Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

NO NO NO Schools have to include religion classes, forum told

Options
12467…32

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    You realise that will be a massive increase in the cost of getting schools built.

    I don't see how if the schools are distributed by genuine demand. Again, I don't see where you're getting this from when other countries are doing fine with a pluralist system. Ours is severely broken in that it favours the RCC to other groups in society. We need to fix that. This doesn't mean throwing out faith schools.
    koth wrote: »
    But it's not the same. I'd imagine there are quite a few teachers that are unhappy with schools having religious instruction as part of the school day.

    I'm sure there would be quite a few teachers who wouldn't be happy about working in a secular school. If you don't want to work somewhere because it doesn't suit you that's your prerogative. However, I don't see why that school should change anything. If I came into my job and said that it didn't suit me and I demanded X, Y and Z aspects to be changed about it I would expect the sack.
    koth wrote: »
    Can you honestly say that there is the same number of teachers that would be opposed to the removal of religious instruction?

    I don't honestly believe that teachers would be. I think there are ways around having every teacher involved in religious instruction anyway. In my secondary school there were non-believing teachers and that wasn't anathema to the school. The ethos was maintained by other means.


  • Options
    #93
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    philologos wrote: »
    I don't see how if the schools are distributed by genuine demand. Again, I don't see where you're getting this from when other countries are doing fine with a pluralist system. Ours is severely broken in that it favours the RCC to other groups in society. We need to fix that. This doesn't mean throwing out faith schools.

    The easiest system is a neutral one not a pluralist one. The government need not spend any money on faith schools it's not needed and it's too complicated and impractical.


  • Options
    #94
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    The easiest system is a neutral one not a pluralist one. The government need not spend any money on faith schools it's not needed and it's too complicated and impractical.

    It's not about the easiest, it's about what provides in the best manner possible. That is a pluralist system as I would see it.


  • Options
    #95
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    philologos wrote: »
    It's not about the easiest, it's about what provides in the best manner possible. That is a pluralist system as I would see it.

    Ya the best manner possible is the neutral model. Everyone gets access to education they need(numeracy, literacy, reasoning[science]) anything after that is up to the parents. Simple.


  • Options
    #96
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,751 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    I don't see how if the schools are distributed by genuine demand. Again, I don't see where you're getting this from when other countries are doing fine with a pluralist system. Ours is severely broken in that it favours the RCC to other groups in society. We need to fix that. This doesn't mean throwing out faith schools.
    Well you gave the UK as an example. And based on the dawkins programme and the UK teacher union, it doesn't seem like it's a good system to me.
    I'm sure there would be quite a few teachers who wouldn't be happy about working in a secular school. If you don't want to work somewhere because it doesn't suit you that's your prerogative. However, I don't see why that school should change anything. If I came into my job and said that it didn't suit me and I wanted X, Y and Z changed about it I would expect the sack.
    Why would they be unhappy about teaching in a secular school? unless they think that a school is a place for religious instruction.

    I don't honestly believe that teachers would be. I think there are ways around having every teacher involved in religious instruction anyway. In my secondary school there were non-believing teachers and that wasn't anathema to the school. The ethos was maintained by other means.

    In my school, every teacher was required to give religious instruction. The 1st class and 6th class teachers especially due to communion and confirmation.

    all teachers from 1st to 6th class were required to spend a minimum of an hour on the first Friday of every month in a church.

    Time that would be better spent on english/maths/geography etc.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    I really cannot fathom how anyone would really object to "Catholics believe ..." "Muslims believe...." "Atheists believe..." "Protestants believe..." over "Catholics believe...BUT they are wrong! Protestantism is the truth! Jesus Christ blah blah"

    Seriously, philogos?
    Option A : This is what they believe.
    Option B : This is a fact, all other viewpoints and beliefs should be respected but they are wrong!

    Which one would you go for? I just want one a one letter answer thank you.


  • Options
    #98
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    I think Philiosis has backed himself into a nice little corner.


  • Options
    #99
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    Well you gave the UK as an example. And based on the dawkins programme and the UK teacher union, it doesn't seem like it's a good system to me.

    I've already mentioned that the Dawkins programme was clearly not objective. I could easily make a documentary picking out the worst schools and making it look as if secular schooling was awful.
    koth wrote: »
    Why would they be unhappy about teaching in a secular school? unless they think that a school is a place for religious instruction.

    For the same reason that some teachers wouldn't be happy teaching in a faith school.
    koth wrote: »
    In my school, every teacher was required to give religious instruction. The 1st class and 6th class teachers especially due to communion and confirmation.

