Religion in junior infants

inocybe

Gerry T wrote: »

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.

All very well to learn about other faiths, but I would like see equal time to be given to secularism and the right to not be impacted by any of these faiths, and how society can protect our freedom to privacy and non conformity.

ch750536

With my lads all the shouty, condescending teachers teach religion. Sums it up really.

frostyjacks

inocybe wrote: »

All very well to learn about other faiths, but I would like see equal time to be given to secularism and the right to not be impacted by any of these faiths, and how society can protect our freedom to privacy and non conformity.

Surely any time outside of RE class is time not impacted by faith. Nobody is forcing religion upon people.

PlainP

frostyjacks wrote: »

Surely any time outside of RE class is time not impacted by faith. Nobody is forcing religion upon people.

They are forcing non religious people to send their children to a religious school. So yes they are forcing religion on people. (Whoever "they"are).

If they want religion in their child's life they need to teach it to them themselves..

meeeeh

PlainP wrote: »

If they want religion in their child's life they need to teach it to them themselves..

Actually "they" don't.

One eyed Jack

ectoraige wrote: »

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.

I have no doubt you're intelligent enough to know the etymology of the term and it's common understanding, so while that may be your explanation for using such a term you know is emotive and loaded, I think more people familiar with the common understanding of the word "brainwashing" might also think you were being hyperbolic, and purposely so in relation to children. FWIW though -

Brainwashing. This term, which originated during the Korean War (Hunter, 1951) but which is still invoked uncritically from time to time in the academic literature (e.g., Ventegodt et al., 2009; Kluft, 2011), implies that powerful individuals wishing to persuade others can capitalize on a unique armamentarium of coercive procedures to change their long-term attitudes. Nevertheless, the attitude-change techniques used by so-called “brainwashers” are no different than standard persuasive methods identified by social psychologists, such as encouraging commitment to goals, manufacturing source credibility, forging an illusion of group consensus, and vivid testimonials (Zimbardo, 1997). Furthermore, there are ample reasons to doubt whether “brainwashing” permanently alters beliefs (Melton, 1999). For example, during the Korean War, only a small minority of the 3500 American political prisoners subjected to intense indoctrination techniques by Chinese captors generated false confessions. Moreover, an even smaller number (probably under 1%) displayed any signs of adherence to Communist ideologies following their return to the US, and even these were individuals who returned to Communist subcultures (Spanos, 1996).

Source: Fifty psychological and psychiatric terms to avoid: a list of inaccurate, misleading, misused, ambiguous, and logically confused words and phrases


I guess it's a bit like Educate Together dropping the "multi-denominational" from their ethos, replacing it with "equality-based", and expecting people to care for the difference. It's still a fuzzy and confusing terminology without some sort of clarification which distinguishes your claims of equality based education from the Church ethos of tolerance and understanding for all humanity based education.

People aren't so brainwashed that they don't see through the PR spin either.

ectoraige wrote: »

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.

Ah, so what you posted was based on an anecdote as opposed to being able to quote any actual policy. Now I don't expect you to elaborate nor offer any further context on a public forum as I respect your privacy, but really, you don't expect me to take that anecdote with any more than a pinch of salt.

ectoraige wrote: »

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.

"Beam in your own eye" is originally a Biblical reference that's made it into common language usage to refer to a person pointing out the hypocrisy of others before examining their own behaviour, and given your position you've outlined above, I really don't think you're in any position to point out the hypocrisy of other people around you.

Again all I hear is the "I have no choice", as though you have been brainwashed and have no choice but to send your children to a Catholic ethos school to be brainwashed. You absolutely have a choice, but you choose the easier path because it's the more convenient one for you. That is your responsibility and you cannot hold anyone else to account for the choices you make for your own children.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have no doubt you're intelligent enough to know the etymology of the term and it's common understanding, so while that may be your explanation for using such a term you know is emotive and loaded, I think more people familiar with the common understanding of the word "brainwashing" might also think you were being hyperbolic, and purposely so in relation to children. FWIW though -



Source: Fifty psychological and psychiatric terms to avoid: a list of inaccurate, misleading, misused, ambiguous, and logically confused words and phrases


I guess it's a bit like Educate Together dropping the "multi-denominational" from their ethos, replacing it with "equality-based", and expecting people to care for the difference. It's still a fuzzy and confusing terminology without some sort of clarification which distinguishes your claims of equality based education from the Church ethos of tolerance and understanding for all humanity based education.

People aren't so brainwashed that they don't see through the PR spin either.





Ah, so what you posted was based on an anecdote as opposed to being able to quote any actual policy. Now I don't expect you to elaborate nor offer any further context on a public forum as I respect your privacy, but really, you don't expect me to take that anecdote with any more than a pinch of salt.





