Religion in junior infants

HIB

galljga1 wrote: »

I find it so preposterous that adults believe in what are essentially man made religions, that I cannot help but call it out for what it is. Having deeply held religious beliefs does not make it true. Religion should have no place in education. I was called into school to explain why my daughter was explaining to kids in her class that there was no God, that we were decendant from apes. The principal was amazed that I had the cheek to have the point of view that my daughters beliefs were far more important than those derived from some ancient book. She was 8 at the time (my daughter, not the principal) and I had rarely mentioned religion to her at that stage, in either a positive or negative light.

I don't know any evangelical fundametal Christians, so I don't actually know anybody who doesn't believe in evolution. Fortunately, we live in Ireland, not Alabama. So, I seriously doubt that the principal had any problem with your daughter talking about evolution. Also, I'm pretty sure that Catholicism actually endorses evolution, big bang theories etc. Again, Catholics are not fundamental Christians. They don't believe every bible story in the literal sense.

Is it not possible that the principal, in this case, was simply trying to avoid arguments and confrontation with other parents, whose little Johnny/Jill would come home saying, Mary Murphy said god isn't real. In much the same way that he would stop a kid saying Santa isn't real, to avoid problems with other parents, he told your daughter to pick another topic of conversation. Is that not entirely reasonable?

galljga1

HIB wrote: »

I don't know any evangelical fundametal Christians, so I don't actually know anybody who doesn't believe in evolution. Fortunately, we live in Ireland, not Alabama. So, I seriously doubt that the principal had any problem with your daughter talking about evolution. Also, I'm pretty sure that Catholicism actually endorses evolution, big bang theories etc. Again, Catholics are not fundamental Christians. They don't believe every bible story in the literal sense.

Is it not possible that the principal, in this case, was simply trying to avoid arguments and confrontation with other parents, whose little Johnny/Jill would come home saying, Mary Murphy said god isn't real. In much the same way that he would stop a kid saying Santa isn't real, to avoid problems with other parents, he told your daughter to pick another topic of conversation. Is that not entirely reasonable?

I would probably agree on the principal believing in evolution but she has serious issues with catholicism being the one true religion to the extent that she instructed the confirmation teacher to stop talking about other religions as they do not matter.
During my discussion with her, she was pretty adamant that my daughter cease and desist, not because of other kids or their parents but because it was offensive to the church. I explained politely to her that it was not up to her or me but that it was up to my daughter to develop her own beliefs in her own way. I told her to feel free to escalate as she saw fit and heard nothing of it since.

frostyjacks

galljga1 wrote: »

I agree with the above high lighted text. You do not need any religion for that to happen. With regard to marriage, would you extend that belief to our gay brethren?

I'd be astonished if children that age identified themselves as homosexual.

Wanderer78

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'd be astonished if children that age identified themselves as homosexual.

worth a watch if you can get your hands on it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05qkzt2

even though not exactly what your on about, still eye opening

Orion

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'd be astonished if children that age identified themselves as homosexual.

Prepare to be astonished so.

Gilbert Herdt, PhD, Executive Director of the National Centers on Sexuality at San Francisco State University wrote:

Accumulating studies from the United States over the past decade suggest that the development of sexual attraction may commence in middle childhood and achieve individual subjective recognition sometime around the age of 10. As these studies have shown, first same-sex attraction for males and females typically occurs at the mean age of 9.6 for boys and between the ages of 10 and 10.5 for girls.

David Satcher, MD, PhD, former US Surgeon General wrote:

Sexual orientation is usually determined by adolescence

I know children who were aware of their sexuality before they left primary school.

One eyed Jack

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'd be astonished if children that age identified themselves as homosexual.

I wouldn't be astonished myself tbh, children nowadays seem to associate homosexuality with the more abstract social elements (camp, effeminate behaviour), more like a lifestyle choice than a sexual orientation (ironic, isn't it?). Whether this is due to cultural influences or not beats the hell outta me, but I'd to laugh the other day when my own ten year old was checking his books out of the library and they included such titles as "The secrets of the book of Kells" and "Gay people that changed the world"...

I think he's trying to tell me something :pac:

Wanderer78

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think he's trying to tell me something :pac:

confession, quickly!

meeeeh

Wanderer78 wrote: »

im taking a liking to your daughter. i think she will grow up to be a strong minded woman with great views and opinions about the world. shes a great tribute to her parents. best of luck to you and your family.

