Religion in junior infants

SpaceTime

You're really looking at the last clutches of a dying foreign empire's control over Irish society though.

They'll try anything to cling on as access to schools is an ability to influence the very foundations of the society. It's about power and very little else really.

If they cared about justice and equality they'd have stepped aside and if they cared avoid religious education, they'd have active Sunday schools.

They know if participation in religious education isn't default option or de facto compulsory, it'll fade away.

HIB

Like the post where somebody said that they don't want to have to deal with some kind of zealous teenage religious awakening with their kids. So, they take them to mass occasionally and teach them the basics, so they don't feel that religion is something cool and hip that their parents disapprove of. There's a lot of sense in that.

SpaceTime

lazygal wrote: »

My mother was the first of her family to get free secondary education. Her parents had decided fees or not all the children would be educated, but she was the first they didn't have to pay fees for. The nuns in her school fought the changes tooth and nail when they were introduced, and claimed that 'farming girls' wouldn't want a secondary education anyway so it was a waste of their time teaching them things like French and maths. My mum has stories of how the new crop who weren't paying fees were made to feel like they were charity cases. It was a real case of snobbery, the nuns were losing their grip on education for the first time and they didn't like it one bit.

Its not one bit surprising so many people trot out the old 'if it wasn't for the churches we wouldn't have an education at all, so we should let them continue to run education even though we now pay almost all of the expenses' line. Even people my age believe this rubbish. How people think we should be eternally grateful for an education system, when we're legally obliged to send our children to school, is baffling.

I think that applies to health in Ireland too though. There's an element of "this is a charity" and you're some kind of pauper begging for care that comes across in the "voluntary hospitals" which are actually almost entirely state funded at huge cost.

There's this two tier approach goes on a lot which is in stark contrast to the continent and the UK where health is very much seen as a public service and healthcare providers know they're public servants.

It's not exclusively the religious sector that takes this attitude either, there are "charities" operating state services secularly too who are similar. I know a few disabled people who find to rather humiliating to have to deal with charities when they are looking for basic state funded services.

It's almost like we moved the accounting over to a modern social democracy like the rest of Europe but kept the same systems in place that existed in the 19th century.

The way people have been treated and continue to be treated by the "institutions" that provide services is abysmal.

I mean Aras Atracta for example !? What the hell was going on there?!

We need public accountability, transparency and open access services that are ours. Not state funding "charities" that end up being arms of the state without any of the democratic oversight.

It's a totally broken system. It's also largely why we can't ever seem to grasp how the budget in health works - soooo many organisations, so many service providers and no ability to get info or management trails on anything.

We're not getting either education or health right at all and haven't been for decades.

It's largely structural issues too, throwing more water into a leaky bucket that will never fill.

lazygal

I find listening to people who represent charities from a religious background that there is often a sense that if they weren't providing a service, no one would. As though every other country somehow can't provide services for the old and the sick and those in need, because no religious orders set up hospitals decades ago, and have since finagled the system into the state paying for everything.

SpaceTime

It also allows the state to pass the buck too. It's not all one way. There are issues in health where charities are being used inappropriately to fund essential items while state budgets are being sloshed on things like designing a hypothetical children's hospital (26 million and still counting) and crazy administrative systems.

Then you've "charities" providing things that turn out to be actually mostly state funded.

There's a whole charity industry that grew up on stage aid.

eviltwin

As we all know there is no such thing as free education here between books, uniforms, voluntary contributions. In my experience it's the religious schools that work out more expensive insisting on an expensive uniform and with a heafty vol contribution. They have some neck painting themselves as some sort of altruistic benefactors.

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

As we all know there is no such thing as free education here between books, uniforms, voluntary contributions. In my experience it's the religious schools that work out more expensive insisting on an expensive uniform and with a heafty vol contribution. They have some neck painting themselves as some sort of altruistic benefactors.

All the religious schools near us have specific uniforms that have a crest on them. The ET lets kids wear their own clothes. I don't see the need to 'brand' children but I guess its all part of the marketing of schools to parents.
We had mad rules in secondary school, I remember being told off for wearing a non uniform scarf. There was a voluntary contribution too and the books were changed often so even my sister a couple of years behind me often couldn't use mine.

SpaceTime

The best one I had was a teacher who flipped out because I was wearing brown suede shoes instead of black or brown polished shoes.