"Beam in your own eye" is originally a Biblical reference that's made it into common language usage to refer to a person pointing out the hypocrisy of others before examining their own behaviour, and given your position you've outlined above, I really don't think you're in any position to point out the hypocrisy of other people around you.

Again all I hear is the "I have no choice", as though you have been brainwashed and have no choice but to send your children to a Catholic ethos school to be brainwashed. You absolutely have a choice, but you choose the easier path because it's the more convenient one for you. That is your responsibility and you cannot hold anyone else to account for the choices you make for your own children.

I find the religion part only part of the problem, the Christian brothers version of Irish history is another whole question. That may be even more dangerous.

inocybe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again all I hear is the "I have no choice", as though you have been brainwashed and have no choice but to send your children to a Catholic ethos school to be brainwashed. You absolutely have a choice, but you choose the easier path because it's the more convenient one for you. That is your responsibility and you cannot hold anyone else to account for the choices you make for your own children.

Yes 'the choice' again. Of course you have the choice to quit work, homeschool and starve. Or then there's quit your job, leave your home and find a school somewhere near a park with benches you could sleep on. Thanks for reminding us again about those.

One eyed Jack

inocybe wrote: »

Yes 'the choice' again. Of course you have the choice to quit work, homeschool and starve. Or then there's quit your job, leave your home and find a school somewhere near a park with benches you could sleep on. Thanks for reminding us again about those.

Or send your child to be brainwashed, and then complain that you have no choice but to send your child to be brainwashed. You can surely understand why that makes absolutely no sense to me when you're concerned for your child, but still sending them to be brainwashed?

It's contradictory at best, hypocrisy at worst. But like I said, I'm not going to judge anyone who does this. I'm just not going to take their claims that they have no choice very seriously.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Or send your child to be brainwashed, and then complain that you have no choice but to send your child to be brainwashed. You can surely understand why that makes absolutely no sense to me when you're concerned for your child, but still sending them to be brainwashed?

It's contradictory at best, hypocrisy at worst. But like I said, I'm not going to judge anyone who does this. I'm just not going to take their claims that they have no choice very seriously.

The reality is you don't have a choice...that is the reality...so you may as well acknowledge that. THe only way you have a choice is private school....which oddly contradicts the DoEs stance that its a constitutional obligation...

Its a legacy of the theocracy where choice has no place. And if religion isn't a choice, then its a cult.

inocybe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Or send your child to be brainwashed, and then complain that you have no choice but to send your child to be brainwashed. You can surely understand why that makes absolutely no sense to me when you're concerned for your child, but still sending them to be brainwashed?

It's contradictory at best, hypocrisy at worst. But like I said, I'm not going to judge anyone who does this. I'm just not going to take their claims that they have no choice very seriously.

Because a good parent would choose hunger and homelessness over brainwashing. You can surely understand why your argument makes absolutely no sense to me when it's a question of having any sort of normal life at all. The only hypocrisy here is someone with your attitude claiming to be Christian, it's vile.

inocybe

And btw I have no fears at all about my child being brainwashed. However I think it's hard enough to keep the respect of teenagers without having them ignore certain parts of what the adults in authority are teaching.

One eyed Jack

zeffabelli wrote: »

The reality is you don't have a choice...that is the reality...so you may as well acknowledge that. THe only way you have a choice is private school....which oddly contradicts the DoEs stance that its a constitutional obligation...

You're telling me I don't have a choice, I'm telling you I do. I could have chosen not to send my child to a Catholic ethos school and then chosen an alternative. Many of the private schools in this country are also religious ethos schools which receive partial funding from the State.

One of the fundamental rights of the Constitution is that children have a right to an education. It doesn't suggest anything about a right to a place in a religious ethos school. There are alternatives and the DES's stance is that as long as a child is taught the curriculum, they are receiving the minimum standard mandatory education.

zeffabelli wrote: »

Its a legacy of the theocracy where choice has no place. And if religion isn't a choice, then its a cult.

Religion and religious education are entirely a choice.

inocybe wrote: »

Because a good parent would choose hunger and homelessness over brainwashing.

I know which one I'd choose if I thought my child were being brainwashed. I'd give up everything I have and do everything in my power to make sure I didn't put them in that position. Someone else's judgement of me as a parent whether that be in a good or a bad light would make no difference to me because what matters more to me is my child's welfare. That's why I say I wouldn't judge nor tell anyone else how to parent their children, but I won't entertain their complaints when they are unwilling to entertain alternatives that may mean they may have to compromise on their own lifestyle.

inocybe wrote: »

You can surely understand why your argument makes absolutely no sense to me when it's a question of having any sort of normal life at all. The only hypocrisy here is someone with your attitude claiming to be Christian, it's vile.

