Why must agnostics be obliged to teach faith?

[klr]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opi ... 75172.html

Why must agnostics be obliged to teach faith

The Irish Times - Tuesday, February 2, 2010

FINTAN O'TOOLE

IMAGINE A country in which entry to a major profession is subject to a test of one’s private beliefs. A Soviet satellite in the old eastern bloc? Iran? Saudi Arabia? How about Ireland?

Welcome to the Republic.

Last week’s Irish Times poll brought the welcome news that 61 per cent of people no longer support the control of our primary education system by the Catholic Church. One thing that has been left out of the debate, however, is the stark reality that no one can train to be a primary teacher in Ireland unless he or she is either a believing Christian or is prepared to pretend to be so.

In December, a graduate wrote to the registrar of St Patrick’s College, Dublin, asking about applying for the State-funded postgraduate course in primary teaching. The qualification is from a public institution, Dublin City University. She wrote: “I am . . . of no particular faith and am concerned about the religious requirements for entry into a Catholic college. I am unsure if the college accepts applications from non-Catholics and would be very grateful for clarification on this issue. If this is the case, I would also be grateful for clarification on whether it is obligatory for non-faith students to complete the diploma in religious education and teach religion as part of their teaching practice.”

She received a very nice letter assuring her that non-Catholics could indeed apply, but stressing that “students on the course are required to take all the programme modules and these include modules on religious education in primary schools”.

The solution, you might think, would be to apply to another teacher-training course. The fact is, though, that every single course in Ireland is run by a Christian college, and obliges every single student to both learn and teach Christian doctrine.

There are seven teacher training colleges, all of them funded by the State. St Patrick’s defines itself as a “community of learning in which Catholic religious values and equity are promoted”. It adds that “the college recognises its duty in preparing teachers to teach the Catholic faith in Catholic schools”. Mary Immaculate College in Limerick declares itself on its website to be “Ireland’s largest Catholic college”. Froebel College in Dublin defines itself as a “Catholic College, under the trusteeship of the Congregation of Dominican Sisters”.

St Angela’s in Sligo declares itself “a Catholic college”. The Marino Institute in Dublin is run by the Christian Brothers and declares itself committed to the tradition of that order’s founder, Edmund Rice. And the Church of Ireland College of Education is explicitly dedicated to providing “a supply of teachers for primary schools under the management of the Church of Ireland and other Protestant denominations”.

These colleges are not private institutions – each is connected to a public university. Yet, in all of them, students have no choice but to learn (and pass exams in) Christian doctrine. (Some, like St Patrick’s, offer optional courses for those who wish to teach in Educate Together schools, but these are in addition to, rather than instead of, the compulsory Catholic courses.)

The religious education part of the course is specifically designed to enable the teaching of the “textbooks currently in use in Irish Catholic schools”. Students are required to “explore some of the theoretical foundations of contemporary faith formation processes” – in other words, to learn how to indoctrinate children in the Catholic faith.

When it comes to teaching practice, the curriculum in St Patrick’s stipulates that “it is expected that all students would prepare religion lessons”. (These aspects of the course are separate from the more specific Certificate in Religious Studies, which is required for those wanting to teach in Catholic schools but is otherwise optional.)

Leave aside the utter inappropriateness of a republic funding the “faith formation processes” of any religion. Just think instead of the hypocrisy that’s involved here. The church is quite prepared to have Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, atheist or agnostic students learning how to teach the Catholic faith, so long as they keep their heads down and their mouths shut. In the 19th century, Catholics were forced to pay tithes to support a church they did not believe in. Now, non-Christian would-be teachers must pay an intellectual tithe of silence and submission.

And where is the Republican Party in all of this? Cringing in the corner, of course.

Batt O’Keeffe, asked for a statement on the provision of teacher training for non-Christians, told the Dáil recently that “responses received from some colleges in relation to the question of provision being made for student teachers who belong to a denomination which is not Christian have indicated that this has not arisen to date”.