    That's true now certainly. It doesn't have to be this way at all. If I were involved in faith schooling I would actually remove preparation for ceremonies from the school day and use this time (30 minutes a day) to teach the basics about Christianity in Christian schools.
    koth wrote: »
    all teachers from 1st to 6th class were required to spend a minimum of an hour on the first Friday of every month in a church.

    Interesting. I never experienced this in any of the schools I went to.
    koth wrote: »
    Time that would be better spent on english/maths/geography etc.

    Obviously you feel that if you are an atheist. Others obviously disagree. As such I'm saying that we should try and find some middle ground and allow for people to decide freely. I don't think that any of my time in faith school adversely affected my academic performance.
    Malty_T wrote: »
    I really cannot fathom how anyone would really object to "Catholics believe ..." "Muslims believe...." "Atheists believe..." "Protestants believe..." over "Catholics believe...BUT they are wrong! Protestantism is the truth! Jesus Christ blah blah"

    I was never taught that in school so I can't relate to it.
    Malty_T wrote: »
    Which one would you go for? I just want one a one letter answer thank you.

    False dichotomy I'm afraid.
    The idea that faith schools are bad schools or that they are worse than their secular counterparts doesn't seem to follow statistically.


  • Options
    #100
    yawha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    philologos wrote: »
    If I came into my job and said that it didn't suit me and I demanded X, Y and Z aspects to be changed about it I would expect the sack.
    Err, if I had a public sector job and X, Y and Z aspects were non-secular or discriminatory, I would not expect the sack for complaining.

    Also, philololololgos, you seem to have no concept of pragmatism. Your utopian vision of state schools to suit every belief system distributed perfectly around the country to suit the demands of the local public is completely laughable.

    Why not just:
    - State schools have no religious instruction
    - Parents educate their children on matters of faith outside of school hours

    Really, really simple, optimal solution to the problem. Everyone wins.


  • Options
    #101
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    philologos wrote: »
    It's not about the easiest, it's about what provides in the best manner possible. That is a pluralist system as I would see it.

    So you would propose that the parent's wishes need to be funded by everybody?

    I've got a bit of a problem with that.
    Where would you draw the line on pluralism? Germany has made some rather painful experiences with such systems, and is currently trying to re-streamline faith schools, Waldorf schools and other funny offshoots that resulted from the pluralist model.

    The reason?
    Access to higher education/university is regulated by the grades students achieve. If one school will allow you to pass your leaving cert in applied rhythmic speaking, knitting and vegetarian cooking, while the other school aims for academic brilliance and forces its students to do tests in maths, biology, history and at least one foreign language, how one earth are you supposed to compare those results?
    Pluralism in Germany has led to a steady decline of academic achievement, to an extend that scared the life out of the education ministry when the first actual international test was done.

    I'm much more in favour of the French model.
    Secular schools, with one afternoon a week when parents can send their kids to religious instructions. Those whose parents aren't interested in that get this afternoon off.
    The should suit everybody.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    yawha wrote: »
    Err, if I had a public sector job and X, Y and Z aspects were non-secular or discriminatory, I would not expect the sack for complaining.

    Non-secular can't be expected in a faith school. If you want to work in a faith school that's your choice, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it should change to suit you. The same in respect to secular schools.
    yawha wrote: »
    Also, philololololgos, you seem to have no concept of pragmatism. Your utopian vision of state schools to suit every belief system distributed perfectly around the country to suit the demands of the local public is completely laughable.

    It's not even utopian. It's at work in certain countries already. It's not only applicable to religion, Gaelscoils are also distributed based on demand.
    yawha wrote: »
    Why not just:
    - State schools have no religious instruction
    - Parents educate their children on matters of faith outside of school hours

    I think parents should have the choice and I believe it is practicable to bring it about. It's about as simple as shutting down every faith school.


  • Options
    #103
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    philologos wrote: »

    False dichotomy I'm afraid.
    The idea that faith schools are bad schools or that they are worse than their secular counterparts doesn't seem to follow statistically.

    I don't see the false dichotomy there my friend. I didn't say faith schools are bad, but it appears you did, perhaps you think this is the case? I can only speculate.

    So, now I ask you another two questions, what will a faith school teach that a secular school can't?
    What will a secular school teach that a faith school can't?
    Genuine answers please.:)


  • Options
    #104
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    philologos wrote: »
    Obviously you feel that if you are an atheist. Others obviously disagree. As such I'm saying that we should try and find some middle ground and allow for people to decide freely. I don't think that any of my time in faith school adversely affected my academic performance.