I wonder what she thought of Santa or Tooth fairy at that age. Children at that age believe what they hear from adults, mostly parents. It's has f all to do with independent thinking.

That being said I would be livid if headmaster called me into school for that.

Btw my son is told that everyone believes what they want about God. He is told that I don't believe there is one, that I don't know what his father believes in and that his grandparents believe there is a god. And I he is told he can believe whatever ge wants. I want to raise children who are confident and and able to choose for themselves and know that doesn't make them better or worse than any other kids. Frankly I couldn't care less weather people around me are religious or not as long they don't infringe on beliefs of others. And that is also the reason I don't like religion in schools, any religion, unless it's part of social studies later on.

Gerry T

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't like religion in schools but I still prefer to send my kids to one denominational school than to some multi mumbo jumbo. And I suspect I am not the only one because places are easily got in my local ET. Why multi denominational programmes anyway, so that unions are placated and no religion teachers lose their jobs?

In my opinion religion should be taught outside school. Going from one to multi denominational schools is complete lunacy.

My kids started secondary and the religion thought covers all religions, comparing that to what they went through in primary I think its great. They are learning about other cultures, beliefs all through religion and I think its a great idea. I stand to be corrected but I think this is how the majority of secondary schools are. If primary schools did this I think it would be a good idea.
There is no getting away from religion, the majority of people align themselves with one or the other. A quick wiki search (take with salt) shows in the world
2.2billion are Christian,
1.6b Islam,
1.1 Hinduism,
1b Chinese traditional,
Buddhism 488m
and about 22 other small religions !! only about 16% of the world would say they are non-religious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

I believe in primary schools it is good to teach children about all religions, even the history of religion would be great I really don't see it a mumbo jumbo.

Its hard to grow up in Ireland without being thought a belief system, religion in itself is not the issue, for me it's the mechanics of the church that needs reforming. That's why I have a big problem with the church having such control over our primary schools.

Orion

Gerry T wrote: »

I believe in primary schools it is good to teach children about all religions, even the history of religion would be great I really don't see it a mumbo jumbo.

Its hard to grow up in Ireland without being thought a belief system,

I agree with teaching kids about world religions - it's a part of our society for better or worse. Ignorance just leads to hatred.

It's not that hard to grow up in Ireland without a belief system. I did as did many other people.

meeeeh

@GerryT
Oh I agree it's absolutely ridiculous that church has control over it but this is a model that makes life easy for politicians. Farm out schools to religious or other interest groups, the same for hospitals and charity sector which provides some essential services. The system change is needed there and it's way beyond teaching religion in schools.

I can't say I find teaching religion outside of practical things like holidays or way of living necessary, how to behave and so on. It should stay in private sphere.

ectoraige

Cabaal wrote: »

But ET can't opt for non-religon.
A school must be a specific faith or it must be multi faith as required by department of education. A school can not have no faith, its a crazy system.

As ET are multi faith that means that for example during Ramadan they might explain Ramadan to kids as part of some of the class time, but during periods for other faiths for example Christmas they might explain the birth of Jesus and so on.

The ET model is still better then Catholic ethos because atleast it covers a number of faiths instead of claiming that one religion/god is the one true faith and all others are wrong or deluded.

Actually, you're completely wrong, a school can have no faith, but they must have an "ethos". The school patron defines what the ethos is, in the case of the church-run schools it's based around that faith, in Educate Together's case their were based around four principles - Multi-denominational, democratically run, child-centered, and co-educational.

ET actually voted at it's recent AGM to replace the Multi-denominational concept with "equality-based", which will have little effect on practical terms, but might help people understand their approach a bit better.

There's nothing to prevent a school from being established with an ethos based on, say environmental sustainability. However, every state-funded school must teach the required curriculum as laid down by the Department of Education. This includes Religion which requires children to learn *about* religions and morality. However, it does *not* require brainwashing of children, and the ET religion syllabus doesn't do that. The church schools do however, and the brain-washing is insidious.

For example. if there is a tragic event being discussed in the class, or some child's family member is ill, it is common for the teacher to take a moment to have a little prayer for those concerned. Obviously it varies from teacher to teacher, but if a teacher doesn't do this, they could face disciplinary action for not upholding the school ethos - grounds for dismissal.

My children are in a catholic-run school, but opt out of religion. However, they still know the prayers just from hearing them been said. They are given other "activities" during "religion" time. My son was in first class last year so loads of time was spent on communion preperation. He would often do drawing instead, and a number of times the paper he was given to draw on was the back of the page of the religous hand-outs. There's no escaping it.

