We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
POTENTIAL REFORMS ANNOUNCED by Minister for Education Ruairi Quinn this morning could make it easier for students to opt-out of religion classes.
One option is to place these classes at the beginning or end of the school day, meaning that children could potentially be allowed to go home early if they don’t take the class.
We want to know what you think: Should children be allowed to go home early if they opt-out of religion classes?
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Nothing wrong with religious education as a subject. A lot wrong with religious instruction permeating education.
Just take religious instruction out of schools and anyone who wants religious instruction for their kids can set up a Sunday school.
Spot on Tony,
When you consider that at primary level 10% of school time is used for religion this is an awful waste of school time,
Keep in mind that 10% of time also goes to maths and english, religion is in no way as important as maths or english when it comes to childrens education.
Religion class should be about learning about all types of faith and the history behind them, we had a great teacher in secondary who taught us just that. He made religion interesting, we learned about the practices of other religions and about the wars some have started over the years. Might I add that was in a catholic school
Completely agree.
Students should be thought about religion. It is a huge part of our world and learning about it helps people understand history, politics, literature and art.
What students don’t need to be thought is catholic doctrine, that’s the church’s job.
Religion for JC and LC has included all religions since around 2001
After my time in school :)
*by “all” I mean Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism etc, it big ones…..
The problem is that religion is a subject in which people can have very strong convictions of their own which influence how they present it. We have had experience with, for instance, two different teachers using the exact same curriculum, one presenting it as an attack on any view other than the Christian one, another as foundation for the kind of class you describe.
The only solution that will really work, is for religious instruction to be removed from primary, and presented as an optional class in secondary, with an alternative such as extra maths or science rather than go home early. There is nothing else that will work, and until Ireland accepts and acts on that, we’ll keep throwing expensive pseudo-solutions at the problem without solving it.
well said Mary…
Siobhan, that may be so but anyone looking at the syllabus can plainly see that it is biased.
It also doesn’t address other issues around school time religious instruction. If not in the catholic faith, where and what does a child do while the rest of the class are off at singing practice for upcoming confirmations etc? Opting out at the moment does nothing but highlight a child as different.
@ Martin – in Primary schools 20% of the school day is given to numeracy instruction and in excess of 20% to literacy.
I voted no because in my school, religious education taught about all religions. It wasn’t trying to force anything anyone. It was useful especially these days with all the new religions that exist in the country.
Tony, for religion exams there is equally weighted questions on all the religions studied so if a teacher was bias then the students results would suffer and questions would be asked about the teachers method. I can only speak from my experience in Catholic schools. My teachers in primary didn’t treat non Catholics differently and no issue was made of their religious beliefs, for communion etc they could come we us to the church or hall for practice or could stay in the classroom under supervision and read or do homework etc, the choice was theirs. We never alienated the girls or saw them as different. In secondary, when we went to mass, again those who stayed went to the library and in religion class we spent equal time on the beliefs behind the main regions examined in the JC and LC and had people of different faiths come in the talk to us. Again, this is only my experience.
Siobhan, you’re surely not advocating teaching to exams now are you?
This story is about Quinn addressing the into. So we’re not talking about exams at all anyway. At primary level re is biased. There really isn’t any denying that.
Religion classes should be replaced with classes on Evolution. Most people still don’t really understand it.
CPSE which includes religious instruction is about 1 contact hour a week,. There are 24 contact hours per week so I am not sure how you get 10% out of it.
I am not sure Parents would welcome the disruption of kids leaving early or starting late to their day and teachers would also probably find the coming & going disruptive.
John
Your thinking is out of date but your English suggests you weren’t taut enough when you thought they were teaching you the subject.
“My teachers in primary didn’t treat non Catholics differently and no issue was made of their religious beliefs, for communion etc they could come we us to the church or hall for practice or could stay in the classroom under supervision and read or do homework etc, the choice was theirs.”
Siobhán, not to pick on you but that’s a perfect example of how the system is so thoroughly corrupt that it’s just taken for granted. It’s not OK for a state-funded school to choose one religion and indoctrinate all the children in that, even if they let other children tag along or sit it out. Of course those children were treated differently.
Siobhain the issue is primary school … That is where the big problem in this country lies. At secondary children are better able to reason and have a wider circle of influence.
@William: Teaching evolution at such a young age would scare children away from the idea. Some will rebel and be anti-science over it. Some will be interested, but I imagine that would be the minority.
Large numbers of parents would condemn such education. Children will get the impression from debating parents that evolution is wrong.
I think simply dropping religious indoctrination class is enough.
Kardia, teaching the fundamentals of Biology would scare children away? You’re having me on? What about Algebra or grammer?
“thought” ??? I npresume you mean TAUGHT?
Evolution is an extremely simple idea, makes perfect sense too. It isn’t scary and it is fundamental to the understanding of biology. The only ones scared of it are some religious fundies.
@mary finn
you are totally correct, to know and have an understanding of different religions is an asset and can only help in all our communities.
So Ann, how do you explain Northern Ireland and the hatred between two Christian sects that differ in a minuscule way? They know about each other’s religions down to the absurd equivalent to how many angles can dance on a pin head or is transubstantiation real or symbolic. Explain Muslin Sunni or Shiite hatred that has led to millions of deaths.
What we want is a religion class that explains why religion is such a load of utter cods wallop. Once children have explained to them, once they are presented with the factual evidence then they will see religion is nonsense. Can that Atheist viewpoint be taught in class? If not why not?
*you’re *taught
Please tell us all about you grasp on English.
Darren, I don’t know who you aimed that obscure comment at but your sentence should read, “Please tell us all about YOUR grasp on English.”. You’re not Chinese are you?
Bedajaysus you’re right. I need to proof read my snide comments in future!
Let’s just NOT pretend that a school’s religious ethos is only expressed through Religious Education classes – that is utterly untrue. Catholic primary schools particularly bring the ethos into all aspects of the school life and all subject areas – they are specifically instructed to do so by the church in this country – check it out here:
http://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Conferences/Patronage-and-Pluralism-in-the-Primary-Sector/Patronage-Forum-Submissions-November-2011-/Organisations-November-2011/Department-of-Religious-Studies-and-Religious-Education-St-Patrick%E2%80%99s-College-Drumcondra-.pdf
And I specially urge you to read the bullet points here from the Diocese of Kerry about what makes a Catholic school a Catholic school…
http://www.dioceseofkerry.ie/page/education/primary/catholic_ethos/
Then tell me that our 95% state funded schools that are controlled by the Catholic church are inclusive of all citizens. Absolute bullsh1t. I object strongly to my tax money being used to prop up a disproportionate number of Catholic schools with state funding in light of the majority of parents not wanting this for their children. It is a modern day scandal.
Personally I am a bit tired of being reasonable about it. I am supposed to ‘respect’ people’s right to send their child to a Catholic school, while my right to send my child to a school that doesn’t discriminate against him is not respected at all. Frankly, I think religious formation of vulnerable young children is an abuse and religious schools should not be funded by the state because they can never, by their nature, be inclusive of all citizens – or even these days of the majority of citizens. In that respect they are about as inclusive as Blackrock College.
We need change and we need it now.
Love turning the wine into water,Hic!
Well said, Michelle! :)
Religion has very little to do with the hatred in Northern Ireland, it’s more about ethnicity now.
Shane, where do you think the children learned to hate each other?
I sat the LC exam on religion externally from my school since they did not teach religion at my school. I did so purely for the points and a modest interest in the area. I found numerous holes and issues with allot of what was written on the syllabus.
The book about science and religion was very much written from a religious perspective (obviously) but nevertheless it still gave a very confined view on many topical controversial issues.
It seems we can either advocate for a open ended religious syllabus, where students learn about the main religious beliefs albeit not in any great detail. Or a confined one where one position is elevated over another.
I would argue that since the primary syllabus is geared towards Catholicism with little to no lee way, when a student gets to second level they are already a member of the catholic church in 90% of cases thus rendering looking at other religions rather fruitless as you have already signed up to one branch of Christianity.
