Well done Gabriella something you're very good at, in the first part of this post of yours, saying the same thing that I've all ready said in my original post, 28285, but using your own terms of phrase.
Thanks - it's useful to be good at English and able to express my POV on a forum like this. You're also good at using your own terms of phrase to express your opinion e.g. your phrases such as "indoctrinate" or "thinking for yourself" seem to have a different meaning for you.
Just a footnote to that, I've consistently referred to the fact we shouldn't try to rewrite history when mentioning religion at school, where it's relevant, which I guess would be mostly within a history lesson, not mentioning religion when referring to the crusades, for example, well, I'd have to think about that one.
We will have to disagree. I think religion is better incorporated into a lesson about beliefs, morals, philosophies and ethics - issues that affect people today rather than limiting it to a backward looking historical exercise about what people believed in the past.
Though i agree it is useful to know the historical background of current rituals as it helps people put them in context and thereby communicate with other cultures. In our global society, communication, understanding, empathy, tolerance are all useful skills to learn, unless people plan to somehow limit their exposure to people who think differently from them or who have had different lives to their own.
For example those Muslim communities that make the effort to gain knowledge and understanding of some of the other cultures they interact with tend to do better educationally, economically and socially than the ones who isolate themselves.
Back to the children, there's a well known extremely vulnerable age very young children go through where they take most things on when presented on authority alone, most of them are through this stage by the age of seven on average, this early age is the age the religions like to pounce on these children, that's without a doubt where they know that they will get their highest percentage of new recruits, that's the age that worries me the most and I don't see there's any wrong in teaching this group to reason for themselves and not having any specific lessons about religion but at the same time not doing any form of somersault to avoid any mention of the subject, anyway religion should be a private matter best dealt with outside of the schools time for those who, it seems to me, are determined to indoctrinate their children with unevidenced ideas.
Well it seems ethics, morals, values, beliefs and cultures also like "to pounce on" children at that vulnerable age to recruit them into a particular way of thinking rather than teaching them to reason for themselves.
No doubt it would be interesting to experience vulnerable children creating their own ethics, morals, values, beliefs and cultures that have never been thought of before. On the whole, despite all this indoctrination of vulnerable children rather than them being left alone to think for themselves, they tend to survive and continue procreating and indoctrinating. Reason tells me that all the indoctrination probably serves some kind of useful purpose but if you disagree, feel free to elaborate.
I would add that, outside of a history lesson I can't see that there is sufficient merit in religious studies that sould warrant specific lessons about religion in our schools, nor could it be justified to erase religion from our history; after the age of this very young vulnerable group, hopefully reason would on a percentage basis have a far better chance of taking over.
Yes I'm keen on indoctrinating these children to think for themselves, I admit to that.
Regards ippy
You never have explained what teaching a 5 year old to think for themselves about abstract concepts means exactly.
For example, what is your version of teaching a 5 year old to think for themselves about the following questions:
- Do we have a purpose?
- Is it ok to challenge the rule of law?
- Is nationality a useful concept?
- Should we be indoctrinating children into a particular nationality or should they be given a choice from age 5 when they can communicate?
- Should we define a list of British values, and should we indoctrinate children with British values.
- What happens to family members when they die?
I would explain what I believe to the 5 year old. If they have a preference to believe what I believe - that makes it easy and leaves me adequate time to get groceries, cook, read stories with them, work, do various admin, pay bills, cleaning, laundry, ironing, exercise, spend time with my husband, and generally bond with family members through shared cultural experiences, narratives, symbols, metaphors, rituals and beliefs.
If the 5 year old wants to talk metaphysics because they disagree with any of my beliefs - ok but i've got limited time. As they get older it is easier for them to explore different beliefs themselves by reading books or watching TV shows, movies, YouTube, TED talks etc.
P S, I've just picked up this relevant link: https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2018/04/faith-schools-reducing-the-harm-isnt-enough
Interesting article. I agree with some parts - for example I don't think there should be mandatory acts of worship in school, but I disagree with the idea that those who do get something out of a collective act of prayer at a faith school should be prevented from doing so. The school can offer them to any pupil that is interested IMO, and pupils will just have to learn to be more robust and not develop a herd mentality but stand up for freedom of belief - hopefully it will help them learn how to function in the adult world.