The thing to note though is your child will not be the only one. Almost a third of my sons class didn't do their communion last year. When we told other people that our son wasn't doing it, some of them responded "Oh, I didn't know you could do that". They accept the indoctrination, mostly I guess due to the success of their own indoctrination.

Finally, "non-practicing Catholic"? Just make up your mind, it'll make life easier for the rest of us. /end rant.

meeeeh

Why do state schools have to have ethos? Private school fine, but what would state finance ethos?

Gerry T

HIB wrote: »

I don't know any evangelical fundametal Christians, so I don't actually know anybody who doesn't believe in evolution. Fortunately, we live in Ireland, not Alabama. So, I seriously doubt that the principal had any problem with your daughter talking about evolution. Also, I'm pretty sure that Catholicism actually endorses evolution, big bang theories etc. Again, Catholics are not fundamental Christians. They don't believe every bible story in the literal sense.

Is it not possible that the principal, in this case, was simply trying to avoid arguments and confrontation with other parents, whose little Johnny/Jill would come home saying, Mary Murphy said god isn't real. In much the same way that he would stop a kid saying Santa isn't real, to avoid problems with other parents, he told your daughter to pick another topic of conversation. Is that not entirely reasonable?

I thought all Roman Catholics believed in the bible. God made the earth and all things in 7 days, about 10,000 years ago. Just because modern science has a different opinion should the church change its view point and say actually it was some big-bang and evolution. Does that not make a mockery of the whole thing. A bit like getting rid of purgatory, that's gone now. Also priests used to marry, sure the popes position used to be handed down from father to son. So do we now add the 7 day universe 10,000 years ago is also no longer true. Does that mean in 40 yr's the church will say contraception is fine and gays can marry in the church. It's all a little confusing, sort of made up as they go along.
I though the first lesson Jesus gave to his disciples was to first lay down there worldly possessions and follow him, now that included abandoning their wives and children, back then probably to a life of misery and starvation. But the message was clear, to follow god you give up possessions, so why is the Vatican one of the wealthiest countries in the world ?
For me this is not an organisation/business/multinational company that should have a say in what children are thought, just my thought.

galljga1

meeeeh wrote: »

I wonder what she thought of Santa or Tooth fairy at that age. Children at that age believe what they hear from adults, mostly parents. It's has f all to do with independent thinking.

That being said I would be livid if headmaster called me into school for that.

Btw my son is told that everyone believes what they want about God. He is told that I don't believe there is one, that I don't know what his father believes in and that his grandparents believe there is a god. And I he is told he can believe whatever ge wants. I want to raise children who are confident and and able to choose for themselves and know that doesn't make them better or worse than any other kids. Frankly I couldn't care less weather people around me are religious or not as long they don't infringe on beliefs of others. And that is also the reason I don't like religion in schools, any religion, unless it's part of social studies later on.

The tooth fairy did not last long. Santa lasted until last year or in reality, probably the year before. Both of these are tangible as you can see that they leave presents or money. God took her mammy when she was six. That introduced a whole new thought process that most kids that age do not go through.
Her most recent gem was that the story of creation/Adam and Eve in the bible is nonsense and most christians do not believe it therefore original sin the fall of man cannot have happened, therefore there was no need to send Jesus to save us all, therefore it is all made up.

One eyed Jack

ectoraige wrote: »

ET actually voted at it's recent AGM to replace the Multi-denominational concept with "equality-based", which will have little effect on practical terms, but might help people understand their approach a bit better.

Or it might have people question what you mean by "equality-based" given that they already understand what multi and non-denominational mean.

However, it does *not* require brainwashing of children, and the ET religion syllabus doesn't do that. The church schools do however, and the brain-washing is insidious.

Are you honestly suggesting that parents sending their children to religious ethos schools are complicit in child torture and cruelty? It's that sort of hyperbolic stupidity that puts the skids on any attempt to have your argument taken seriously. I think many parents would strongly object to that attempted characterisation.

For example. if there is a tragic event being discussed in the class, or some child's family member is ill, it is common for the teacher to take a moment to have a little prayer for those concerned. Obviously it varies from teacher to teacher, but if a teacher doesn't do this, they could face disciplinary action for not upholding the school ethos - grounds for dismissal.

Unadulterated nonsense at this point.