Nathan this is about EQUALITY. Whether it is race, gender, sexual orientation, beliefs.. The State should treat all equally. Your majority are Catholic argument is the same as saying it is a majority white country so let’s let whites have privileges at the expense of non whites. Why should Catholics be allowed access to my kids to indoctrinate them in their faith. I can close the door on a Jehovah’s Witness but if I want my kids to go to school I have to allow catholic indoctrination… It’s simply discrimination.
Couldn’t agree more Fergal.
There is also the burning issue of our teachers having to hide away their non-belief for fear of not being employed.
Religion should be an optional subject for children not there to indoctrinate and take up valuable lesson time!.
Learning about different religions and culture or foreign language would be more important than the
RC or C of I doctrinal class. Let doctrinal teaching happen after school or at Church on a Sunday.
Anita, why would you want to waste children’s time learning about different religions. They are all just 100% nonsense. They’d be better off reading Harry Potter books.
The poll should read: Should the preparation for religious sacraments happen during school time? The answer is clearly no.
No it’s not. If it is a Catholic run school, then of course it should happen during school time. Don’t be ridiculous.
I agree it’s a poorly worded poll!
If there was a choice where children can go to school then there may be some merit in your arguement Alex but there isn’t. On the other hand there should be no state sponsored indoctrination into any religion in this country.
Maybe explain why it’s ridiculous?
I don’t think it’s ridiculous at all. I do think it’s ridiculous the amount of work that primary teachers in particular are expected to get through while still having to give away their classes to sacramental preparations or for singing for other years.
I haven’t heard anybody yet able to justify religious instruction on schools without creating a circular argument.
I disagree. I went to a very good national school run by the Church. I didn’t see any problem with it and got a good foundation to my education there. If the Church helps fund the place, then the Church should ABSOLUTELY have a say in the running of the school.
If the Catholic Church pay for the teachers and maintenance if school property they can pick the curriculum if not tough
The church doesn’t fund the place , the church owns the building which was bought with donations from parishioners who were prob from the locality anyway. The dept of ed funds the place.
Alex,
See, thats the thing.
The vast majority of catholic ethos schools in Ireland are tax payer funded, the church don’t help fund them in anyway…but they get to call the shots regarding whats said in school.
Meanwhile Johnny tax payer pays for the privilege of having their kids excluded or brain washed in school to believe in the “one true god” of the catholic faith.
If the catholic church wants to call the shots in schools then let them cover 100% of the school costs, as long as tax payer money is used in schools then schools should not push one faith when it comes to religion.
‘The church helps fund the place’. Well, the State funds the place, and the State should not represent any allegiance to any religion. Religious Education (meaning children indoctrination) should be banned from ALL schools. Religious Education (meaning teaching children about the major religions in the world) should be mandatory.
This comment section is filled with bigots. If people are, like me, happy to go to Church funded schools, what’s the problem? This is a Catholic country, so what exactly is it you dislike about the Church having a role in our education? Explain please.
This is not a Catholic Country. Get over yourself. The Vatican does not rule here.
Alex it was explained to you, church doesn’t fund the ongoing costs the taxpayer does.However I think you’ll pay as much heed to my comment as you have to the pervious comments.
You have every right to exercise your religion Alex but you have no right (nor does the state) to force religion on others. This is in effect, what is happening at the moment. Parents send their children to “Catholic” schools becuase they have no choice. The state either has to provide the choice or stop religious indocrination during school time. Children can do the preparation ouside of school time if they choose.
Alex.. Do you know what they dont like? Catholics.. You are allowed to be as rude and bigotted as you like to Catholics on this forum.
I have no problem with kids opting out of Religion Class. Thats their prerogative. Why not have the class at 2pm. And those parents of kids that dont want “indoctrination” can go home early.
Alex,
This is not a catholic country.
While people like yourself may want to go back to 1950′s Ireland where women can be locked up for getting pregnant outside of marriage and priests who leave the priesthood are told never to contact their family again (had this happen to a family member) nobody else does!
Again your ignorance shows through Alex, the church doesn’t fund Catholic ethos schools….the tax payer does!
Amazingly Sinead it was Alex who displayed bigotry, but yet you defend his comments.
So Alex and Sinead resort to call those that oppse religious indocrination in our schools as bigots. I see no comments here that would be regarded as biggoted. Just comments from those that think that the state should not sponsor religious indocrination in schools. You are more than free to practice religion in your own time.
And I agree that any funder should have a say. That doesn’t mean that their say should be the end of it.
Alex the 5th amendment to the Irish constitution that was approved by 80% of the country says we are not a catholic country.
Nobody is denying the right to religious education just the nature of how it is delivered
Alex & Sinead,
There has not been any bigoted comment here. It’s a big stretch to call people who disagree with you bigoted.
People have made very reasonable points in this thread which have not strayed into attacks. Personally, I don’t appreciate the suggestion that you’ve both made and would prefer if you tried making some kind of reasonable and considered comment on the matter at hand rather than making accusations.
Alex
1) they’re not church-funded, they’re state-funded. Paid for by tax payers of all denominations and none.
2) this is not a “catholic country”, it’s a democratic republic.
3) you don’t seem to realise that the rights of parents and children who aren’t catholic are being contravened and ignored all the time.
Nobody is being rude to anyone. If you don’t want your beliefs to be ridiculed, please do not hold such ridiculous beliefs.
Now if you attempt to force the state to indoctrinate my children into your absurd religious tenets, then expect to be treated real bad.
Sinead, I’m not bigoted towards catholics. However, I can’t stand people who wish to forcibly inflict their own doctrine and dogma on my daughter. If this stopped happening I’d probably never mention catholicism again, because it is utterly irrelevant in my life.
Might have something to do with the school he went to !
Yeah, parents, if you don’t like it, take your child out of the Catholic school, and put them into a non-Catholic school… oh right, there aren’t any:
Nothing poor about the wording, it’s just not the poll you wanted to vote in.
Religious instruction is truth instruction . There are so many in here who are against Christianity that’s the problem . Catholic run schools must continue to teach religion and Christian doctrine . That’s their ethos . If parents want to have their children taught atheism then they ought to change school .
Lovely catholic monopoly the church have.
What schools should we move our children to in6days? It’s your way or no way I see.
In6days
“Teach atheism”! What a funny little man you are :)
No one is being rude here. But just as any families from any other faith takes it upon themselves to educate their children in that faith/or non-faith, so should catholics. There is no need for it to be taught in the majority of schools in this country. If you are so strong in your faith then you should have no problem with it being removed from schools and the onus being on you to educate your child in your faith.
Brainwashing even your own children is grossly immoral.
How so Norman? I will defend my Church until the bitter end, and have every right to do so. I simply pointed out the fact that Ireland is a Catholic country. How was I bigoted? Fool.
It’s not a catholic country Alex.
I’m sure if asked, you would point at the census. If that is your support then you should try looking at how the question is asked in the census. If you have any capacity for critical thinking you will recognise that even that question is flawed.
Absolutely Sinead, these so called “liberals” are more intolerant of Catholics than the Ku Klux Klan are of black people.
Ireland is not a Catholic country as pointed out to you in earlier comments.
Btw when you descend to name calling you lose all credibility. Happily is country is changing and people like you are powerless to stop it.How a good day.
It is wrong to describe Ireland as a Catholic country Alex. The majority religion maybe Roman Catholic and I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with describing Ireland as a Catholic country. It has other connotations which I (and I presume many others) find offensive. This is a country for people of all religions and none.
Alex, the Ku Klux Klan were all Christians.
Yeah, I see some ‘liberals’ arriving back right now after a good ol’ night of lynching.
Get a grip lad.
Bigots!! Check the dictionary there Alex.. People who are seeking equality in a democratic republic will not fall into the definition. Your characterisation is so misinformed its scary.
In6days you are from another country right? Or another planet? If not then I assume you are being deliberately provocative .. Tell me what school in the whole county of Tipperary I can take my kids to that is not religious?
Where do you suggest people send them? less then 10% of schools are non-catholic and they are in the cities and larger towns.
Secular education for all and religious education in religious inquisitions. That does not suit most Irish ‘catholics’ though; it would mean they would actually have to participate in mass and sacrament preparations, or heaven forbid, pray.
It’s not a Catholic run school. It’s a state run school.
