first time I discovered teachers could be wrong.

People who teach any subject can be wrong. I've found this to be especially true in philosophy or politics at university. I remember cringing at the bias from the lecturer when discussing Blair's Third Way or Neoliberalism. We live in a marketplace of ideas and if parents want their children to be educated with a religious ethos that is their choice. Likewise I have the choice to disagree with my lecturer on Blair's Third Way or Neoliberalism.

gaynorvader

Jakkass wrote: »

Faith schools exist in practically every single country in the world. I don't see any issue for parents who wish their children to be taught about Christianity in school to have that opportunity. Likewise people who do not wish to attend a school with a religious ethos should also have that opportunity.

I don't think this is reasonable and I don't think atheists should be dictating how the majority wish to educate their children. In a pluralism we have to learn how to work together as best as possible, that involves compromise.

"Everyone else is doing it!" Is not an argument for something to be done. It is only my opinion, I'll admit, but I don't think that religion should be taught as fact in schools. Having weekend school or summer school for religious learning is fine, even healthy in my opinion, but schools should deal solely in facts as much as possible. Teaching children about the different beliefs out there is a good thing, but teaching them that one of them is right and the others are wrong is not. Schools should be for everyone, not just one social group.

Jakkass wrote:

People who teach any subject can be wrong. I've found this to be especially true in philosophy or politics at university. I remember cringing at the bias from the lecturer when discussing Blair's Third Way or Neoliberalism. We live in a marketplace of ideas and if parents want their children to be educated with a religious ethos that is their choice. Likewise I have the choice to disagree with my lecturer on Blair's Third Way or Neoliberalism.

Yes, but my point was that children are not mature enough in their own views to have confidence in them, they take a lot of what they are told on the faith that "grown-ups don't lie" for a lot of their early years.

philologos

gaynorvader wrote: »

"Everyone else is doing it!" Is not an argument for something to be done. It is only my opinion, I'll admit, but I don't think that religion should be taught as fact in schools. Having weekend school or summer school for religious learning is fine, even healthy in my opinion, but schools should deal solely in facts as much as possible. Teaching children about the different beliefs out there is a good thing, but teaching them that one of them is right and the others are wrong is not. Schools should be for everyone, not just one social group.

I'm in opposition to forcing all people to go to secular schools if their parents wish to educate them with a religious ethos.

It's one thing wanting alternatives, it's another thing to force everyone to do the same as you want to do for your children.

That's where the line is for me. I'm quite happy to allow for secular education for those who wish it, I'm not happy at all to deprive those who want a faith based education for their children.

Personally I don't think people of faith should be constrained by the whims and opinions of atheists.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Yes, but my point was that children are not mature enough in their own views to have confidence in them, they take a lot of what they are told on the faith that "grown-ups don't lie" for a lot of their early years.

I think it is ultimately down to manner. I think teaching people about Biblical ethics, and about Jesus Christ is perhaps the most useful things that people can give a child in Christian based education. It allows them, having learned these things to either recall what they have learned at a later stage think about it critically and come to faith, or to reject it altogether but still remember the moral basis of it.

gaynorvader

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm in opposition to forcing all people to go to secular schools if their parents wish to educate them with a religious ethos.

It's one thing wanting alternatives, it's another thing to force everyone to do the same as you want to do for your children.

That's where the line is for me. I'm quite happy to allow for secular education for those who wish it, I'm not happy at all to deprive those who want a faith based education for their children.

Personally I don't think people of faith should be constrained by the whims and opinions of atheists.

First of all, I'm not an Atheist, I'm Agnostic! :P
Secondly, teaching children that God might exist is neutral. It's neither pandering to the Atheist view point nor the Theistic view point. It's impractical to have specialist public schools for every faith and creed. So having an unbiased approach to education is important.

As I have said; there is nothing stopping a religious parent giving their child instruction in their chosen religion if they so wish it, but it shouldn't be given by default to every child that is being educated.

Jakkass wrote:

I think it is ultimately down to manner. I think teaching people about Biblical ethics, and about Jesus Christ is perhaps the most useful things that people can give a child in Christian based education. It allows them, having learned these things to either recall what they have learned at a later stage think about it critically and come to faith, or to reject it altogether but still remember the moral basis of it.

I agree again, teaching children about Christian beliefs is a great thing. As long as you teach them the alternatives (within reason). Also it's important to separate religious beliefs from facts, teaching beliefs as facts is a job for the church or the parents.

pts

gaynorvader wrote: »

I agree again, teaching children about Christian beliefs is a great thing. As long as you teach them the alternatives (within reason). Also it's important to separate religious beliefs from facts, teaching beliefs as facts is a job for the church or the parents.