She took my shoes off me and polished them with black shoe polish completely destroying a pair of expensive suede shoes!

I was also made wash my hair for putting gel in it!

And I was sent home (alone) by a crazed teacher for wearing a grey rather than white shirt even though both were optional!

Orion

Parrrent wrote: »

Maybe my definition of a cult is actually slightly different, but to me a cult is an organisation that consistently FORCES a person to do what they say, when they say it. Yes I suppose I'm still officially a member of the Catholic church seeing as I cant leave, but they force me to do nothing. In fact I have no dealings with them. So to me that's not cult like.

What about people who only baptise their children to please their own parents. Or who get married in a church because it's expected of them by their families. Or if you want to marry someone of an apostate church (as defined by the RC - CoI, Pres, etc) - your partner either has to convert or you both have to sign a declaration that any children of the union will be brought up as Catholic. These are all forced actions and fit with your definition of a cult.

lazygal

Oh you've sparked another mad rule. We were only allowed to wear shoes. One girl had a weak ankle or somesuch and brought in a note from her GP that she had to wear particular ankle boot things to support her foot.
It was a subject of major debate, and finally she was allowed to wear them. Really taught me a lesson. Send kids to schools that don't require uniforms if possible.

eviltwin

God our school had some mad rules, indoor and outdoor shoes, if you had long hair it had to be tied up, you could only wear a blazer on a Friday, mandatory 8am mass in the run up to Christmas....absolutely stupid way to treat young adults.

SpaceTime

Orion wrote: »

What about people who only baptise their children to please their own parents. Or who get married in a church because it's expected of them by their families. Or if you want to marry someone of an apostate church (as defined by the RC - CoI, Pres, etc) - your partner either has to convert or you both have to sign a declaration that any children of the union will be brought up as Catholic. These are all forced actions and fit with your definition of a cult.

You can have a secular marriage. The option exists and is easily and widely accessible.

If your partner insists on you changing religion, then you've a fairly odd basis for a marriage.

Your relationship with your parents isn't governed by the state but, if they're forcing you to baptise your kids with guilt trips they're not very nice.

Having 98% religious schools and 90% Catholic schools is very different.

It would be more akin to the state requiring you to get married in the Catholic Church and having one secular registrar with a massive waiting list only available in West Cork on a Friday afternoon and then telling you that's a choice.

lazygal

We weren't allowed wear 'colourful' hair accessories. Unless you were in sixth year. Then you got to go craaaaaazy. And you had different coloured socks to the other years.

Also-ties for girls in all girls schools. WTF.

hardCopy

SpaceTime wrote: »

The best one I had was a teacher who flipped out because I was wearing brown suede shoes instead of black or brown polished shoes.

She took my shoes off me and polished them with black shoe polish completely destroying a pair of expensive suede shoes!

I was also made wash my hair for putting gel in it!

And I was sent home (alone) by a crazed teacher for wearing a grey rather than white shirt even though both were optional!

We had to wear pink fluffy slippers for the day if we were caught wearing non-black or non-leather shoes. Cue toe crushing stomps for an entire day from the rest of your class.

frostyjacks

No issues with Catholic children in a Catholic school being taught about religion. I'd be a bit wary of people who do have an issue with it.

realdanbreen

NS77 wrote: »

They're not Catholic schools. They're State schools with a Catholic ethos. A remnant of a time when things were different in this country and Church and State were intertwined. But, times have moved on and every child has a right to a State-provided education.

There is simply no choice for many non-Catholic / non-religious parents, but to send their children to the local Catholic ethos State school. That's assuming the school accepts them.

State services should be there for all and every child should be educated alongside their friends and neighbours in an atmosphere of tolerance, acceptance and love. The ONLY sane, cost-effective way to achieve this is to remove religious indoctrination from the school system.

The bottom line is the here and now. The OP seems to think that because she does'nt believe in God that the local school should cease having religious instruction in the school.She also seems reluctant to want to rell her child that there is, in her opinion, no God.

ash23

realdanbreen wrote: »

The bottom line is the here and now. The OP seems to think that because she does'nt believe in God that the local school should cease having religious instruction in the school.She also seems reluctant to want to rell her child that there is, in her opinion, no God.