Not necessarily- you could have a religious studies class in a non denominational school also. The article does not specify that it relates to Catholic schools only
LOL This thread gave me a good laugh I have to say. Some poorly thought out points comprehensively rejected. Then we finish up with the hopelessly predictable “This comment section is filled with bigots.” It reads like a script.
We also got the “Catholic country” and ‘so called “liberals””‘ thrown in there for good measure.
I’m a software developer, for the craic I’m thinking of writing a Bot that trots out the usual lines and culminates in “yer all bigots anyway”
“Yeah, I see some ‘liberals’ arriving back right now after a good ol’ night of lynching.”
Them feckin “liberals” wanting people to be treated equally. They’re just so intolerant of the grossly privileged position of catholicism in this country
Ireland is not a catholic country. Where is it written in our Constitution that Ireland is a catholic country? No where. Just because some people like to believe the majority of the population is catholic does not make it so. Ireland is very much multi-cultural and has many different belief systems. Just because you and your friends are catholic doesn’t mean everyone else is. Time to get out of your box and actually look at the facts Alex.
Aimee, you are correct. In fact, constitutionally the exact opposite is true.
Article 44 2.2 “The State guarantees not to endow any religion.”
Do you not think the church should be prioritizing education of young people over indoctrination ?
It’s like with missionary work and charity should the recipients really have to pray and accept indictrination in order to recieve.
At least secular organisations give freely without strings attached.
If the church really cared about education then would easily drop the strings.
Our kids don’t need instruction from the Old Testament and on how to burn witches not to mention all the other gobbeldy gook in the bible.
Save it for mass and your chuch time. Better yet let your children choose what religion they want to believe in when they grow up instead of passing on your indoctrination.
The Gaelscoil in Clonmel is pretty good. They have nuns and priests come in to teach religion for those children whose parents decide they want to do the little bride of christ thing (communion stuff)
@Jane you make perfect sense but every time I see your avatar the phrase “Willy Ravaged Hole” comes into my head. It’s not your fault in any way.
LOL Fifty Shades! I’d totally forgotten about that :)
It was the funniest thing I ever saw on the Journal, and I mean that with all due respect to people who wrote stuff that was supposed to be funny.
Good times, good times :)
If this was a Catholic country, there’d be about 4 million people in Mass on a Sunday. Now I haven’t counted, but…
Opt out of Religion, okay – but why not do something different?
How about a class on ethics/morality?
Both great suggestions , definitely they shouldnt be allowed home early there are all sorts of implications with buses and parents collecting multiple kids at different times etc put that spare 40-45 mins towards something useful – programming – software development something that could possibly be of use to them in getting a job right out of school or helpful in choosing a career they may take up after college
Whose morality ? Atheist materialism can never be objective since it has no ultimate standard with which to discern truth , objective morality . In the atheist materialist secularist random universe there is no purpose no meaning no objective morality . It’s all relative/ subjective . If it’s relative/subjective it’s false .
Many kids have this view already so relativism is further increased by this latest news . Irish education collapsing .
The catholic church and other churches who are trustees of their own schools with their own ethos should stand up now and say no . If parents want to take their kids out of that school then fine . The secularists can get their own schools . Go to educate together if you wish . Problem solved .
@ Fin Tastic: In most German schools, this is exactly what is done. Parents/children can choose between religion classes (all schools offer Catholic and Protestant religion classes, some also offer Islam classes) and ethics classes. Preparation for communion and confirmation is not organised by the school but by the local parish.
Relativism: a euphemism for thinking about something properly instead of using blanket rules. God forbid! No, much better to have a man-made celestial dictator to tell us what to do. Shame there are thousands of them telling us different things.
There are not enough non – denominational schools around to support the amount of non-catholic children. Children of other faiths or no faith don’t have a choice but to go to a Catholic school. Religion is the parents responsibility. If you want your child to be Catholic then take out your bible and teach them. No need for school time to be wasted on it, especially when more time is clearly needed to be spent on fundamental subjects. Scrap religion and bring in a second language. Religion isn’t going to improve your career opportunities but a second language will
@in6days
Because there are so many educate together schools around right?.
Closest one to us is 45 min away.
Max 1 hour generic religious education a week. Anything else is a waste of time that could be spent learning much more important subjects like maths & science.
In6days – I do laugh when hard line Catholics like you make statements on atheist materialism. For an organisation so against material wealth the Catholic Church is very very rich in it.
Religious people don’t have the monopoly on morality, just because you’ve cherry picked what to believe from a book full of contradictions and archaic ideals.
So you think without religion people would be walking around stealing and raping?
Moral compass is instinctive, and always has been.
Read another book!
Yeah. It’s a bit mental to imply a religious belief counters materialism. Total waffle.
You’d almost think Jesus promoted materialism in reality.
@in6days if you believe heaven is real, then teaching about it is materialism. Assuming the best of intentions and honest belief, you want to promote the teaching of religion because you want people to go to that ‘haven’ place. That’s materialism too.
The big issue is that yours is a fairy-tale and many don’t believe it, or believe on a different one.
I live in the UK and I see parents converting the kids to Catholic faith because they are the best run schools, better morals better discipline. Non denomination schools have been blasted by parents and the eduction board. Over crowded and under achieving.
So Jackie, because a relative handful of people in the UK change religion in order to get into better schools we should continue with the indocrination of children into a particular religion in this country because they have no choice. If all our schools stopped the state sposored religios indocrination then they would suddenly become poor schools, is that what you are saying?
@in6days
What is ‘reality’?
And it is more then a handful of people! No what I am saying why fix what’s not broken? You can dump one religion but another one will take over eventually as is shown over here lately. I went to school with people of different faith., while we were doing rc they went and done other work in another class. It was nt a big deal for them or me.
I said a relative handful Jackie, a clearly different meaning. For an awful lot, and increasing number of people it is broken.
Careful Patrick, you’ll make his head explode.
Jackie, the fastest-growing ‘belief’ group is non-believers.
Your wrong. Islam is the fastest growing religion!!!
Or group!!
We are both right. But you are talking relative numbers I am talking absolute numbers.
I just fear what I see over here day in day out will happen in Ireland. Islam has taken over schools how you live what we eat. I can’t go to a take away or butchers without it been halal that choice has been taken away from me. I work in whiteChapel in London it will explain my and (I am not ashamed to say it) my hatred for that religion. If one religion is eradicated another one will take over. Im not a religious nut far from it but when one identity is lost another will take over.
@Jackie, – if state funded schools were secular and not segregated on basis of faith, – it would go a long way to solving that problem
I agree. But this day and age in theory it happens but in reality it does nt.
Just ban ANY religious interference in schools or in the State. Faith should be a private matter and so it should stay.
Can you demonstrate that secular morality is necessarily subjective? Or should we just take your word for it, based on your invented, God-soaked definition of objective morality?
Read Genesis 22 and tell me all about your biblical morality. Yeah didn’t think so.
Plural Religious education would be acceptable, but at present, it is sadly more a case of religious indoctrination at primary level.
No, they should be doing extra maths or science or reading, this group should surpass their peers and soon every parent will clamour to stop having their kids go through the indoctrination nonsense!
How about teaching CPR instead of relegion . CPR saves lifes and is with you for life.
Religious Education should be replaced with World Studies – a class to inform pupils of, and encourage them to explore and discuss, the many cultures and religions of the world and how difference does not mean inferior or unequal. Religious education per se should go back to Sunday school/organised by families and local faith groups.
Great idea!!
a better alternative would be to have religion after school or during lunchtime, like my school offered applied maths or latin. Let’s see who stays back for that.
Teach religion at home, educate at school.
The school day is short enough and teachers are struggling with an overloaded curriculum .Religion should be taught as an after school activity with members of the particular community of faith coming in to teach it.
Makes perfect sense.
Rural schools are dependant on school transport to bus kids to and from school. You can’t leave kids unsupervised and you certainly can’t keep them back after schol hours.
I was force fed RE in school only really did Confirmation for the money.
How about taking RE out of school all together, at both primary and secondary level. The time it takes up could be dedicated to increasing science education or providing cultural education for example. If you want to teach your kids Religion, it should be done on your own time and not interfere with the education of those who do want/wish to partake.
* Who do NOT want/wish to partake*
Sorry for the typo
Defo. I still kinda believed after school. Took 3-4 years after i left to realise it was a load of horse shit.