I can of course understand why my argument makes no sense to you. I never said I wasn't a hypocrite either but being unwilling to entertain someone's complaints when they are unwilling to entertain alternatives has nothing to do with Christianity.

zeffabelli

Where would you have sent them if you didn't want the religious ethos?

ET would have told you four year waiting list or something.

So you'd quit your job and homeschool...

is that what you call a choice?

And then when the dole office forces you into an internship...then what?

meeeeh

Something should be pointed out, in 2013 state did survey among 38 smaller towns if there is demand for alternative schools. 15 had insufficient demand and the others had enough interest for a school.
https://www.educatetogether.ie/media/national-news/patronage-survey-results

Having sufficient demand still doesn't mean it was overwhelming and majority of people would probably still choose catholic school as first preference. I know my local et takes kids immediately with no waiting list. As it is unless there is huge overhaul of system that will scrap any kind of patronage or ethos, it will be very hard to change one denominational schools to multi or non denominational because there will be local resistance, especially outside larger urban centres.

One eyed Jack

zeffabelli wrote: »

Where would you have sent them if you didn't want the religious ethos?

ET would have told you four year waiting list or something.

So you'd quit your job and homeschool...

is that what you call a choice?

And then when the dole office forces you into an internship...then what?

I'd do like any other parent and do whatever I felt was in my child's best interests.

I've often had to make choices that meant I had to put my child's welfare before my own, but that's what I do, because I choose to do it, and because I choose to do it, I don't have any right to have my complaint taken seriously when I complain about the consequences of my own actions.

What anyone else chooses to do is entirely their own business, but I shouldn't be expected to take their complaint seriously if they're not prepared to do whatever it takes to change whatever it is they're complaining about.

mordeith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd do like any other parent and do whatever I felt was in my child's best interests.

I've often had to make choices that meant I had to put my child's welfare before my own, but that's what I do, because I choose to do it, and because I choose to do it, I don't have any right to have my complaint taken seriously when I complain about the consequences of my own actions.

What anyone else chooses to do is entirely their own business, but I shouldn't be expected to take their complaint seriously if they're not prepared to do whatever it takes to change whatever it is they're complaining about.

Even the feckin archbishop thinks secularization is too slow.

meeeeh

Parents shouldn't have to make sacrifices. It is a lot easier to offer religion as after school activity than make separate arrangements during school. Maybe because I grew up in country that clearly separates state education from any interest groups I really don't think there is space for any patronage in state schools. Most modern democracies offer separation of religion and state and I don't think school system fits criteria.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd do like any other parent and do whatever I felt was in my child's best interests.

I've often had to make choices that meant I had to put my child's welfare before my own, but that's what I do, because I choose to do it, and because I choose to do it, I don't have any right to have my complaint taken seriously when I complain about the consequences of my own actions.

What anyone else chooses to do is entirely their own business, but I shouldn't be expected to take their complaint seriously if they're not prepared to do whatever it takes to change whatever it is they're complaining about.

Well yeah I guess one could always emmigrate. This attitude is why so many people o emmigrate.

Your child's welfare and your own are not separate entities. They are co operative and if one gets hurt so does the other...that is how a family unit works.

Wanderer78

meeeeh wrote: »

Maybe because I grew up in country that clearly separates state education from any interest groups...

where did u grow up?

One eyed Jack

meeeeh wrote: »

Parents shouldn't have to make sacrifices.

I couldn't get on board with that idea now at all tbh.

zeffabelli wrote: »

Well yeah I guess one could always emmigrate. This attitude is why so many people o emmigrate.

Your child's welfare and your own are not separate entities. They are co operative and if one gets hurt so does the other...that is how a family unit works.

They're not separate no, but I'd sooner put my child's welfare before my own all the same.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I couldn't get on board with that idea now at all tbh.





They're not separate no, but I'd sooner put my child's welfare before my own all the same.

Yeah I don't have that luxury. If I crash, he's dependent on me....he's ****ed if I crash.

One eyed Jack

zeffabelli wrote: »

Yeah I don't have that luxury. If I crash, he's dependent on me....he's ****ed if I crash.

Yeah I can understand that obviously, but I never at all suggested that anyone had to become homeless or give up their careers or any of the rest of it for their children. That was suggested by other posters, and I'm not in any position to tell them how to parent their children. I am in a position however to tell them I'm not able to take their concerns seriously if they're not prepared to do whatever it takes to resolve whatever it is they're complaining about.

I will go above and beyond for anyone who is prepared to do the same, and I will 100% get behind someone who I see doing something to change their circumstances, but if someone is unwilling to go there, then what's the point in me wasting what resources I have that could be put to better use elsewhere?