    You see you're complicating things again. The topics mentioned can't be taught by parents generally speaking, however faith can and if the parents can't even do that(should be easy it's made up nonsense) then their church can help them out no problem and if the church can't I couldn't care less!


  • Options
    #105
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Malty_T wrote: »
    I don't see the false dichotomy there my friend. I didn't say faith schools are bad, but it appears you did, perhaps you think this is the case? I can only speculate.

    It's completely alien in comparison to what I remember from school. That's all I'm saying. A faith school actually doesn't have to say that other belief systems are of necessity wrong.
    Malty_T wrote: »
    So, now I ask you another two questions, what will a faith school teach that a secular school can't?
    What will a secular school teach that a faith school can't?
    Genuine answers please.:)

    I've answered that earlier. I think faith schools communicate different values than secular schools. Take a read over the thread again.


  • Options
    #106
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    philologos wrote: »
    I think parents should have the choice and I believe it is practicable to bring it about. It's about as simple as shutting down every faith school.

    They don't deserve the choice at my and others expense especially when it's unnecessary and complicated. By the way answer Malty please.


  • Options
    #107
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I answered this question earlier in the thread.


  • Options
    #108
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    philologos wrote: »
    It's not even utopian. It's at work in certain countries already. It's not only applicable to religion, Gaelscoils are also distributed based on demand.



    I think parents should have the choice and I believe it is practicable to bring it about. It's about as simple as shutting down every faith school.

    Other countries in which several major cities each have more inhabitants than this whole island?

    If you ever visited rural Ireland, most villages are lucky if they have one school.
    The majority of kids in that school will come from a Catholic background, with parents more or less interested in religion. Some kids will be atheist. Some kids might be from a Muslim background, or there parents follow another branch of Christianity.
    So what should that school be, in your opinion? Catholic, and f*ck the minorities? Or would you propose to have 3 schools in village, rather than the one, in which case I'd be very interested in how you suggest they should be funded?


    Choices like this are find if you have a densely populated country, where there are enough people to allow each child the choice of 3 schools within walking distance.
    In Ireland, they're lucky to have 1 within an hours drive from home.


  • Options
    #109
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    philologos wrote: »
    It's completely alien in comparison to what I remember from school. That's all I'm saying. A faith school actually doesn't have to say that other belief systems are of necessity wrong.



    I've answered that earlier. I think faith schools communicate different values than secular schools. Take a read over the thread again.

    I know it doesn't have to say, but you see the thing is a secular school by its definitions can't. A faith school can, if it's part of its ethos.

    A little bit more specifics would be nice. What does a faith school communicate that a secular school can't?
    Also, you apparently forgot the other question. Now to worry :
    What does a secular school communicate that a faith school can't?:)


  • Options
    #110
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    philologos wrote: »
    It's completely alien in comparison to what I remember from school. That's all I'm saying. A faith school actually doesn't have to say that other belief systems are of necessity wrong.

    No, it doesn't have to. But it can if it feels like it, whereas a secular school can't.


  • Options
    #111
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Shenshen wrote: »
    Other countries in which several major cities each have more inhabitants than this whole island?

    If you ever visited rural Ireland, most villages are lucky if they have one school.
    The majority of kids in that school will come from a Catholic background, with parents more or less interested in religion. Some kids will be atheist. Some kids might be from a Muslim background, or there parents follow another branch of Christianity.
    So what should that school be, in your opinion? Catholic, and f*ck the minorities? Or would you propose to have 3 schools in village, rather than the one, in which case I'd be very interested in how you suggest they should be funded?


    Choices like this are find if you have a densely populated country, where there are enough people to allow each child the choice of 3 schools within walking distance.
    In Ireland, they're lucky to have 1 within an hours drive from home.

    It doesn't matter the fairest system is a neutral one. Let the parents and their church take care of the faith education.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Shenshen: I also answered that question earlier in the thread. I'm hardly going to suggest Catholic and f-the minorities if I'm not even a part of that majority. That's exactly what I support pluralism in the education system. I disagree as much with a RCC one-size-fits-all than a secular one-size-fits-all. Both are inadequate for the society we live in.