You poor poor sod :(
When it came to 2nd year for me I was thrown out of religion class for questioning stuff, tbh I was more then happy I didn’t have to go back into it.
It being “a load of horse shit” is nothing more than your opinion.
As as teacher of course children shouldn’t allowed to go home EARLY to avoid religion class. They should be given extra tuition in other more important subject areas…. Kids who are struggling don’t need to waste 10mins colouring a picture of Jesus. (Which is what the VAST VAST majority of the religion books Include….a glorified colouring book) They could do with spending the 30mins each day working with their teacher on the areas they are struggling with. This will be of much greater benefit to them in life and will thank you come their leaving cert.
Being allowed to go home early is a cop-out. It won’t work for children who rely on public transport, who have to wait on the school grounds until their bus comes. They’ll still have to attend that class as they can’t legally be unsupervised on school premises.
This issue needs to be tackled properly, not paid lip-service to with half-baked suggestions such as this. Religious education in this country needs to be overhauled to become actual religious education, not the religious instruction in disguise that it is at present. It needs to be an optional subject only, not compulsory.
As it stands, this country’s education system is in direct contravention of the human rights of atheist and humanist parents and children, in that we are required to state our beliefs to the school and make special arrangements to withdraw our children from religion. The UN has drawn our government’s attention to this, pointing out that it is against human rights laws to put anyone in a position where they have to state their religious beliefs. What does the govt do? Suggest that kids go home early. That means we still have to state our beliefs!
The whole thing is a joke.
So right, Jane. Children cannot be ‘let go home early’ as they’re insured to be on school premises for the length of the school day.
Ehh, that doesn’t make any sense. Aren’t kids allowed to go home early to go the dentist or whatever?
Child is insured on school premises for the duration of school day. Any outside appointments during school hours must be arranged in co-ordination with parents, otherwise the child is not insured outside school premises, should an accident happen.
I really don’t understand. Say for example a child is taken out of school at lunchtime by her parents. They take her to the dentist and she’s finished and home by two pm. At five past two she falls at home and breaks her arm. Are you saying that because this happened during school hours, the school is liable (and hence pays out on its public liability insurance)?
No, Shane, once the child is legally off the premises, and, as you say, at home with parental supervision, school insurance doesn’t apply.
Exactly! So why shouldn’t they be allowed to leave early if there’s a religion class on which is not relevant to them? Surely it’s a similar situation to the dentist one above?
Shane, the problem comes when children are collected after school by crèches, or rely on school buses to get them home; that’s at least half of the kids in my daughter’s school. They can’t just wander the school premises until their bus arrives.
I don’t think the plan was to let 5-year olds wander around on their own! Presumably Frances meant to say something like “Only the kids who have arrangements to be picked up early could take advantage of this. The other kids would have to stay in class doing other work.” I just didn’t get what she meant with the insurance thing. Obviously the kids would have to be supervised. That’s more than an insurance matter, it’s a common sense matter!
Of course they’re allowed out instead of religion class-but parents have to collect them and be responsible for them during the time they’re out of teacher’s supervision. Saw that happen 30 years ago, no problems then. Some parents/legal guardians not free to collect them now & no teacher supplied to supervise. Insurance is a huge issue.
I don’t see my last reply showing, Shane. 30 years ago children were allowed to leave school instead of religion class. They were collected by a parent. Many parents/legal guardians can’t get there now to remove the children & no teachers available to supervise them. Insurance is a huge issue.
Relgion should have no part in a formal education. At this weeks teachers conference the primary school teachers are moaning about not enough time being available. Well how about cutting out religion.
If people want a religous education for their kids, then set up and send them to Sunday School.
I feel most are voting yes, as an attack on the church, personally I am for religious classes. I voted No, I think religion has value in the upbringing of the children, of course I can see people readying to attack me over this! free speech no more!
I think if you get attacked rex it’ll be because you have presumed so much before there is much even said in the comments.
You voted no to changing the time at which religion is taught because you would prefer that kids couldn’t leave I assume? You do realise that any such move would require parental consent?
That being the case, surely voting no means that you are in favour of a situation which pretty much traps kids into being in religious instruction?
Freedom of speech no more? I don’t see your comment being removed. The only thing that was removed was your intellect and replaced with religious nonsense, that happened years and years ago and now you are ok with doing this to other people’s children.
So my intellect has been removed? because I also believe “religious nonsense”? interesting assumption!
No, I can tell your intellect was removed because you say stupid irrational stuff.
There is a value in learning about religion – “This is what Catholics believe, this is what Muslims believe…” etc and learning about ethics. There is no value to those who are not of a particular faith in religious indoctrination and/or preparation for sacraments during school time.
Stuff such as believing that religion has value in the upbringing of children, or that your ideas being ‘attacked’ meaning that you have no freedom of speech. All stupid. All irrational. All nonsense.
Rex,
Couple of points:
1. The problem with your statement is that you said “religion” has value in the upbringing of children. If that were the case, then there’s a big difference between the teaching of “religion” and the Catholic-centric teachings in schools. Can I ask, if you’re in favour of this, would you also be in favour of the teaching (equally) of other religions?
2. School is not the only source for the upbringing of children. While religion may have its value, why does or should it have more value than ethics? Do you feel that anything which has value should automatically be taught in schools? Or do you accept that there are other outlets for the non-formal education of children?
3. I have no problem with you personally, I have no issue with your right to hold an opinion and I have no problem with what you’re saying (although I do find the narrow focus of how you apply your views problematic). You’re entitled to your views, but others are also entitled to challenge them… Playing the bigotry card before your views are challenged just makes you seem closed minded to the idea of discussing your views.
Rex, what do you say to a parent who disagrees with you, and feels that religion has no value in the upbringing of children? What would you say to a friend of mine whose son was reprimanded, and who herself was told off by the teacher, for politely stating when friends asked that he didn’t think there was a god? What about his free speech? What about my son’s freedom of religion, when he wanted to opt out of religion class and was told no, as there was no alternative supervision available? What about his freedom?
I think you are perhaps a little poorly informed about the realities of anyone disagreeing with the majority, with the reality that the majority view is not as majority as you think, and with the meaning of the term “free speech”.
“Can I ask, if you’re in favour of this, would you also be in favour of the teaching (equally) of other religions” I am for all religions to be taught equally rather than just catholic
2nd. “School is not the only source for the upbringing of children” Yes other outlet exists, however I find having it taught in a school can give a more team work environment, religion can also be a way to learn about others culture.
3rd: I was always aware of it, but some times we all need reminding. :)
The upbringing of a child is the responsibility of the parents, not the education system. Whats important in the education of a child are maths, Literacy, languages, history, geography, the arts, and any other subject that teaches valuable skills and imparts valuable knowledge that furthers the child’s chances of being successful in life. Religion does not fall in that category. If people believe it to be important in unbringing though then it’s on them to teach it.
JoJo, it’s useful to tell people that Mohammed went to heaven on a flying horse, that Jonah lived in the belly of a whale, that Jesus turned water into Chateau La Bethlehem? Why is teaching small children the superstitions of primitive people useful?
Magic and supernatural should be taught at home not in school!
No Santa or tooth fairy when you were a kid no?
Yep… And eventually I found out that they weren’t real either.
Tony – were you taught Santa and the Tooth Fairy in school as part of the curriculum? If they were taught on a par with religion, it might help you understand why it does not belong in schools.
If parents want religious education it should happen after they attend mass on a Sunday. Remember folks only Israeli, schools spend more time on religious studies than Ireland! Languages, science and maths are much more important
Wouldn’t it be better to have something like a philosophy class? It could cover different belief and understandings of the world without advocating them
At junior level Asops fables would be suitable and would in fact add to moral teachings however at second level political science or social science should be taught in place of RE. My two cents.
Philosophy is nearly as useless as religion. Teach more Science.
Send your kids to a foreign boarding school. The only thing Irish education teaches you is how to be a good little paddy.
Another small step towards a secular republic. Would prefer something more profound but positive nonetheless.
This would actually be creating a “reward” mindset. Don’t do religion and get out of school early. Yet another crack pot idea from Quinn!