The logic is impeccable: you have to pretend to be a Christian to train as a teacher – therefore all trainee teachers are assumed to be Christians.

[Feck]

Give em a child until it is seven And ...........(oops ,in serious stuff I can't say that ).

[devogue]

Thanks for posting that, klr.

The thing I despair of most is that such as system is still heavily supported (ie the Catholic church's involvement in education).

After my granny's funeral in November I had a drunken debate with my cousin - a real hotshot accountant - about god, Catholicism etc.

The upshot was that "it's good moral grounding for the kids and, sure, it done us no harm".

There is no tradition of religious Sunday Schooling within Catholicism here, so a huge swathe of parents will always be uneasy about religion being removed from the schools.

I reckon if such a tradition could be established it wouldn't be ideal, but it would get the fuckers out of the education system - protestantism is nowhere near as ingrained in the state school system in the North.

[klr]

I reckon that if "religious instruction" became the responsibility of the parents - as in to be taught at home, at "Sunday School", or some other voluntary system, then many Irish parents would pretty much opt out of religion. Not just because they might not want religion being taught to their children, but also because they probably couldn't be arsed to do the work themselves if the onus was put on them, as opposed to the education system. The whole idea of "Sunday school" is anathema to Irish Catholicism. Religion was just part of your everyday life, seeping into every nook and cranny. No special effort was required to indoctrinate children, because the entire social system was already set up to do that anyway.

The Catholic Church greatly fears secularisation of the primary school system, and with good reason from its perspective.

[devogue]

I reckon that if "religious instruction" became the responsibility of the parents - as in to be taught at home, at "Sunday School", or some other voluntary system, then many Irish parents would pretty much opt out of religion. Not just because they might not want religion being taught to their children, but also because they probably couldn't be arsed to do the work themselves if the onus was put on them, as opposed to the education system. The whole idea of "Sunday school" is anathema to Irish Catholicism. Religion was just part of your everyday life, seeping into every nook and cranny. No special effort was required to indoctrinate children, because the entire social system was already set up to do that anyway.

The Catholic Church greatly fears secularisation of the primary school system, and with good reason from its perspective.

Spot on.

[Feck]

Why must agnostics be obliged to teach faith? Wrong question ...Why must Faith be taught in Primary schools ?

[klr]

Why must agnostics be obliged to teach faith? Wrong question ...Why must Faith be taught in Primary schools ?

I think that's what the article is getting, just in a roundabout way. Fintan O'Toole is one of the best commentators around on all matters related to the separation of Church and state. Calm and reasoned, but at the same time takes no prisoners.

[devogue]

Why must agnostics be obliged to teach faith? Wrong question ...Why must Faith be taught in Primary schools ?

1986 - Child joins primary school. So do all children from her community of the same age. Child attends Mass every week. Community.
1989 - Child has First Holy Communion. So do all her friends. All their parents are together. Everyone parties. Mass every week. Community.
1993 - Child is confirmed. So do all her friends. All their parents are together. Everyone parties. Mass every week. Community. Child goes to high school.
1993 - 2000 - child is told religion is the most important subject; child and parents informed child will be reared as a Christian citizen, full of good and morally equipped for life. Mass every week. Mass at school. Religion.
2000 - 2003 - student of astrophysics. Community back home. Mass. Morals. Celebration. Sacrafice. Community.
2006 - Marriage. Catholic church - mass, priest, thanks to Father for a lovely service, community, everyone parties, Mass
2010 - Child joins primary school. So do all children from her community of the same age. Child attends Mass every week. Community.

In all of the above, the Catholic church has actually done nothing proactive. The community allows it.

And on it goes.

If you opt out, you leave the community to a great extent - I would imagine that Ani, klr and DP have found themselves withdrawn from their community to a greater or lesser degree by removing themselves from religious observance. I know I have, but my children have been removed from the cycle.

