Primary school college course and atheism

robindch wrote: »

What do you mean by "integrate it"?

Do you mean that religion is made an integral part of other topics? Say, reading bible stories in English, painting bible-related pictures in art, bible-related geography in geography and so on?

Integrating a topic across several subjects isn't something we just do for RE, we're encouraged to do it for all subjects. It's not about shoving religion down their throats any way possible.

For example, if we covered the Little Red Hen story in English, that links nicely to mapping in SESE, possibly learning farm animal names in Irish, etc. In my college, it's normal to do this on teaching practice, and students must pick a theme to base their teaching practice around, which definitely doesn't have to be religious.

If you took a religious story - well, let's say Noah and the Ark, the story could be covered in English, Maths could involve counting in pairs and matching, Music could be creating animal or rain sounds, SESE could look at weather, and Art...make arks possibly? That's just off the top of my head.

Oh, and about Alive O - we're not taught out of that, you don't have to use it when teaching. A lot of people do, because it gives you ready made lessons and you don't have to put as much effort in, but to be honest it's deathly boring so a lot steer clear.

It's being updated at the moment I think, a new version is supposed to be out in a few years. Apparently the Pope has to sign off on it first before it gets anywhere near the schools.....

Also, when I head out on teaching practice in a week I'll have 7 RE lessons to cover, which the teacher thinks is absolutely mad. According to her they barely cover one RE class a week, there just isn't time for more. And from talking to other students in the college, this isn't unusual!

iguana

KamiKazeKitten wrote: »

If you took a religious story - well, let's say Noah and the Ark, the story could be covered in English, Maths could involve counting in pairs and matching, Music could be creating animal or rain sounds, SESE could look at weather, and Art...make arks possibly? That's just off the top of my head.

Are religious stories still integrated into the actual Irish and English curriculums? When I was in primary school, during the '80s, all our English and Irish school books were stuffed with religious stories. Usually timed within the book to fall for certain Christian holidays like Christmas, Easter, St Patrick's and St Bridget's Days. Certain months all lessons apart from maths were religious and this wasn't because of what the teachers were doing, it was the official curriculum.

It probably backfired in my class though. The 3 JW kids refused to do any lessons that involved religion and would sit in the lunch area of the class room reading their own books and drawing pictures. We were so jealous of them. What kid wants to be struggling through Irish lessons while 3 of their classmates are having great fun on the sidelines? It was probably the first inkling I had that being Catholic sucked.

oldrnwisr

First off, thanks to the OP for raising this issue. Scary stuff.

KamiKazeKitten wrote: »

Integrating a topic across several subjects isn't something we just do for RE, we're encouraged to do it for all subjects. It's not about shoving religion down their throats any way possible.

For example, if we covered the Little Red Hen story in English, that links nicely to mapping in SESE, possibly learning farm animal names in Irish, etc. In my college, it's normal to do this on teaching practice, and students must pick a theme to base their teaching practice around, which definitely doesn't have to be religious.

If you took a religious story - well, let's say Noah and the Ark, the story could be covered in English, Maths could involve counting in pairs and matching, Music could be creating animal or rain sounds, SESE could look at weather, and Art...make arks possibly? That's just off the top of my head.

To be honest, I'm not that bothered by integration of religion. As you've said it's done with most subjects. However, I think that integration is secondary to the real problem which is how these stories are presented to the children. I'd be interested to know how these stories (Noah etc.) are presented to the children (i.e. is it told as a nice story or as a historical fact?) and how this changes from Junior Infants to 6th class. I mean if darealtulip's experience is anything to go by then it's how the content is presented to the children that is in need of fixing first. If the stories are presented as just stories, then integration shouldn't be something to be concerned about.

KamiKazeKitten wrote: »

Apparently the Pope has to sign off on it first before it gets anywhere near the schools.....

iguana wrote: »

Are religious stories still integrated into the actual Irish and English curriculums? When I was in primary school, during the '80s, all our English and Irish school books were stuffed with religious stories.