Such children should have to attend a homework club or something at that time but it of course goes without saying that the government won’t resource that!!
Wonderful idea – let’s get real, get rational.
Definitely something related should replace it. There’s two parts to any religion. The “legend” side (Christ cured the sick, walked on water, returned from the dead) and the “values” side (judge not lest ye be judged, love thy neighbour as yourself, the Good Samaritan). To atheists the legend is the same as “Frodo inherited the magic ring, walked to mount Doom, threw it in, saved middle earth”, but are the values equally disposable?
I know I want my child raised with discussions of ethics & philosophy during school hours. In the past and now it’s introduced by religious classes. If more people want to kill off religion with their generation that’s their business and I support a person’s right to choose for themselves, but to replace those classes with “how to get a good college place with English/Irish/Math” lessons, is to take away a major part of what children need to know.
Remove the legend side if you want, but values and ethics is every bit as important as numbers and spelling.
Values and ethics are indeed extremely important. But religion does not have a monopoly on morality. So the question remains really.
Indeed.
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
-Gandalf, Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien.
Colm ” I support a person’s right to choose for themselves,”. Does that include your own children? Have they a right to grow up without being indoctrinated into your religion? Have you ever asked yourself how come all the Catholics had Catholic parents, the Muslims, Muslim parents etc….?
My house. My rules. End of.
Your house. Your rules. End of.
‘Remove the legend side if you want, but values and ethics is every bit as important as numbers and spelling.’
Agreed, but religion does not have the monopoly on morals, in fact many religions have very shaky morals.
ethics, civics, philosophy, astronomy, politics, art history, manners, gardening would all be better topics for inclusion on the school day.
As someone facing sending children to a catholic secondary school or sending them to school out of their community for secondary, as well as primary, I have a vested interest in seeing education secularised in this country.
Speaking from a secondary school perspective, in my experience, religious education is far from indoctrination. For Junior Cycle, students learn the ‘facts’ about the five major world religions and they must study one in depth for examination (Judaism tends to be the popular choice). At senior level students engage with social/moral issues like the environment, the death penalty, drug and alcohol abuse, cults, euthanasia etc… These topics tend to spark lively debate and students are encouraged to make up their own mind. Admittedly they are told what Christianity has to say on the matter but this has rarely affected their points of view. I feel this education, especially at senior level, will be more beneficial to them in the long run than any simultaneous equation.
It is imprtant though that if teaching the 5 major world religions that a 6 module reminds students that the other 5 are fairytale antique belief systems, worth studying to learn about groupthink, man’s desperate search for meaning, abuse of power, manipulation and population control.
But not worth studying as a lottery: one of the religions is the right one and key to eternal salvation, and which one to pick.
Tess, the hefty religion book they use at my kids secondary is 50% Christian, 30% catholic only, 2 pages on Islam, 2 on Judaism and a derogatory page on those who don’t belong to any church. Pretty close to indoctrination to me.
Tess, under the current secondary school curriculum my personal beliefs are dealt with under a chapter titled “Challenges to Faith”. That’s all; not a valid set of beliefs in their own right, but a challenge to someone else’s.
Do you honestly think that’s ok?
Tess, that is your experience only. I have paged through my kids’ religion books and to say it’s a balanced presentation of a number of religions is a joke. Further, presentation depends almost completely on the individual teacher, opening the door for True Believers to turn the class into an indoctrination session. The only way it will ever work, is for it to be dropped from the curriculum and offered as an extra-curricular option.
Tess, “facts” like Jesus walked on water, that God made man in his image (so Evolution is wrong), that Adam had a chat with a talking snake, that Eve was made from Adam’s rib? Those type of “facts”? :))
Yes, they should have a choice and that goes for sexed too esp when it’s that ‘Pure At Heart’, crowd of eejits!
all i ever did in religion was watch films
They’ll make up their own minds as they grow older so, no, I don’t have a problem !
whynotme, if people can “make up their own minds” are the VAST majority of the world’s religious the same religion as their parents? Could it be that after brainwashing people most of them are then incapable of making up their own minds?
William , fair point ,and a correct one ! I was just going by my own experience as , I grew up in a devout Catholic family ! Got whacked on the tip of my fingers for getting a catechism question wrong in 3rd class ! Bad memories last a lifetime ;) I don’t go to mass but, my partner does ..We have young children and if they ask any questions we are both honest to them ..
I don’t think the children should be allowed leave school early or start later to avoid religion class they should have the choice of another subject or study time. They should also have a choice if they want to study religion or not. Obviously this is for secondary schools. Primary schools really shouldn’t spend so much time on it if any at all. Parents should Teach their own children about the religion they have forced on them by baptising them.
Comparative Religion should be an extra curricular subject like fire eating or flower arranging.
Before the first reboot of the primary curriculum, in early 70′s, that is exactly how things were. Schools has a religion time first thing, children who didn’t want instruction came later. The curriculum changed that by emphasising child centered education, integration across subjects. The idea was, if the teacher saw an opportunity to practice some Irish during History, or Maths during English, this was all good. It let to very flexible time tabling and subject bleed across the day. Religion being a subject, could and did crop up all day. Currently with the 1990′s curriculum there is huge subject overload, I suspect that although RE must be timetabled for half an hour, I imagine there are a fair few Maths Irish and English over runs into that time. Actual instruction time I think is probably compressed, but this is balanced out by the integration/ everything is being taught all the time culture. It would be very difficult for schools now to distangle ethos from instruction.
Just ban religion class altogether and let the teacher touch on world religions during a related subject in history. religion belongs in the history books the day science replaced it with things called evidence and truth !
I think it’s a disgrace the state cannot run a secular school system.In the absence of sudden competence, however, I would be happiest with religious instruction being held as the first class of the day so it’s easier to opt out without feeling excluded. There’s also a good body of evidence suggesting a later start for school kids is actually beneficial. Win win!
I agree that it shouldn’t be taught as part of the core curriculum but if a child is exempt from Irish, they don’t go home while Irish is being taught. Obviously there has to be extra curricular activities in place.
I don’t want to do maths.
Does that mean I get to go home early then?
No sense.
giving us a lesson in whataboutery? maths is a basic requirement of any educational system. Religion is an add on and parents should have the option of opting out or selecting schools that make better use of their kids time. An extra sports class or maths class would be more useful.
Try reading the article, it mentions only religion.
But it does suggest a preference-esque system, based if you like a subject or not.
If this is to be enforced, going hone early us not the answer, a replacement class should be given. Otherwise you’ll have kids dossing off just because their mates are.
Reminded of the Woody Allen joke about being ejected from an exam on metaphysics for peering into the soul of the boy next to him.
thats what my kids school does, RE and RE “lite” are first or last. The fact that they dont have to go to a full Catholic class seems to work though, I dont mind the kids learning the fables though and is a good lesson that adults can be gullible. Although the irony of the RE “lite” she implied to the class that the Easter Bunny wasnt real ;-)
Religious education is fine as long as it is actually RELIGIOUS education-the syllabus tends to focus on Christianity and the other world religions are an optional topic.
Whenever something is said about religion the catholics seem to think we are attacking the Catholic Church. We are attacking ALL religions. You do not have a monopoly on the word. Get over yourselves. Its 2014………. I didn’t realise that the world was so young.
true, non religious just want choices, there should be options for ALL to educate their children as they wish, whether catholic, COI, jewish islam, etc etc , currently in Rural Ireland choices are virtually on existent, no one wants to take the choices away from those who prefer catholic indoctrination instead of education but rather wnt choices for them and their children
Religion in my school was more of a philosophy class at the start and we had excellent discussions on other faiths it wasn’t biased towards the Catholic Church really but that was down to teacher I guess, then he got engaged and RE became a new subject altogether “mastering the art of wedding planning”
One of my religion teachers really disliked me because I liked to ask questions (another loved me for the same reason). When I asked why abortion was wrong if done before development of the nervous system (ie the first 3 months) then what was wrong with it? She replied (knowing I had had a brother with a fatal fetal abnormality) that because there is a heart beat they can feel pain. She also told me open adoption didn’t exist. It is difficult to teach a subject like religion without bias as it is today. Teachers find it difficult to just teach the facts and not their own opinion.