Op said no such thing to be fair. They just asked how other non religious parents dealt with having to send their kids to a catholic school

realdanbreen

ash23 wrote: »

Op said no such thing to be fair. They just asked how other non religious parents dealt with having to send their kids to a catholic school

And she was advised how to solver her problem, tell the child there is no God. But she doesn't appear to want to do that.

Two Sheds

ash23 wrote: »

I find you can undo a lot of the indoctrination at home by talking and having them think for themselves. I've one child who went through catholic primary and it was a bit brainwashy but when she came home with "the world was created in 7 days" I explained the big bang. When Adam and Eve came up I explained evolution. She chose to make her Communion and confirmation but with no real meaning behind it other than not wanting to be left out. I also explained that the bible stories are similar to Greek mythology or Irish folklore but that some people choose to believe they are true and that's OK etc but she can make up her own mind when she's older blah blah.

She's going to secondary school now and we discussed what religion to put on her admission form and she settled on agnostic.

Treating the Bible as some sort of history book or science book and then attempting to challenge it with history or science, is to miss the entire point and to mislead your child.

It's a spiritual book. If you don't know what that means then how can you possibly be fair to your child?

Instead of learning to think for themselves, many children simply inherit their parents' religious hangups.

harr

realdanbreen wrote: »

The bottom line is the here and now. The OP seems to think that because she does'nt believe in God that the local school should cease having religious instruction in the school.She also seems reluctant to want to rell her child that there is, in her opinion, no God.

First of all, I never said I did not believe in God,and if your read my post you will see the concern I have is filling the head with to much nonsense at 4 years of age ,fine when they get to an age when they know and can decide for themselves .
I never said the local school should stop religious instruction but at four years old its two young in my option ...leave it up to the parents what or how much religion they want to teach kids,I don't believe in this day and age any form of religion should be taught in school ...like many have said I do not have a choice where my child goes to school...it's the same reason I had to get him christened because the school insists on a baptism certificate when we put the child name down to start school...
No time for Science ,IT or other languages till second level ...which is madness.

realdanbreen

harr wrote: »

First of all, I never said I did not believe in God,and if your read my post you will see the concern I have is filling the head with to much nonsense at 4 years of age ,fine when they get to an age when they know and can decide for themselves .
I never said the local school should stop religious instruction but at four years old its two young in my option ...leave it up to the parents what or how much religion they want to teach kids,I don't believe in this day and age any form of religion should be taught in school ...like many have said I do not have a choice where my child goes to school...it's the same reason I had to get him christened because the school insists on a baptism certificate when we put the child name down to start school...
No time for Science ,IT or other languages till second level ...which is madness.

So you do believe in God?

harr

Not God in the traditional way,maybe more along the lines of Mother Nature. I don't believe in organised religions and I don't take the bible as fact...
Don't believe in heaven or hell ... Or the devil ...would prefer to Believe Science than the mumbo-jumbo of any organised religion
As I said in the original post I did not want this to turn into a religion bashing tread ,everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want I just dont want it forced on my child.

One eyed Jack

realdanbreen wrote: »

So you do believe in God?

I believe the OP made it clear in their opening post -

harr wrote: »

We are Catholic but not practising

purplecow1977

Two Sheds wrote: »

It's a spiritual book. If you don't know what that means then how can you possibly be fair to your child?

Instead of learning to think for themselves, many children simply inherit their parents' religious hangups.

I feel this is a major issue. Evident from the numerous references such posters have made here about their own religious education in schools.

Similar to them saying they are glad I do not teach their children (or hope so, because maybe I do!) I am glad that the parents of children who are not partaking in religion class are easy-going. Or maybe they're the type who bitch about it online but don't actually say anything in reality. All I know is I've had many that opt out and never had an issue. I also still wonder (and nobody really answered this) of how many of those speaking out against religion in schools here have actually done anything proactive about this in reality?

If they started demanding their child be removed from the classroom during such lessons, then I would have an issue as the man power simply isn't there & by all means come & collect them if they wish, but for the last 10 years, the children (and parents) seem to be happy with the arrangement I have in my classroom.

I also think a tolerance is essential. Think about it. If all religions were tolerant of each other, it would solve a lot right?
Dismissing someone's faith as 'fiction' and other derogatory comments just causes offence and insult.
It is surely possible to disagree with something and someone without resorting to this? Belitting someone else's beliefs? Surely just as bad?!