A few years ago, I found an English text book I'd used in first year in secondary school -- couldn't believe how conservative the chosen texts were: all about people, usually kids, disobeying authority-figures and coming to messy grief. Weird.

iguana wrote: »

Are religious stories still integrated into the actual Irish and English curriculums? When I was in primary school, during the '80s, all our English and Irish school books were stuffed with religious stories. Usually timed within the book to fall for certain Christian holidays like Christmas, Easter, St Patrick's and St Bridget's Days. Certain months all lessons apart from maths were religious and this wasn't because of what the teachers were doing, it was the official curriculum.

There isn't an official curriculum for religion from the Department, but as far as I know the books aren't like that anymore.
Unless the children were in a Gaelscoil I honestly can't see myself doing Bible stories as Gaeilge, it'd just be too much for them to take in.
In the Irish curriculum though there is an Ócáidí Speisialta (special occasions) theme though. There's no word list for it, but I'd say Paddys Day, Christmas, Easter etc probably fall under that.
The curriculum was updated in the 90s, so I haven't a clue what RE was like before that.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not that bothered by integration of religion. As you've said it's done with most subjects. However, I think that integration is secondary to the real problem which is how these stories are presented to the children. I'd be interested to know how these stories (Noah etc.) are presented to the children (i.e. is it told as a nice story or as a historical fact?) and how this changes from Junior Infants to 6th class. I mean if darealtulip's experience is anything to go by then it's how the content is presented to the children that is in need of fixing first. If the stories are presented as just stories, then integration shouldn't be something to be concerned about

I'm a first year, we learn to teach Infants this year, so I can't tell you what it's like for 6th. In another few years I'll know!

The stories would be presented as fact to be honest - if you are teaching in a Catholic school you're obviously expected to keep with their ethos. For example, next week I'll be teaching St Patrick in a history lesson. Now, there's evidence for him so I don't mind that, and to be honest it's just to cover a history lesson in something and keep my college happy, but in religion lessons I would be expected to treat the Bible as fact by the school.

oldrnwisr

KamiKazeKitten wrote: »

... in religion lessons I would be expected to treat the Bible as fact by the school.

KamiKazeKitten wrote: »

in religion lessons I would be expected to treat the Bible as fact by the school.

Granted, that's unfortunately true, but is it written down anywhere as such?

Or do they step back and only refer in general terms to "upholding the schools proud ethos" and prose like that?

I still recall in first year of secondary (yep, secondary) having to draw stations of the cross in religion class to display on the wall around Easter time. I found it amusing when everyone but my dothery old teacher noticed this interesting character among the Roman mob.

robindch wrote: »

Granted, that's unfortunately true, but is it written down anywhere as such?

Or do they step back and only refer in general terms to "upholding the schools proud ethos" and prose like that?

Would depend on individual school ethoses I imagine. Most are couched in fluffy terms like that, but it still means the same thing.

The one I'm heading into is Catholic, and they're quite relaxed about their ethos, religion doesn't play a big part of the school day, but if a child asked me "did this really happen Teacher?" or whatever I'd have to say yes.

darealtulip

There are two points with an integrated curriculum with religion;

1 A subject which is based on believe and not on evidence is taught as true

2 It is impossible to opt a child out of religious education that way.

This is very different from integrating other subjects. My son was taught to recite prayers because it was an integrated part of the day and not religious education. Therefore they saw fit to indoctrinate my son with their religion.

I only opted my son out of the religious class not out of the rest of the religious indoctrination.

KamiKazeKitten wrote: »

Would depend on individual school ethoses I imagine. Most are couched in fluffy terms like that, but it still means the same thing.

Yes, that's why I object to the term "ethos" quite strongly -- it's a blandm, harmless-sounding word used to justify and excuse the indoctrination of innocents.

KamiKazeKitten wrote: »

[...] if a child asked me "did this really happen Teacher?" or whatever I'd have to say yes.