Finally, "non-practicing Catholic"? Just make up your mind, it'll make life easier for the rest of us. /end rant.

Who's interests do you honestly think people care more about - theirs, or anyone else's?

galljga1

Gerry T wrote: »

I thought all Roman Catholics believed in the bible. God made the earth and all things in 7 days, about 10,000 years ago. Just because modern science has a different opinion should the church change its view point and say actually it was some big-bang and evolution. Does that not make a mockery of the whole thing. A bit like getting rid of purgatory, that's gone now. Also priests used to marry, sure the popes position used to be handed down from father to son. So do we now add the 7 day universe 10,000 years ago is also no longer true. Does that mean in 40 yr's the church will say contraception is fine and gays can marry in the church. It's all a little confusing, sort of made up as they go along.
I though the first lesson Jesus gave to his disciples was to first lay down there worldly possessions and follow him, now that included abandoning their wives and children, back then probably to a life of misery and starvation. But the message was clear, to follow god you give up possessions, so why is the Vatican one of the wealthiest countries in the world ?
For me this is not an organisation/business/multinational company that should have a say in what children are thought, just my thought.

Yes Gerry, this sums up a lot of how I feel, make it up as you go along.
Re contraception, gays marrying in church, it will take a lot more than 40 years, if ever.
I thought purgatory was brought back by ratzinger. I think limbo may still be gone. It was never a pretty sight watching men in robes trying to get under the bar in st peters on a Friday night.

meeeeh

galljga1 wrote: »

The tooth fairy did not last long. Santa lasted until last year or in reality, probably the year before. Both of these are tangible as you can see that they leave presents or money. God took her mammy when she was six. That introduced a whole new thought process that most kids that age do not go through.
Her most recent gem was that the story of creation/Adam and Eve in the bible is nonsense and most christians do not believe it therefore original sin the fall of man cannot have happened, therefore there was no need to send Jesus to save us all, therefore it is all made up.

My reply wasn't meant as a criticism of your daughter or you. It was simply replying to other poster who was able to deduct the whole future for your daughter (or any other child) on the basis that she had broadly same opinion as them at eight. It could be any other child, I just found the post I was replying to a bit silly.

galljga1

meeeeh wrote: »

My reply wasn't meant as a criticism of your daughter or you. It was simply replying to other poster who was able to deduct the whole future for your daughter (or any other child) on the basis that she had broadly same opinion as them at eight.

No worries, I did not take it as criticism. We are all the sum of our experiences. Some just question things more and earlier than others which puts them on different paths. All should have a right to question what to them logic dictates is untrue. They should also have a right to express their disbelief in something if to them, it simply makes no sense.

harr

harr wrote: »

this book teaches him is that God makes the clouds,grass,animals,trees and everything else,which to be honest is not my way of thinking....

You don't have to be an arch creationist to go along with that, albeit indirectly.

Theoretical physics does not explain where the nothingless before the big bang came from.

galljga1

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't have to be an arch creationist to go along with that, albeit indirectly.

Theoretical physics does not explain where the nothingless before the big bang came from.

Quite true. It does not prove or disprove the existence of a superior being or beings. Personally, I have no idea what came before the nothingness or what will come after we die but I do have issues with a super wealthy judeo roman cult teaching our children that an ancient book is the true and inspired word of god.

Gerry T

galljga1 wrote: »

Yes Gerry, this sums up a lot of how I feel, make it up as you go along.
Re contraception, gays marrying in church, it will take a lot more than 40 years, if ever.
I thought purgatory was brought back by ratzinger. I think limbo may still be gone. It was never a pretty sight watching men in robes trying to get under the bar in st peters on a Friday night.

Final rant at the church (not religion)
The one thing that really made me question the church was how we were told people that committed suicide couldn't get buried on consecrated ground as this was a mortal sin and as such could not enter heaven. Now that is one twisted f*ck of a position to take and made up by some sadistic person. I knew of one family in the '70's that had a son commit suicide and they were tortured by this belief.

A bit of topic and honestly I feel this thread is starting to go around in circles, just different people with different opinions. So I may bow out now.

Orion

Gerry T wrote: »

Final rant at the church (not religion)
The one thing that really made me question the church was how we were told people that committed suicide couldn't get buried on consecrated ground as this was a mortal sin and as such could not enter heaven. Now that is one twisted f*ck of a position to take and made up by some sadistic person. I knew of one family in the '70's that had a son commit suicide and they were tortured by this belief.