Therefore, I think religious education should take place outside of school hours and instead a subject that teaches about country cultures should be taught instead.
In secondary school it was often a philosophy style class.
Though we did get shown some pro-life videos as well. Ones that had an obvious agenda and were designed to play on guilt and not fact.
I think for 5th and 6th year our religion classes were divided into 5, and we would have a new teacher for each section. The one that really disliked me taught the kind of options if you become pregnant module, which included a video of a woman telling us how abortion had ruined her life and she could never forgive herself. If you do not know the facts about the subject, you should not be teaching it though imo.
The teacher that loved my inquisitive nature taught about controversial issues such as abortion and euthanasia. I found that module interesting because I wasn’t being told I was just wrong for having a different opinion. She was an exception though.
Religious education never did anybody any harm did it ?
Tell that to the families of the 3,000 people murdered by religious fanatics in New York.
The majority of the world population is religious in one form or another.
Allowing children not to be educated about this is a huge mistake and failure.
But Quinn is of course willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater in his hatred of Catholicism.
The majority of the world used to think the world was flat and the stars and planets were decorations stuck onto the ceiling above the earth.
Allowing children to develop their zest for life based on enjoying the world, maximising their potential and respecting others – without ingraining a fairytale oppressor living in the clouds in their subconscious is far healthier. Better we value every living moment for what it is, rather than misguidedly seek to curry favour for a ticket to the afterlife myth.
For me, an Athiest doing good works is more noble than a devout Christian doing good works. One is motivated only by themselves, expecting no reward – the other is to some extent, trying to add to their Heaven’s Gate credits.
Hear hear, John!
Yes John, lets hear it for ignorance!
Hurray!
Also John, it’s *Atheist* not *Athiest*.
But I guess you don’t believe in proper spelling either…
Evert, thank you so much. You are still misguided, even if your typing skills are exemplary.
Of course I am misguided John. After all I believe in educating children about all religions (including atheism) as to make them more equipped to make choices in a later life.
You on the other hand would prefer to raise them ignorant.
Aww poor everet…..not getting your own makes you gwumpy. Here have a hug.**
Aah shucks, can I get a pat on the head too?
Religion is ignorance; that is why it has thrived in the past amongst ignorant societies. But we have come a long way in the past 200 years.
Why teach children about false paths? It is misleading them to attribute some value to it.
The pure way is to give them the confidence to embrace scientific reality based on knowledge, and to join the journey of discovery of new science and fact. It is not to teach a menu of artificial antique belief systems as a roadmap for living or understanding your existence.
Being raised ignorant of the thousand of gods and religions what have existed on earth is no loss relative to the more productive studies a child can undertake. Religion is fakery, and so should not rank too highly on the list of what is worthwhile learning for children.
John, john, john, do you see what you’re doing here?
You’re pretending to preach (pardon the pun) tolerance but at the same time you’re utterly intolerant of something that, well basically most of the world population practices; religion.
In your narrow minded “logic”, and I use the term loosely, it’s either your religion or the highway.
In the church of John atheism, basically just another religion albeit one that believes in nothing (nihilism anyone?) Atheism is “the The pure way”.
Have you any idea how much like the Khmer Rouge that makes you sound?
I can’t agree Evert. Atheism is not a religion. It is an abandonment of falsehoods. A base state whereby you choose not to blindly believe in made-up stories.
Religion is artificial; it is a created code devised and edited by men no closer to the truth of the Universe than anyone else, but who sought and found great power in asserting their stories.
It is unhealthy to portray it as fundamentally valid.
Sure it is a tradition, just like morris dancing or halloween, but it is an anachronism. The world is slowly moving on and advancing from these myths. But it will take hundreds of years before we’ve rid ourselves of the inane obsession people have with stories injected into their psyche when they were infants.
Evert, it’s not to relevant what most of the world does. The majority of Europeans are now non religious. Ireland’s heading the same way. Religion is rapidly disappearing.
William, aside from the fact that I question your statement that “The majority of Europeans are now non religious” I wonder if you support European centricity in other subject matters also?
Shall we scrap Christopher Columbus from the history syllabus?
Remove Antarctica from the geography syllabus? Maybe even censor non-European music from being taught in Irish music classes?
See?
Evert, I’m not interested in the religious superstitions of the poorly educated Indian sub continent or the Muslim countries. The developed world is post religious in the main, the UK, France, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Ireland etc are now predominantly non religious. Mass attendance in parts of Dublin is down to 5%. Only the old and rural attend mass in Ireland in any numbers.
William, “you’re not interested in the religious superstitions of the poorly educated Indian sub continent or the Muslim countries”. And that of course is the measure to which we should hold our public education system.
Q: How many William Grogans does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Only one, he holds the lightbulb while the world rotates around him.
Evert, if what you are saying is that it is useful to teach children that humanity used to create fairytales to explain phenomena it didn’t understand, and here is some information about those fairytales, who created them and how they spread through the ignorant populations in centuries gone by, then fair enough. It is interesting from a historical and anthropological perspective.
It isn’t top of my list for the syllabus of childhood learning as a whole coursework, but should be mentioned in history class as a minor module. No less important than a political history of the world.
Laying out religions to children as a possible path to salvation if you choose the right one is simply nonsense. Adults must be more responsible than that. Churches thrive on the impressionability of infants.
It is wrong to teach that filling in the gaps in our knowledge with baseless myths is a valid way to advance humanity.
Evert, maybe you forgot you wrote, ” basically most of the world population practices; religion.”. Most of the world is still uneducated. So I’m not interested and neither should you be in their superstitions. They’re butchering themselves on the back of it.
It takes NO William Grogans to change a light bulb, I’m software and that’s a hardware issue. :)
Religious belief does not result in good morals by default, nor does Atheism result in a lack of morals either. Atheism is not based on any ‘fact’ that proves there’s no god, just like no Religion can prove its position to be correct. Thinking any of these things implies a very real lack of critical reasoning. Militant or over zealous belief in these notions has been destructive to harmony in society since the earliest days. For atheism to be a valid view, it can only be the view that nobody can know the truth, and not subscribing to religious dogma is therefore rational. Anyone who maintains that they have the monopoly on the truth is either simple, mad or bad.
All debates which revolve around religion tend to degenerate into nonsense quickly.
Eric, they tend to degenerate into nonsense on the religious side.
The two positions, there’s no god, there is a god, are not equal. I’m as certain as I can be of anything that there are no gods for lots of reasons including the historical evolution of religions, the fact that they come from more primitive times, the gullibility of people who believe any old crap they come across, the science that explains how everything actually got here, the total lack of evidence for gods, the fact that people are the religion of their parents (which is obviously caused by brainwashing) and the fact that all the religions contradict one another. What has the religious person to offer to support his position and explain all the paradoxes such as Evolution? Nothing.
For sure William. You just defined my personal position.
But my comment was made from a position where I put my personal position aside, and stated what is clearly evident and cannot be denied. Despite the position we both take, & which I consider rational, those with over zealous tendencies will choose to see us as the zealous ones. I would rather have them pay attention than dismiss you out of hand.
You must admit at the end of the day, that even with the most scientific approach, lack of evidence is not proof of non existence. We can acknowledge that and still hold our position.
Also, I consider the debate “is there a god or not” to be an exercise in futility. The negative effects to society historically of over zealous doctrine from organised religion is where the debate should be centred.
If we take it away and introduce more maths and English…how much maths and English would we be doing!?! It would be a ridiculous amount…not fair in the students!
RE studies can be a fun and objective look at a range of modern and historical belief systems (even as phenomena)…
Is all we value now in schools; simply what can equal profit at the end?
RE Studies can be a different way to look at different belief systems. However children in catholic schools are taught dogma, rote learning of prayers, most have no understanding at all. It has no relevance in their lives…
Garreth,
We rank 22nd in English and 32nd in Mathematics, (according to OECD statistics for 2013) this hardly seems like we’re doing a “ridiculous amount” and if they are, then it seems it’s not working as well as it should.
I think you can call Religious Education many things. Objective is not one of them.
I fail to see how profit factors into this, or where it has been discussed. This is simply a proposal to move to a model of education, more reflective of the general society as people become more and more secular.