Amen to that!

Out of curiosity, Jakkass why do you think that religion should be taught in school? Why not teach it at home instead.

philologos

gaynorvader wrote: »

First of all, I'm not an Atheist, I'm Agnostic! :P
Secondly, teaching children that God might exist is neutral. It's neither pandering to the Atheist view point nor the Theistic view point. It's impractical to have specialist public schools for every faith and creed. So having an unbiased approach to education is important.

Faith schools aren't intended to be neutral. They are intended for parents who wish to have their children learn with a particular religious ethos for their own spiritual development. I think it is the decision of the parent and the parent only to decide which type of school they feel would be most beneficial to their child.

I think if people want to educate their children in secular schools, that should be an option, but if people want to educate their children in faith schools that is their prerogative.

gaynorvader wrote: »

As I have said; there is nothing stopping a religious parent giving their child instruction in their chosen religion if they so wish it, but it shouldn't be given by default to every child that is being educated.

I have clearly said that there should be alternatives.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I agree again, teaching children about Christian beliefs is a great thing. As long as you teach them the alternatives (within reason). Also it's important to separate religious beliefs from facts, teaching beliefs as facts is a job for the church or the parents.

Indeed, it's the responsibility of the parents to decide what type of education is better for their child. That's exactly why I think faith schools should be available.

gaynorvader

Jakkass wrote: »

Faith schools aren't intended to be neutral. They are intended for parents who wish to have their children learn with a particular religious ethos for their own spiritual development. I think it is the decision of the parent and the parent only to decide which type of school they feel would be most beneficial to their child.

I think if people want to educate their children in secular schools, that should be an option, but if people want to educate their children in faith schools that is their prerogative.

I have clearly said that there should be alternatives.

Indeed, it's the responsibility of the parents to decide what type of education is better for their child. That's exactly why I think faith schools should be available.

Faith schools are fine...as long as they're privately funded. It's the publicly funded faith schools I have a problem with, which is what is prevalent in thins country.

philologos

pts wrote: »

Amen to that!

Out of curiosity, Jakkass why do you think that religion should be taught in school? Why not teach it at home instead.

I believe that parents should have the choice to send their children to a school where they will be educated with Christian values.

I personally think I could educate my children about Christianity, and about the person of Jesus Christ without bringing them to a faith school.

However, I think a school that encourages students to develop spiritually as well as in learning is nothing but positive. It's quite similar to why someone would send their children to a school with good sports facilities or a school that is good at teaching music so that they can develop as a sportsperson or develop musically.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Faith schools are fine...as long as they're privately funded. It's the publicly funded faith schools I have a problem with, which is what is prevalent in thins country.

I disagree here too. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and so on pay taxes as well. I think we should provide both faith based and secular education without penalising based on what demand there is for it.

pts

Fair enough, I don't agree with you but that does answer something I was curious about.

If I may delve slightly deeper on the subject and hopefully you haven't answered this before and I just missed it. What are Christian values that you would expect school to teach children?

gaynorvader

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree here too. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and so on pay taxes as well. I think we should provide both faith based and secular education without penalising based on what demand there is for it.

A nice idea, but realistically it's impossible to achieve. Unless you were to move people of certain beliefs beside each other so that there were Jewish towns, christian towns, etc. it'd be a logistical nightmare. That's why I think it's best to avoid asserting religious beliefs in a state-funded school; it doesn't show favouritism to any one belief.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see what has to be so "indoctrinating" about it. What is clear to me is that if a school has a Christian ethos, it has a Christian ethos.

I think the best in terms of primary teaching you can do is explain Biblical ethics concerning how people relate to one another and how we regard and respect one another. Perhaps a reading of parables and a discussion of the themes that are contained within.

Hmmm. You don't think that would look a little like indoctrination to the non religious? I mean parables from the bible sounds a little bit like the indoctrination I was subjected to as a child. How do you sperate the two?

Jakkass wrote: »

I went to three primary schools, and one secondary. All of which were COI ethos. Perhaps Catholicism is taught in a very different manner.

1 of these primary schools was in Laois, the other in Kildare. So not exclusively Dublin....

Still east of the Shannon and you're luckier for it man.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Hmmm. You don't think that would look a little like indoctrination to the non religious? I mean parables from the bible sounds a little bit like the indoctrination I was subjected to as a child. How do you sperate the two?

You might want to review the word:
teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically

If there is adequate discussion concerning the verses, it really doesn't come under indoctrination.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Still east of the Shannon and you're luckier for it man.

I'd be intrigued as to why.