Would anyone here help someone who they felt didn't want to help themselves? That's not a vile attitude, nor is it hypocrisy, it's bloody common sense IMO.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah I can understand that obviously, but I never at all suggested that anyone had to become homeless or give up their careers or any of the rest of it for their children. That was suggested by other posters, and I'm not in any position to tell them how to parent their children. I am in a position however to tell them I'm not able to take their concerns seriously if they're not prepared to do whatever it takes to resolve whatever it is they're complaining about.

I will go above and beyond for anyone who is prepared to do the same, and I will 100% get behind someone who I see doing something to change their circumstances, but if someone is unwilling to go there, then what's the point in me wasting what resources I have that could be put to better use elsewhere?

Would anyone here help someone who they felt didn't want to help themselves? That's not a vile attitude, nor is it hypocrisy, it's bloody common sense IMO.

I can see how passivity can be frustrating and I can also see how no choices are perfect. I have seen the passivity of some parents and it has been alarming in some cases, on the sidelines complaining but everyone afraid to rock the boat. So I see where you are coming from there..... Saying that....

In some public school systems, in secular democracies, it is jurisdiction based so you go where your zone is- not where you want to go, but the school HAS to take you, they cant ask you for baptism certificates and reject you because you don't practise.

Two examples would be the US and French. In the US, the schools accommodate religious practises, so Jehovas Witnesses get exemptions from things like vaccinations, or Muslim students can leave class to pray...In France, also a secular democracy...no such allowances are made, religion has no place outside of the private sphere. In both places, they are jurisdiction based and that's it.

In a legal system where children HAVE to attend school, this seems an insane kind of legislation. And believe me it does happen, and it's the Protestant schools that also do this as well. So you can be in an area where all the schools can say NO to you and yet you are legally obliged to send your child to school. This is not a choice....this is not what choice means.

And the policies and practises once you get in there, make it very difficult. And sure you can kick up but you have to be prepared for them to take it out on your child...be prepared to be label the difficult parent... is this putting your child first or compromising him/her?

To retort with homeschool, frankly is ridiculous in this day and age. For one thing, not all adults are equipped to be educators, some might be illiterate, some might be working two jobs, some might be ill, some might have to travel for work. One either has to be on social welfare without the department harrassing you into an internship program or independently wealthy as well as having some awareness of pedagogy. This is not a solution.

mordeith

Majority of schools are publicly funded through taxes. Same as hospitals. If a hospital refused to admit a child based on their religion . . . well I think we all know how that would go down. 'Sure why not take your chld to the nearest non-religious hospital, it's only an hour away'.

Such scenarios should not be dependent on parents to implement the change. It should be blatantly obvious that the whole thing is farce. Religion has no place in publicly funded schools . . . end of.

Orion

frostyjacks wrote: »

Surely any time outside of RE class is time not impacted by faith. Nobody is forcing religion upon people.

If only that were true too. My kids went to an ET school and they were taught the story of Christmas, jesus the son of god - the whole shebang. Guess what subject? It was an entire chapter in their senior infants history book! The whole curriculum is rife with christain indoctrination.

frostyjacks

Orion wrote: »

If only that were true too. My kids went to an ET school and they were taught the story of Christmas, jesus the son of god - the whole shebang. Guess what subject? It was an entire chapter in their senior infants history book! The whole curriculum is rife with christain indoctrination.

Are you against learning about religion full stop? Do you want it literally erased from history? If the curriculum features a lot on Christianity it's because that's our culture, our identity.

zeffabelli

Orion wrote: »

If only that were true too. My kids went to an ET school and they were taught the story of Christmas, jesus the son of god - the whole shebang. Guess what subject? It was an entire chapter in their senior infants history book! The whole curriculum is rife with christain indoctrination.

That was in history?

How was it presented? Was it presented as Jesus the son of God, or Jesus, who as an adult claimed to be the son of God.

It's worse that this was placed in history, as fact.

Jesus was not the son of a god, he was s man who CLAIMED to be an incarnated manifestation of one particular God, a God the Jews chose to follow.

I do think people are over optimistic about ET schools, I don't want this kind of thing or posters about Ramadan everywhere either.

PopePalpatine

frostyjacks wrote: »

Are you against learning about religion full stop? Do you want it literally erased from history? If the curriculum features a lot on Christianity it's because that's our culture, our identity.

It's more that the curriculum is still constrained by documents written in the 1960s: https://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Rules-and-Programmes-for-Schools/

Orion

frostyjacks wrote: »

Are you against learning about religion full stop? Do you want it literally erased from history? If the curriculum features a lot on Christianity it's because that's our culture, our identity.

You should read my other posts in this thread. I agree with education about world religions but this was presented as historical fact - thats wrong. History curriculum including the history of christianity in Ireland is one thing; doctrine as history is another.