Parents were given questionnaires recently regarding who they would like to have running their local schools, did they want the Catholic Church to continue or would they rather have an Educate Together school. The majority of parents didn’t even bother to return the questionnaires. If parents were so concerned about Religious Indoctrination surely they would have taken the time to fill in a form expressing their wishes.
That’s a major assumption.
Maybe they just feel that they would be fighting a losing battle so why bother trying.
Not saying that’s what happened, but it’s as likely as the assumption you’ve made.
I’d be sceptical about Quinn’s motives there. The national distrust of the CC these days is a bandwagon which the Minister is jumping on in order to rally up public support.
I believe Religious Education has a place in schools. If it was optional while I was in school there is no way I would have shown up for it. However, as an adult I am glad it existed and for what it taught me (no I was not ‘indoctrinated’).
Allow Catholic schools teach Catholic values, but how about increasing the no. of non-denomination schools Educate Together where the demand is there. For e.g I believe there is a shortage of places in the Dublin area, with waiting lists for schools. Maybe that is problem more worth focusing on.
I know ET schools are popular but why cant the non-denominational schools be Gaelscoileanna? Parents have huge difficulty getting their children into them also? We have two gaelscoileanna, both packed to capacity and one ET, cant wait to see you gets a secondary school first?
Lara, what you’re suggesting would require the building of hundreds of new schools all over the country, at least one in each town, which is completely unworkable and unwarranted. Instead, it should be law that every town have at least one completely secular school (chosen from the schools already in existence).
So which of the 40,000+ varieties of Christianity claiming to be the one true faith should we teach? I personally think separation of church & state would be a much more realistic debate.
No,
The question has the two main words required RELIGION and HOME. Religion should be left to the parents to teach. If teachers care that much about it they could teach it after school
The question is not should kids be allowed to leave early for religion to commence, the question i should be religion thought in schools at all?
The answer for me is a resounding no. Schools for numbers and letters, churches for gods and fairys.
they should not have to leave early, an alternative option should be in place, my daughter’s primary school has 2 options, ethical studies class based on the educate together curriculum and (what i call) indoctrination class for those who wish to receive catholic instruction, it works well , everyone is happy
How about a class on reason, keep it out of schools and let your kids decide themselves if they want religious instruction which should obviously come from the parents……
I’m 28, and shocked religion is still an issue in our schools, and that we have no choice other than Catholic schools. It’s a disgrace. re class should be a anthropology class, learning about cultures etc. Do not replace with science or maths! Why does no one suggest replacing with art? children have enough science and maths and the associated pressures, creativity needs to be nurtured more, art is therapeutic. (and I’m a scientist)
I am eternally grateful for the religious teaching I received when I was at school. The dogma, ridiculous assertions and the illogicallity of ridiculous unsubstantiated theory which was offered fell far short of reasonable proof and taught me how to be personally responsible for my own ethical decisions and not to abdicate personal responsibility to any supernatural force. This ensured that I enjoyed the benefits of agnosticism from about age 12 to the present.. I admit I do find theology interesting, but only in the same way that I find historical fiction to be so.
There’s no better source of converts into disbelief than the ‘holy’ books themselves. Just make sure you read them from start to finish without someone interpreting it for you.
@emilio. Doesn’t always work. I read it completely and I became a believer! Still am but more sane! What you get out of something depends on how much you believe you will get out of it.
Sooner religion is outlawed the better it does more harm than good
To be honest, I think a lot of those commenting on this poll are extremely out of touch with how religion is being taught in modern Irish schools.
Although I am not a religious person, I had a great experience studying RE in both primary and secondary school, where a lot of focus was given to morality and ethics in decision making and how influences of the major world religions alter such decisions.
I completely agree that religious instruction should not be included in religious education, but from my experience religious instruction was never an issue. The primary level it really focuses on being kind to others, which is relevant to everyone, irregardless of their beliefs.
I think that the history of religion with further focus on ethics should be taught in primary and secondary schools. Religion has an absolutely major influence on history, politics, psychology and sociology and, as such, should be given attention in an appropriate, respectful and inclusive way.
Jessica, I’m very well aware of how religion is currently taught in schools.
In secondary schools they follow the proscribed curriculum. However, denominational schools are legally allowed to teach this curriculum from their own perspective; ie, a Catholic school can teach about other religions from the viewpoint that they are wrong, and catholicism is the only true religion. This, obviously, leads to vastly differing ways of interpreting the curriculum from one school to another, and even from one teacher to another.
Also, atheists, agnostics, humanists etc have only one chapter devoted to what they believe. That chapter is titled “Challenges to Faith”. Apparently those of us who choose a non-religious path don’t have our own beliefs, we merely exist to challenge other people’s beliefs.
How is that fair? How will that help my daughter’s self-esteem?
I’m all for them opting out of religion classes, but let them either spend that time in supervised study, or taking extra classes in proper subjects like Maths.
It’s not an important subject. So yes, they should be allowed to opt out. At least until they fill in the gap in the day. I used to head home last class on a Thursday and Friday because it was “religious education”. *some knob spouting Catholic doctrine from her arse). I wasn’t actually allowed to go home, so but I did anyway. The subject wasn’t on my leaving cert so it was a massive waste of school time and mine.
There is a very big difference in “should children be allowed to opt-out of religion classes? and ” should children be allowed to go home early if they opt-out of religion classes?” Everyone has a right to their Faith and I respect freedom of choice. I believe in religious education, as in ALL religions and views including atheists and agnostics. There is not always a simple solution, you may live in a rural area so the choice of schools can be very limited, and you may be a small school so again this leads to problems. We now live in a multicultural society with a multitude of different religions and ways of life and we should strive to accommodate everyone if at all possible. Surely the Church and the Dept of Education can work together to put “best Practice” in place.
perhaps the kids should be updated on the Higgs boson and evolution in lieu of religion time, spirituality in all it’s forms can be acquired outside of school.
There should be an alternative class on rational thinking. This would be use to discuss things like the difference between correlation and causation. Understanding statistics, understanding the idea of peer-reviewed articles. Explaining the importance of independent repeatability of experiments, the testability of claims…
Most of the commentary here seems to focus on the Catholic Patroned School. Will the same suggestion by the Minister be applied to the Muslim schools equally or will Catholics and Jews be accorded equal access to such schools. The reason schools are under religion styled patronage is that they are apostolic with the religious ethos of the vast majority of their student body being catered for. Choice therefore is usually determined by the majority religion patron in each instance. To deny a Patroned school the right to have its religion permeate it’s school to satisfy a tiny minority seems very much like the tail wagging the dog. Each denomination seeks to promote its own principles ethos and practices within its own context. This was obvious as far back as the 1830′s when multi denomination or non-denomination school setups were rejected in favour of the patronage system. Educate Together, Gaelscoileanna and other styles of school setups have in their own way bought into the Patronage system by establishing their own schools with their own ethos. For example should a Gaelscoil have to change its ethos and enrolment policy to facilitate accommodating a non Irish speaker in the name of choice I think not! When we realise that at Primary Level most schools have four teachers or less then it is obvious that it would be impossible to have mini-schools trying to satisfy everyone. Demographics dictate viability.
Micheal, everyone has equal rights, not just the majority. The government cannot legally ignore the minority just because we might be inconvenient.
Your analogy about gaelscoileanna is a false one. If all schools taught through Irish, then you could have a parent demanding exemption; but parents who want their children taught through English are already fully catered for.
If they don’t want to do religion then maybe let them do something to enhance their education, a different class or some extra curricular activity maybe?
Religion has played an major role in the world , culturally, socially and historically, therefore it should be studied/ taught.
Also, it is about time we began to teach children to be understanding and tolerant of other people’s beliefs and cultures and what better way, than to teach them about the different religions because religion, is the basis of much of who we are as people, like it or not.
“It’s an universal law– intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
I don’t think anyone has a problem with religious education, like you say teaching kids about all kinds of faiths (and none) people they’re likely to meet in the world have and about the history and different teachings – that’s a valid learning activity. But in Ireland where the church still controls the schools, the time is spent on faith-formation, what we used to call indoctrination, basically making new little catholics – it’s just not the place for that, not in the 21st century.