  • Options
    #113
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,751 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    I've already mentioned that the Dawkins programme was clearly not objective. I could easily make a documentary picking out the worst schools and making it look as if secular schooling was awful.
    And the teachers union backs up some of the points he made.
    For the same reason that some teachers wouldn't be happy teaching in a faith school.
    Not possible. A faith school requires a teacher to tow the religious line, a secular school makes no such demand. It just says that a teacher can attempt to indoctrinate children into their faith.
    That's true now certainly. It doesn't have to be this way at all. If I were involved in faith schooling I would actually remove preparation for ceremonies from the school day and use this time (30 minutes a day) to teach the basics about Christianity in Christian schools.
    why not have all religious instruction dealt with in that manner? Then a secular school system works.
    Interesting. I never experienced this in any of the schools I went to.
    maybe you went to school in a large town/city. But it was definitely the norm for the schools in the villages near me to do that.
    Obviously you feel that if you are an atheist. Others obviously disagree. As such I'm saying that we should try and find some middle ground and allow for people to decide freely. I don't think that any of my time in faith school adversely affected my academic performance.
    It's possible to support a secular school system supporter and be religious.
    The idea that faith schools are bad schools or that they are worse than their secular counterparts doesn't seem to follow statistically.

    Never said they're bad schools. My whole point is that the government shouldn't be allowing religious instruction in publicly funded schools.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #114
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    It doesn't matter the fairest system is a neutral one. Let the parents and their church take care of the faith education.

    I agree totally. As I said, my favourite system is the French one.

    But all this nonsense about offering choice is just throwing sand in people's eyes. Most people now have no choice but to send their kids to faith school, and unless schools are secularised, that situation isn't going to change.


  • Options
    #115
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    philologos wrote: »
    Shenshen: I also answered that question earlier in the thread. I'm hardly going to suggest Catholic and f-the minorities if I'm not even a part of that majority. That's exactly what I support pluralism in the education system. I disagree as much with a RCC one-size-fits-all than a secular one-size-fits-all. Both are inadequate for the society we live in.

    You came up with a way to fund 3 schools for 50 children? Wow.

    Hand that suggestion in to the Dail, please.


  • Options
    #116
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    philologos wrote: »
    Shenshen: I also answered that question earlier in the thread. I'm hardly going to suggest Catholic and f-the minorities if I'm not even a part of that majority. That's exactly what I support pluralism in the education system. I disagree as much with a RCC one-size-fits-all than a secular one-size-fits-all. Both are inadequate for the society we live in.

    secular == neutral;
    Societal_well_being++;


  • Options
    #117
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    secular == neutral;
    Societal_well_being++;

    Even with my flimsy knowledge of programming I'm pretty sure that type of coding is bad programmer etiquette.:p


  • Options
    #118
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    And the teachers union backs up some of the points he made

    The statistics from Oftsed don't seem to back this up though.
    koth wrote: »
    Not possible. A faith school requires a teacher to tow the religious line, a secular school makes no such demand. It just says that a teacher can attempt to indoctrinate children into their faith.

    Of course it doesn't. A faith school can have a separate class, slot and teacher for faith formation. It doesn't require this at all. This is just the way that the current system in Ireland operates.
    koth wrote: »
    why not have all religious instruction dealt with in that manner? Then a secular school system works.

    I think there is value in learning about a spiritual and moral framework. Many other people do too. If you don't then there should be secular schools for people to choose from. If I didn't regard it as valuable I'd probably agree with you.
    koth wrote: »
    maybe you went to school in a large town/city. But it was definitely the norm for the schools in the villages near me to do that.]

    I went to a CofI school. There was a high enough percentile of Roman Catholic students but they prepared for communion outside. Indeed even all rites in the CofI were done outside. I don't believe that primary school made me believe in any of it really, but we did learn about some parables and Biblical stories that at least presented a positive moral example to live by.
    koth wrote: »
    It's possible to support a secular school system supporter and be religious.

    I wouldn't even call myself "religious" but I am a supporter of secular schools. I'm just not a supporter of forcing all schools to be this way and denying the choice of believers to send their children to a faith school. That's surely not all that difficult to comprehend?
    koth wrote: »
    Never said they're bad schools. My whole point is that the government shouldn't be allowing religious instruction in publicly funded schools.

    I don't see why one would argue for changing them all into secular schools if they are working well.


  • Options
    #119
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Even with my flimsy knowledge of programming I'm pretty sure that type of coding is bad programmer etiquette.:p

    Hey! It's pseudo code gimme a break; I mean break.


  • Options
    #120
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    philologos wrote: »
    This study focuses only on London. The CofE study focuses on the whole of Britain.
    The CofE could have released data which rebutted the LSE study.

    It's quite telling that it didn't so I'm going to assume that the LSE's data accurately describes the CofE's silken apartheid in the London region. And that the CofE knows and accepts that, but not enough for it to do anything about it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    philologos wrote: »
    Of course it doesn't. A faith school can have a separate class, slot and teacher for faith formation. It doesn't require this at all. This is just the way that the current system in Ireland operates.

    And who pays for that BS? Not me I hope! What you've just described is Sunday school. Why do you persist on complicating things?


Advertisement