In response again to the OP, I guess you have two options.
You can approach the teacher & ask that your child not partake in the religion lessons (although I've had Muslims happily take part in most lessons/activities but not prayer!) or you can allow your child to take part and impart your own beliefs with them at home. A few minutes a day won't indoctrinate your child, regardless of what some people here would like you to believe!! I can say this honestly from years of experience!

purplecow1977

harr wrote: »

First of all, I never said I did not believe in God,and if your read my post you will see the concern I have is filling the head with to much nonsense at 4 years of age ,fine when they get to an age when they know and can decide for themselves .
I never said the local school should stop religious instruction but at four years old its two young in my option ...leave it up to the parents what or how much religion they want to teach kids,I don't believe in this day and age any form of religion should be taught in school ...like many have said I do not have a choice where my child goes to school...it's the same reason I had to get him christened because the school insists on a baptism certificate when we put the child name down to start school...
No time for Science ,IT or other languages till second level ...which is madness.

Science is part of the SESE curriculum and is given 3 hours per week. It includes History and Geography also. In senior classes I would choose 2 per week, maybe History & Geography and focus the 3 hours on this to explore them in detail, and cover Science/Geography the following week. Also if they are spending time researching a topic on the computers (there's your IT!) and making notes then that time has to be included as part of the 3 hours as there are so many other things to be covered.

Big problem with IT was funding, but many schools have Interactive Whiteboards, visualisers, ipads, etc now so IT is definitely more to the forefront. We don't have an assigned subject for ICT like they do in the UK, but somethings got to give in order for that to happen.

realdanbreen

harr wrote: »

Not God in the traditional way,maybe more along the lines of Mother Nature. I don't believe in organised religions and I don't take the bible as fact...
Don't believe in heaven or hell ... Or the devil ...would prefer to Believe Science than the mumbo-jumbo of any organised religion
As I said in the original post I did not want this to turn into a religion bashing tread ,everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want I just dont want it forced on my child.

I really don't see where the problem is. Unless the school is a throwback to the 1930's your child is not having anything forced on her. If you explain what your beliefs are,then happy days.

purplecow1977

What I do find quite sad about some of the posts I am reading here is the miserable experiences some posters have had with their own schooling, and this topic has sidetracked in parts from religion in Junior Infants to elements of their own schooling and the bitterness is quite obvious. It would be a pity for this to be passed on to their offspring.

Also,I've noticed the pro Educate Together schools comments. I think there's definitely a place for them, but reading some comments makes them sound as if they're the bee all and end all & I just don't agree.

We did a survey in our school (400+ pupils) about 3 years ago. It turns out more parents were in favour of keeping a uniform than not (70% if I remember correctly) Expensive crests are annoying, and maybe a few parents need to approach the school & share their worries as sometimes it can be overlooked and when nobody complains people think it must be okay!

purplecow1977

SpaceTime wrote: »

Go into the rules for national schools and its opposite Rule 68, which I think is in the second PDF.

https://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Rules-and-Programmes-for-Schools/

It says a lot for the Department that they can't even publish this document as a searchable HTML page.

Maybe they want to burry it in a bad scan so Google can't trawl and archive it??

Laundry is mentioned a couple of times as a subject.

The document is sexist and sectarian and written from the perspective of a 1950s, particularly conservative nun.

How, this passes as the basis for a modern education system is beyond me!

Honestly, if you're a journalist or you know any journalists please read the above documents as I really think they need to be made much more publically available to show just how backwards the system is!

The rules are definitely ancient and in need of a huge modern overhaul, but it has been put on the back-burner for years.

mahoganygas

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I also think a tolerance is essential. Think about it. If all religions were tolerant of each other, it would solve a lot right?
Dismissing someone's faith as 'fiction' and other derogatory comments just causes offence and insult.

I think children would have a much more tolerant view of other religions if they were educated in aspects of all religions equally during religion class.

How much of the school year is spent teaching Catholicism during religion class?

In contrast, how much is spent learning about Islam, Judaism, Polytheism and the flying spaghetti monster?

My point is that the Catholic Church's monopoly on what gets taught in Irish classrooms is unfair.

purplecow1977

eviltwin wrote: »

You're a teacher and you don't see the difference between teaching kids facts vs fiction :eek:

Oh I don't know, I try to expose them to a variety of books in my library!

Don't most Catholics realise the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally? It's more about various MESSAGES. That's what I understand anyway!