I had more hope for religious education than simply teaching catholic doctrine having read the curriculum for secondary schools but I think it comes down to the belief of the individual teacher who influences what is actually being taught. I know of a history teacher who swayed from the text book, actually told the students that they woukd not be covering the chapter on the protestant reformation and instead gave them a handout of her (distorted catholic )version. And seeing as RE is a non examinable (used be be anyway) subject, who is there to ensure that kids are taught in line with the curriculum.
The greatest God that mankind has ever known is the Sun. It has literally created and sustained all life on Earth.
Why aren’t we worshipping our mighty star?
O Holy god
Some people somehow seem to be unable to differentiate education in *all* religion and the social, cultural and economic impacts on history and the modern world from indoctrination in one single religion.
This really confuses me as there is very little logic behind that school of thought…
I have a problem with this question. I want to answer ‘no’ but that might indicate I am pro religious indoctrination which could not be further from the truth. There should be no faith formation in schools and if religion is thought it should be factually, following Toledo principles. Secondly if there is to be a practical opt out, I would prefer if that time was used for extra lessons in other subjects or a secular morality course (acknowledging the funding and training deficit hurdle of course)…there also needs to be a change to the current “integrated curriculum” which promotes integration of religion in all of primary school learning and is the official direction of the dept.. How can one possibly opt out of that!
I would become atheist if I could go home early from school
Religious education has a place however I would like to see more practical subjects introduced to the curriculum as options. Subjects such as household budgeting and driving theory/lessons. Chinese language should also be introduced considering it’s significance in the global economy.
Yes, nothing wrong with kids skipping Religion class. There’s nothing wrong with religion, but if kids want to skip it then they should be allowed to. Kids shouldn’t be force fed religion, it should be a choice.
Religion not only dulls the mind,but is at odds with children who want to question things. Just what you sent your kids to school for.
Religious Education is totally different now. You learn about all the different world religions and their practices. It teaches children to be inclusive of all and to be respectful of others religious and non- religious beliefs. Fair enough it is different in primary schools as they are preparing for two catholic sacraments but things should be put in place for those times absolutely. However I don’t think they should be left go early or come in later- they could be catching up on other subjects.
Why not replace religion class with a class on Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory etc so that children have a scientific foundation from which they can go forward and learn about all the different religions and their beginnings. It’s shameful that in 2014 a 7 year old can spout off the words to Hail Mary and Our father but they don’t know how old the planet is or anything about our solar system.
ox·y·mo·ron
ˌäksəˈmôrˌän/nounnoun: oxymoron; plural noun: oxymorons
1.a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g., religious education).
While I am religious myself(LDS) , I would agree that religious indoctrination should be stopped in schools, if parents want their children to make their communion ect. then the schools should hire outside help to take those pupils aside during school hours and prepare them for their communion/conformation.
While this is happening the children who exclude themselves from religious practice can be taught a different subject (art, science, World Studies ect.) by the class teacher. Really this works both ways but having the religious students leave the class makes more sense because I can imagine a lot of preparation is done in a chapel anyway.
Also those people who say religious education should be banned altogether are just being ignorant. It’s important to know about world religions, they have shaped human history and have a major impact on todays society, in order to understand present and we need to understand the past and in order to do that we should know about religious teachings around the world and the influence they have had.
A choice to opt out of religion classes? Absolutely. But go home early? With eleven subjects to teach and major challenges ahead to improve literacy, numeracy and social skills, schools should be given the resources to allow children the extra classes to improve in these areas.
I do think students should be allowed to opt-out of religion class if they want to but religion class nowadays has a lot less to do with the actual Catholic religion and a lot more to do with learning about different religions, morals, sexual education and so on.
Letting kids go home early for not studying religion is unfair to the kids who do study it. Theyre kids after all and probably would all love to go home early.
How so many people can vote no and agree with religious bias, eating into class time for their own kids is beyond me. Just make a class option available and end the Catholic bias?!.
Down with that sort of thing! Careful now…
They could actually put some solid interesting information on different religions like Hinduism instead of the bs* on community and morality
the problem is that Quinn is an atheist dictator who has spend millions of euro on this issue while at the same time making class sizes bigger and cutting SN teachers
It is a issue that should be dealt with when the country has more money and it should be dealt with at local level as one size will not fit all
Religion classes should be used to learn about all religions and cultures,
…and how religions all disagree with one another as to how many gods there are, how religions did and continue to justify killing the each other, how absurd they all are, how their beliefs contradict known scientific facts etc. Now that’s education.
Difficult to vote yes to something that isn’t the right solution.
It does lessen the indoctrination that I don’t want my children to go through, so I did vote yes.
But it permeates every part of the day.
“Across and down from heaven, that is how we make a seven”. That’s how my daughter was learning to write a number recently.
Leaving early won’t solve that.
Only actively disallowing indoctrination will stop this.
Indoctrination can easily happen outside school hours.
Oh, and there aren’t any non faith-based school options in my area, so we are stuck with this.
Instead of opting out of class, all Religions (including Atheism) should be taught. Education is the only way to make up your own mind as to what you believe in.
Didn’t realise that atheism was a religion. Who is their deity?
FSM
Ramen.
Besides not believing in any religion you also seem to have given up believing in reading, tolerance & logic haven’t you?
Hmm, somehow this reply was disconnected from the comment is was in reply to..
If children are allowed to go home early instead of doing religion or anything else in school for that matter they will always pick the home option
I don’t think getting rid of the class is the answer. The majority of the world are involved in religion so it is important to be educated about world cultures and religion in a non-biased way.
Junior Cert religion isn’t too bad in that students learn about the 5 major world religions but its all from a Christian point of view and atheism/agnosticism is never mentioned or explored.
Leaving Cert religion explores topics like what it means to be Christian, religion and gender, abortion and the best one of all -religion and science. This is all again from a Christian point of view.
For our religion 6th year classes we had to watch the passion of the Christ and watch a video on abortion which went through the procedure and interviews with women who regretted getting abortions and hoped god could forgive them while the other classes were allowed to their homework.
Primary school religion needs a total change and evolution should also be taught in schools.
Not go home but go to the Library. Everyone will declare themselves atheist if they could finish school a half hour early
if it wasn’t for the church we wouldn’t have schools in this shit hole of a country
I think religion should be taught about all the different types of religions out there. And let the younger generation understand that everyone has different believes and where’s the harm in that. I am a catholic and I do say me prayers to get me through the hard times. But religion class should include all religions not just the catholic one.
Religion should not be thought at school. Use that time for academic studies and those that are interested in religion should arrange religious education with their respective religious crowds.
Absolutely agree with you all. Religion should be taught as a subject encompassing all denominations rather than religious instruction. A friend of mine is a teacher in an “Educate Together” school which I had never heard of until she told me about it as I live outside of Ireland now. It seems like the perfect solution, the students are taught about all religions, they “celebrate” all religious holidays and any students who wish to take the sacraments can do so but it is prepared for outside of school time.
It’s time for Ireland to come out of the past and separate state from church.
I am seriously concerned about Ruairi Quinn’s qualifications and suitability for his position (I have just read his honours maths suggestion). No, there should not be an opt out because religious studies should encompass all religions. The teaching of these religions would ideally be approached from a fact-based, secular perspective. Your own faith can be taught in that house of worship. Sunday school anyone? Or has nobody any trust in Ireland’s clergy any more, I wonder why?!
If you opt out then you should be kept in school and made start on the home work, put reading books etc.
Opt out and feck off home. Yeah that is going to work out.
@Shane Horan, my replies not showing. 30 years ago parents removed children from school instead of attending religion classes. Not many parents/legal guardians free to collect children now and no teachers free to supervise them either. Insurance is a massive problem in this issue.
I went to school for a time in the UK having come from a catholic school in Dublin , the school in the uk thought about religion in all of its forms so the pupil could make his or her own mind up when they became adults. It was IMO a good system and I enjoyed it, but hated religion class here.
If kids are given the option to skip religion then they should have to do GYM class as health and fitness is far more important for the young.
It shouldn’t be taught in the same building or by the same person.
Having the same person tell you that the earth orbits the sun, 1+1=2, how mountains are formed and that 2000 years ago a middle eastern apocalypse cult leader died for your sins is an outrageous abuse of a child’s trust.
have your say