Are you not allowed to say "Lots of people believe it happened"?

iguana

darealtulip wrote: »

There are two points with an integrated curriculum with religion;

1 A subject which is based on believe and not on evidence is taught as true

2 It is impossible to opt a child out of religious education that way.

This is very different from integrating other subjects. My son was taught to recite prayers because it was an integrated part of the day and not religious education. Therefore they saw fit to indoctrinate my son with their religion.

I only opted my son out of the religious class not out of the rest of the religious indoctrination.

If you want him out of every religious aspect of the day can you request that this is done? Make it clear you do not want him to be required to say prayers or to take part in any class which is religion* themed. As I said the JW kids in my class would not take part in any lesson with a religious theme, they certainly never prayed at any of the 4-6 class prayers we said every day.

*I actually think that's just true of Judeo/Christian religion. As far as I can remember they did any lessons which involved stories of Egyptian, Greco-Roman, Celtic gods, etc. The reason being that nobody actually believed those stories were anything other than stories, whereas the ones about Jesus/God/Saints, corresponded with what we were taught as fact in religion class.

darealtulip

iguana wrote: »

If you want him out of every religious aspect of the day can you request that this is done? Make it clear you do not want him to be required to say prayers or to take part in any class which is religion* themed. As I said the JW kids in my class would not take part in any lesson with a religious theme, they certainly never prayed at any of the 4-6 class prayers we said every day.

*I actually think that's just true of Judeo/Christian religion. As far as I can remember they did any lessons which involved stories of Egyptian, Greco-Roman, Celtic gods, etc. The reason being that nobody actually believed those stories were anything other than stories, whereas the ones about Jesus/God/Saints, corresponded with what we were taught as fact in religion class.

I took my son of that school. Yes, I could get him out if I supervised him myself every time, only they could not tell me the times.

Besides if it is integrated into every subject and throughout the day it becomes impossible to opt him out.

It would have been possible if the school actually wanted to facilitate us (there were/are more non religious people who send their kids to that school) but instead they decided to force their religion down the throat of our children.

Just put up with it was the general idea from the people in the village, don't rock the boat. You don't want to upset people or worse offend them.

It all depends greatly on how religious the teacher and principal are. Thanks to the fact that schools have no obligation by law to write down what their ethos entails they are free to do what ever they want and how ever they wanted. They are even protected by law to do so.

The first thing to note in some of the recent posts is the matter of the Catholic 'ethos'. An ethos is not, as some heretics like myself would believe, an electronic thos but is, in fact, "the distinctive character, spirit, and attitudes of a people, culture, era, etc." [Collins English Dictionary, 2004].

What no one appears to be asking is where does this 'ethos' come from? Indeed, where does the whole framework and methodology of educating kids in Roman Catholic schools come from?

Well, look no further than The Vatican State. The rules for Roman Catholic schools are freely available for all to see at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_gravissimum-educationis_en.html

The whole document is worth a read for those with a strong stomach, foe example, this tidbit is about what the Roman Catholic church requires in schools:

A Christian education does not merely strive for the maturing of a human person as just now described, but has as its principal purpose this goal: that the baptized, while they are gradually introduced the knowledge of the mystery of salvation, become ever more aware of the gift of Faith they have received, and that they learn in addition how to worship God the Father in spirit and truth (cf. John 4:23) especially in liturgical action, and be conformed in their personal lives according to the new man created in justice and holiness of truth (Eph. 4:22-24)...

I just love that word 'conform', don't you?

The Roman Catholic church is an institution that occupies a space that is about as far away from democratic as it is possible to get. It is a dictatorship led by an individual that the church's believers have been indoctrinated to believe is infallible. It was one of these 'infallible' leaders, one Giovanni Montini, who published the Declaration on Christian Education quoted, above.