[klr]

I reckon that if "religious instruction" became the responsibility of the parents - as in to be taught at home, at "Sunday School", or some other voluntary system, then many Irish parents would pretty much opt out of religion. Not just because they might not want religion being taught to their children, but also because they probably couldn't be arsed to do the work themselves if the onus was put on them, as opposed to the education system. The whole idea of "Sunday school" is anathema to Irish Catholicism. Religion was just part of your everyday life, seeping into every nook and cranny. No special effort was required to indoctrinate children, because the entire social system was already set up to do that anyway.

The Catholic Church greatly fears secularisation of the primary school system, and with good reason from its perspective.

Spot on.

You know the "Irish Catholic" psyche well.

EDIT:

Why must agnostics be obliged to teach faith? Wrong question ...Why must Faith be taught in Primary schools ?

1986 - Child joins primary school. So do all children from her community of the same age. Child attends Mass every week. Community.
1989 - Child has First Holy Communion. So do all her friends. All their parents are together. Everyone parties. Mass every week. Community.
1993 - Child is confirmed. So do all her friends. All their parents are together. Everyone parties. Mass every week. Community. Child goes to high school.
1993 - 2000 - child is told religion is the most important subject; child and parents informed child will be reared as a Christian citizen, full of good and morally equipped for life. Mass every week. Mass at school. Religion.
2000 - 2003 - student of astrophysics. Community back home. Mass. Morals. Celebration. Sacrafice. Community.
2006 - Marriage. Catholic church - mass, priest, thanks to Father for a lovely service, community, everyone parties, Mass
2010 - Child joins primary school. So do all children from her community of the same age. Child attends Mass every week. Community.

In all of the above, the Catholic church has actually done nothing proactive. The community allows it.

And on it goes.

If you opt out, you leave the community to a great extent - I would imagine that Ani, klr and DP have found themselves withdrawn from their community to a greater or lesser degree by removing themselves from religious observance. I know I have, but my children have been removed from the cycle.

The cycle continues mainly because not enough people are prepared to speak up and actively challenge the entrenched position of the Catholic Church, a position which is utterly untenable in a secular society. Add in pressure to conform to perceived social norms, perceived pressure from family (especially from the child's grandparents), and the result is that the status quo is largely maintained. What is actually being taught is of course radically different to what previous generations learned - there is no way that the Catholic Church could get away with the fire-and-brimstone flavour that it peddled even as recently as 50 years ago.

The cycle also continues partly because many people are too lazy. The same laziness and apathy that would cause many of them to drop religion almost completely if it was no longer imposed on them, causes them to accept the imposition in the first place. A particularly Irish problem. :pissed:

As for leaving the community: It's not such a problem for me, partly because I live at some physical remove from my family anyway, and I can pick and choose how and when I interact with them. They're all pretty intelligent anyway, if at times stereotypically lazy when it comes to religion. I choose my friends, and they are all intelligent people who even if they still nominally conform, are completely aware of what it is they are doing. Then there's the old urban/rural divide. It's just much easier to do as you please in a city.

[Trolldor]

You know, the one thing I've always wondered is why they don't do the course, get the qualification, and then teach the actual, recorded history of Christianity along with the philosophical arguments. It'd be a good way to tell the organisations to STFU and to be able to teach children the importance of critical analysis.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You know, the one thing I've always wondered is why they don't do the course, get the qualification, and then teach the actual, recorded history of Christianity along with the philosophical arguments. It'd be a good way to tell the organisations to STFU and to be able to teach children the importance of critical analysis.

Subvert the "mission" of the churchies.

[devogue]

You know, the one thing I've always wondered is why they don't do the course, get the qualification, and then teach the actual, recorded history of Christianity along with the philosophical arguments. It'd be a good way to tell the organisations to STFU and to be able to teach children the importance of critical analysis.

Good idea.

I think that, as klr said, most parents have a vague idea about religion being the fount of all morality and ethics. They haven't really thought it through, and they are either too busy, uninterested or lazy to bother.

A detached view of Christianity, Hellenic philosophy (interesting how Paul despised it but the later church embraced aspects of it) and other thinking would seriously empower people and give them a better understanding of how morality is not divine or supernatural. It's not as if it's difficult either - I have a fairly mediocre intellect and a short attention span, but I was able to gain so much in just ten days by reading Russell's History of Western Philosophy.