A bit of topic and honestly I feel this thread is starting to go around in circles, just different people with different opinions. So I may bow out now.

Completely OT I know but worth saying. It is recommended not to use the phrase "commit suicide". It implies it's a crime - principally because of the above. The media are starting to cotton on to this too. "Died by suicide" or "took his own life" are preferred to lessen the stigma of it.
http://www.suicide.org/stop-saying-committed-suicide.html

zeffabelli

Orion wrote: »

Completely OT I know but worth saying. It is recommended not to use the phrase "commit suicide". It implies it's a crime - principally because of the above. The media are starting to cotton on to this too. "Died by suicide" or "took his own life" are preferred to lessen the stigma of it.
http://www.suicide.org/stop-saying-committed-suicide.html

It is a crime isnt it?

It's just not one that gets you punished...but in effect no one has the right to do it...there will be all sorts of interventions....

Also I dont agree that the word commit, implies criminality. WE commit in relationships, we commit people to institutions.... we commit to projects.

Orion

zeffabelli wrote: »

It is a crime isnt it?

It's just not one that gets you punished...but in effect no one has the right to do it...there will be all sorts of interventions....

Also I dont agree that the word commit, implies criminality. WE commit in relationships, we commit people to institutions.... we commit to projects.

No it's not. Not since it was decriminalised in 1993.
Anyway it's completely off topic (my bad) so if people do want to continue this aspect then I can spawn a new thread with the relevant posts - starting with mine.

Suicide assistance organisations have requested people stop using the phrase - that's good enough for me.

Gerry T

zeffabelli wrote: »

It is a crime isnt it?

It's just not one that gets you punished...but in effect no one has the right to do it...there will be all sorts of interventions....

Also I dont agree that the word commit, implies criminality. WE commit in relationships, we commit people to institutions.... we commit to projects.

No I think it was removed in the early '90's.

ectoraige

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Are you honestly suggesting that parents sending their children to religious ethos schools are complicit in child torture and cruelty? It's that sort of hyperbolic stupidity that puts the skids on any attempt to have your argument taken seriously. I think many parents would strongly object to that attempted characterisation.

Religious instruction is convincing people to hold a belief without any basis in fact. This to me is brainwashing. You went a step further and called this child torture and cruelty, it seems to me you're not shy of hyperbole.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Unadulterated nonsense at this point.

I have first-hand knowledge of a teacher who was disciplined by the Board of Management for not doing morning prayers in her class. When the school dropped numbers she was the one who lost her position, despite not being the last in.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who's interests do you honestly think people care more about - theirs, or anyone else's?

Well, if they were Catholics, my understanding is their own interests should come below that of their god and their neighbours. I don't really understand why somebody would bother calling themselves a Catholic but ignore the teachings and sacraments. However, it's none of my business so long as it doesn't affect me.

Unfortunately it does though, because my children have to endure this rubbish because we're outnumbered by non-practicing Catholics.

Gerry T

Orion wrote: »

No it's not. Not since it was decriminalised in 1993.
Anyway it's completely off topic (my bad) so if people do want to continue this aspect then I can spawn a new thread with the relevant posts - starting with mine.

Suicide assistance organisations have requested people stop using the phrase - that's good enough for me.

No I brought it up and shouldn't have. Was trying to show how people brought up in a religious system can start to think for themselves and decide its not for them. My experience just clashed with teachings and it stopped making any sense.
I fully support your comments and apologise if my comment offended anyone.

ectoraige

meeeeh wrote: »

Why do state schools have to have ethos? Private school fine, but what would state finance ethos?

It's part of the Education Act. The state isn't financing the ethos, it's financing the staff and buildings that the children attend, it doesn't care what the actual ethos is, so long as the school is well run, insured, and adheres closely enough to the syllabus.

But I guess the question is, why *should* a state school be required to have an ethos. I can't really think of a good reason, it would be nice to drop it, along with introducing a district manager system of governance, there are no effective oversight on Boards of Management, other than the school patron, and that level of oversight varies widely.

Orion

Gerry T wrote: »

No I brought it up and shouldn't have. Was trying to show how people brought up in a religious system can start to think for themselves and decide its not for them. My experience just clashed with teachings and it stopped making any sense.
I fully support your comments and apologise if my comment offended anyone.

Don't worry about it - you used it to make a point on topic. I clarified the desired terminology which was off topic. I'll slap myself on the wrist right away