Article 42 of our Constitution (http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_Archive/Publications_2006/Publications_for_2002/Bunreacht_na_hÉireann_-_Constitution_of_Ireland.html) could have been lifted straight out of this foreign state's document. The Constitution, at least those parts even remotely connected to religion, remember, was written by the soon-to-be Archbishop of Dublin, John McQuaid and the Jesuits and the Irish President, Eamon De Valera, sent the draft of the Constitution to a foreign State, The Vatican, for 'approval'. (See The Jesuits and the drafting of the Irish constitution of 1937, Seán Fauhgnan, Irish Historical Studies, Vol. 26, No. 101 (May 1988), pp. 79-102)

The reality is that, however liberal a Roman Catholic school may appear to be, the orders from the foreign State that interfered with our Constitution, to include its requirements for education, are what the Roman Catholic church requires to be applied in Roman Catholic schools – 93% of all National Schools in the State.

Insect Overlord

It was the day I realised all of this (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77361745&postcount=236) that I first started to have doubts about Catholicism. I think I was 10 years old when I spotted the patterns...

Insect Overlord wrote: »

It was the day I realised all of this (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77361745&postcount=236) that I first started to have doubts about Catholicism. I think I was 10 years old when I spotted the patterns...

DO NOT DOUBT CATHOLICISM! It is the way, the truth and the light... unless you happen to have a brain lodged somewhere in your skull.

May I commend to you the reasons why you may have had the bizarre notion that there is an old bloke sitting in the skies waiting for you to join him in what is, so far, an undetected afterlife placement? It is a book (not 'the good book', which is good because it says it's good) that explains 'why we believe in god(s)', by J. Anderson, JR., MD - with Clare Aukofer?

The ISBN is 9780984493210 and it is available on Amazon.

I try really hard not to post comments that are my own opinion. I prefer to quote (non-internet) sources which people are able to access themselves if they wish so to do.

I try so hard not to 'preach' atheism but, rather, point people in the direction of peer reviewed, scientifically researched publications that can be indepentantly verified.

Only a nutter would make claims that are only verifiable by reference to a one thousand to two thousand year-old text that has no independently verifiably basis whatsoever.

In step with most, if not all, atheists that I know, I am more than happy to change my beliefs in the face of evidence. For example, I have long accepted that the speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second and that is as fast as anything in the universe can travel. However, recently, the Large Hadron Collider appears to have shown that neutrinos are capable of travelling 0.00000006 seconds faster, around the 732km circumference of collider, than other particles.

This a scientific breakthrough of immeasurable proportions and yet, not mentioned in the Bible, the Qur'an or any other religious text.

You'd think that an infallible, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent creator would have at least given us a tip off that it is possible for particles to travel faster than the presumed speed of light. Mind you, this God person didn't even manage to tell us that our earth is (roughly) a sphere orbiting our sun which is, in turn, part of a galaxy that is, in turn, part of an ever expanding universe.

Ignorant twat. It's like getting a builder in to do an extension and being left with half-a-dozen bricks laid out in a pretty pattern that resembles an extension and, if you pray/wish/dream really hard, it will, miraculously become the extension that you paid for.

Hotblack Desiato

In the scientific world, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; the neutrino result is now in question and will be re-run in May.

Compare / contrast with your salvation provider of choice...

recedite

JonPierson wrote: »

This a scientific breakthrough of immeasurable proportions and yet, not mentioned in the Bible, the Qur'an or any other religious text.

Yes, but the LARGE Hadron Collider is in Switzerland, whereas everything mentioned in the bible occurs within a 10 mile radius of the guy who wrote it.
Note also that there are loads of dragons mentioned in the text, but no kangaroos or penguins.

ninja900 wrote: »

In the scientific world, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; the neutrino result is now in question and will be re-run in May.

Compare / contrast with your salvation provider of choice...

I love it when stuff like this comes out of science. I shows that even those who make unexpected discoveries bend over backwards to prove themselves wrong and they spent three years trying to prove themselves wrong before announcing the find to the scientific community... so others would be able to prove them wrong.

Now, all are working together trying to prove it wrong.

As you correctly observe, ninja900, those who make incredible (in the literal sense of the word) claims are under the obligation to provide the wider community with all their empirical evidence so that evidence can be scrutinised and independently verified, not just 'believed'.