Perhaps the powers that be and the public at large are happy that the tenets of Christianity are understood by even the least intelligent members of society; a wider understanding of philosophy necessitates a bit of effort - it suits the casual and lazy approach most people naturally have to such issues (that's not a criticism - most people will be bored) and it suits the church because it has power and influence.

The status quo is maintained through casual silence.

[klr]

You know, the one thing I've always wondered is why they don't do the course, get the qualification, and then teach the actual, recorded history of Christianity along with the philosophical arguments. It'd be a good way to tell the organisations to STFU and to be able to teach children the importance of critical analysis.

Good idea.

I think that, as klr said, most parents have a vague idea about religion being the fount of all morality and ethics. They haven't really thought it through, and they are either too busy, uninterested or lazy to bother.

A detached view of Christianity, Hellenic philosophy (interesting how Paul despised it but the later church embraced aspects of it) and other thinking would seriously empower people and give them a better understanding of how morality is not divine or supernatural. It's not as if it's difficult either - I have a fairly mediocre intellect and a short attention span, but I was able to gain so much in just ten days by reading Russell's History of Western Philosophy.

Perhaps the powers that be and the public at large are happy that the tenets of Christianity are understood by even the least intelligent members of society; a wider understanding of philosophy necessitates a bit of effort - it suits the casual and lazy approach most people naturally have to such issues (that's not a criticism - most people will be bored) and it suits the church because it has power and influence.

The status quo is maintained through casual silence.

The RC church seems to operate on the mushroom principle: Keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit. Accept what you're told and don't question it. It is deliberately dumbed down. This is not only done to appeal to the widest possible market, but also because anyone who applies their intelligence to the teachings of the church will likely realise:

* That the "history" angle is suspect at best, especially involving Jesus himself.
* How the church as an organisation is dedicated to perpetuating itself, ahead of all other considerations.
* That religion in general is a completely untenable crock of shit.

Lots of people still have a "blind spot" when it comes to religion. They don't want to ask questions, or not even realise that they should -that's how powerful indoctrination can be. Once they decide do so with an open mind, the results are usually predictable.

[devogue]

The cold breeze of reality scares a lot of people - I suppose it's understandable.

I equate it to being sick - I usually try to stop myself and hope that the nausea will go away. The fear of retching and vomiting is palpable.

Then, once I've done it, I feel good and fresh.

It's the getting there that's the hard bit.

[Trolldor]

You know, the one thing I've always wondered is why they don't do the course, get the qualification, and then teach the actual, recorded history of Christianity along with the philosophical arguments. It'd be a good way to tell the organisations to STFU and to be able to teach children the importance of critical analysis.

Good idea.

I think that, as klr said, most parents have a vague idea about religion being the fount of all morality and ethics. They haven't really thought it through, and they are either too busy, uninterested or lazy to bother.

A detached view of Christianity, Hellenic philosophy (interesting how Paul despised it but the later church embraced aspects of it) and other thinking would seriously empower people and give them a better understanding of how morality is not divine or supernatural. It's not as if it's difficult either - I have a fairly mediocre intellect and a short attention span, but I was able to gain so much in just ten days by reading Russell's History of Western Philosophy.

Perhaps the powers that be and the public at large are happy that the tenets of Christianity are understood by even the least intelligent members of society; a wider understanding of philosophy necessitates a bit of effort - it suits the casual and lazy approach most people naturally have to such issues (that's not a criticism - most people will be bored) and it suits the church because it has power and influence.

The status quo is maintained through casual silence.

That's one way of putting it, but let's face it. People don't like change unless it really benefits them. They won't fight for a minor change because they don't really care.
Getting rid of Xtianity in schools won't change that much, not for most people. For those it does it'll be those who think it's necessary. For those who think it's unnecessary, it's more just an annoyance than a hindrance.
There's not enough motivation for it to be stopped.