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but the LARGE Hadron Collider is in Switzerland, whereas everything mentioned in the bible occurs within a 10 mile radius of the guy who wrote it.
Note also that there are loads of dragons mentioned in the text, but no kangaroos or penguins.

But there are owls. I wonder how the owl PR people managed to get God to mention them so often in the list of things we're not allowed to eat.

The iron chariot people probably have the best commercial tie-in with God, though:

Judges 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

You can just imagine the ad campaign:

Judas's chariots – We can't be beaten... even by God!

God's only weakness... iron.

Galvasean wrote: »

God's only weakness... iron.

Could have been worse, could have been green Kryptonite.

recedite

Maybe "chariots of iron" is just a metaphor for some concept.
Like technology, or education, or something.

Proof that Iron Man could beat God in a fight.

Michael Nugent

Atheist Ireland today met with Hibernia College to discuss the course notes that made untrue statements about atheism and atheists. The meeting was very productive. The relevant course notes have been removed. I am preparing an initial one-hour introductory lesson for Hibernia College on atheism and nonreligious ethics. After that, Atheist Ireland will discuss with Hibernia College how we can make a more comprehensive contribution towards developing a more pluralist religion and ethics curriculum. Hibernia College will reassure students about its existing commitment to encourage them to give feedback about any concerns they have about the course.

Here is a more complete report of the meeting:

Atheist Ireland chairperson Michael Nugent and Education Policy Officer Jane Donnelly met today with Dr. Nicholas Breakwell, Hibernia College’s VP for Academic Affairs and Knowledge Management and Dr. Siobhan Cahillane-McGovern, Hibernia College’s Course Director for its Higher Diploma in Arts in Primary Education.

The meeting was very productive. Atheist Ireland is very happy with Hibernia College’s commitment to developing a pluralist curriculum and we will be working with Hibernia College to assist them in this outcome.

Hibernia College has explained to us the context in which the religious education element of its course has evolved. We are happy that Hibernia College did not intentionally include the sections that we found to be inaccurate about atheism and atheists.

Hibernia College has removed the sections of the course notes that we have raised concerns about.

Michael Nugent will initially prepare a one-hour introductory lesson for Hibernia College on atheism and nonreligious ethics, in conjunction with the College’s technological and presentation team.

After that, we will discuss with Hibernia College how we can make a more comprehensive contribution towards developing a more pluralist religion and ethics curriculum, that is consistent with the human right of all students to freedom of conscience regardless of their religious or nonreligious beliefs.

Hibernia College will continue to offer, as a private business institution, whatever courses and qualifications its students require in order to be able to work as primary teachers in Ireland.

The Higher Diploma in Arts in Primary Education has a religious curriculum module that covers what the State requires for a teacher to to teach religion in any primary school, and a module that covers what the Roman Catholic church requires for a teacher to teach in Roman Catholic schools. Hibernia College will review these existing two modules to ensure that the curriculum module contains everything as required by the primary school curriculum.

In the medium term, Hibernia College will examine offering two separate qualifications, with the State curriculum requirements for teaching religion in any primary school remaining part of its overall Higher Diploma in Arts in Primary Education, and the Roman Catholic Church requirements for teaching in Roman Catholic schools being offered as a separate qualification.

Hibernia College will reassure students about its existing commitment to encourage them to give feedback about any concerns they have about the course.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The relevant course notes have been removed. I am preparing an initial one-hour introductory lesson for Hibernia College on atheism and nonreligious ethics. After that, Atheist Ireland will discuss with Hibernia College how we can make a more comprehensive contribution towards developing a more pluralist religion and ethics curriculum.

number10a for reporting, and Michael for following up so convincingly -- my heartiest congratulations.

Beers on me.

krankykitty

Well done to AI, and to the OP for raising the issue.

darealtulip

A big thank you to number 10A, Michael Nugent, Jane Donnelly and all the people writing emails to Hibernia College.

I am very happy with how Hibernia engaged with Atheist Ireland and all the concerned people and offered a solution.

Well done to all!!