Body & Soul7 mins ago
On Being Raised With Religion.
93 Answers
I've just read this article and although it's not a new idea it seems to have pressed the Mails "Outrage" button.
I was raised as a catholic and can remember, even at primary school, doubting what I was told.
Anyone have views on this?
http://
I was raised as a catholic and can remember, even at primary school, doubting what I was told.
Anyone have views on this?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chrisgel. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think the professor is an attention-seeker, and has deliberately put forward his views in a way designed to cause outrage.
As an atheist married to a Cathlic who has been a teacher, Deputy, and Head in catholic primary schools, and with three children raised Catholics, I have a view contrary to the Professor.
To try and teavch religion while simultaneously debunking it as a myth is far to sophisticated an argument for a child to grasp, that sort of debate belongs among adults who can form opinions as adults.
Children naturally believe what adults tell them - anything fom the tooth fairy to God, and to heaven and angels. When they grow into thinking adults, they either accept or reject those teachings to varying degrees.
To not teach children about God - at least as far as the Catholic education ethos is concerned, is to deprive them of teaching about love, inclusion, fogiveness, kindness, sharing - all the attributes that can make a child a stable and worthwile member of adult society, so i would never advocate its abandonment, or trying to 'balance' it with a contrary viewpoint.
If children grow up believeing in God, and then choose not to believe as adults - as all my three children have - they have still grown up with the good concepts they learned under the umbrella of faith, and that is not in and of itself a bad thing.
Professor Dawkins is, for want of a better description, a 'professional atheist' and has an axe to grind in the same was as the Archbishop of Canterbury - born of professional interest and advancement as much as antying else.
I am happy that my children have had an introductrion to faith, which they have then chosen to abandon, rather than not to have had that introduction, and then not become the kind loving sharing and giving women that they are - to the benefit of their hsbands, children, poarents, and the wider world - since they all work with children.
As an atheist married to a Cathlic who has been a teacher, Deputy, and Head in catholic primary schools, and with three children raised Catholics, I have a view contrary to the Professor.
To try and teavch religion while simultaneously debunking it as a myth is far to sophisticated an argument for a child to grasp, that sort of debate belongs among adults who can form opinions as adults.
Children naturally believe what adults tell them - anything fom the tooth fairy to God, and to heaven and angels. When they grow into thinking adults, they either accept or reject those teachings to varying degrees.
To not teach children about God - at least as far as the Catholic education ethos is concerned, is to deprive them of teaching about love, inclusion, fogiveness, kindness, sharing - all the attributes that can make a child a stable and worthwile member of adult society, so i would never advocate its abandonment, or trying to 'balance' it with a contrary viewpoint.
If children grow up believeing in God, and then choose not to believe as adults - as all my three children have - they have still grown up with the good concepts they learned under the umbrella of faith, and that is not in and of itself a bad thing.
Professor Dawkins is, for want of a better description, a 'professional atheist' and has an axe to grind in the same was as the Archbishop of Canterbury - born of professional interest and advancement as much as antying else.
I am happy that my children have had an introductrion to faith, which they have then chosen to abandon, rather than not to have had that introduction, and then not become the kind loving sharing and giving women that they are - to the benefit of their hsbands, children, poarents, and the wider world - since they all work with children.
Well I have no intention of picked the thing up again just to point out that which was really in my face as I read it. God knows :-) this thread is annoying me enough as it is reminding me of the experience. I can only suggest you re-read it since, as I recall, I didn't need to read more than a few chapters before the continual 'having a go at readers who won't be able to to defend themselves from attack in a book', became so much I opted out.
"Who would they be then? The good people who see nothing amiss in teaching four year olds about death and torture?"
The good people who see the existence of a spiritual plane a perfectly reasonable belief. And I have to say it surprises me that someone who appeared on the forum to believe there was more than just a physical reality to existence should defend someone who basically makes out you are foolish to do so.
The good people who see the existence of a spiritual plane a perfectly reasonable belief. And I have to say it surprises me that someone who appeared on the forum to believe there was more than just a physical reality to existence should defend someone who basically makes out you are foolish to do so.
Andy-Hughes, //To not teach children about God - at least as far as the Catholic education ethos is concerned, is to deprive them of teaching about love, inclusion, fogiveness, kindness, sharing - all the attributes that can make a child a stable and worthwile member of adult society,//
All of those things can be taught without the need to introduce God to innocent minds.
With all due respect, having read this and several previous posts from you on the subject of religion, I seriously question your claim that you are an atheist.
Must dash. Will try to get back later.
All of those things can be taught without the need to introduce God to innocent minds.
With all due respect, having read this and several previous posts from you on the subject of religion, I seriously question your claim that you are an atheist.
Must dash. Will try to get back later.
I can understand the intellectual point that Dawkins is trying to make, and indeed he offers an example of what he means, which he offers in the article
"‘There are shades of being abused by a priest, and I quoted an example of a woman in America who wrote to me saying that when she was seven years old she was sexually abused by a priest in his car.
‘At the same time a friend of hers, also seven, who was of a Protestant family, died, and she was told that because her friend was Protestant she had gone to Hell and will be roasting in Hell forever.
‘She told me of those two abuses, she got over the physical abuse; it was yucky but she got over it.
‘But the mental abuse of being told about Hell, she took years to get over."
However, I think that attempting to censor or restrict the right of parents to raise their children within a framework of sincerely held beliefs or convictions would be both immoral and also impracticable.
If a parent has a sincerely held belief that their religion, or their brand of politics offers their children the potential for greater happiness, or eternal life after death, or greater benefits to you as an individual, or greater benefits to society as a whole - Do we have the ethical right to demand that they refrain from passing these on? And, practically speaking, since such beliefs and convictions can subconsciously colour your approach to life, how can you not pass on such values, at least subliminally? How would society enforce such censorship and restriction?
Society has to confine itself purely to what is taught in schools, I think. Secular schools should steer clear of religion. Nor do i think parents should have the right to exempt their children from certain aspects of education - I am thinking principally of sex and relationship education here- on either religious or political grounds.
I also have issues with religious schools - i see them as detrimental and divisive to society- but again, it is a free society, a democracy, and we do have freedom of religion, so it would be impracticable to ban them.
@O_G You are obviously perfectly entitled to your opinions. But upon what do you base the assertion that his book ,the God Delusion, lacks argument and rebuttal? Can you offer us an actual example where he states something without offering some evidence or argument for that statement?
You also said this; "How about while he's having a go at reasonable folk with reasonable beliefs, especially after explicitly saying mere pages before that he's not ? "
What do you mean? Can you offer an example?
Lots of people got very annoyed by his book. Many get very annoyed by his tone. Almost without exception, those annoyed are those who have a religious conviction which they feel Dawkins has trampled upon.
I saw very little in his book that would raise the blood pressure. If you have examples of factual inaccuracies or claims he has made, I would be very interested in reading them.
We need more people like Dawkins, challenging the influence of religious belief on our societies, not less, in my opinion....
"‘There are shades of being abused by a priest, and I quoted an example of a woman in America who wrote to me saying that when she was seven years old she was sexually abused by a priest in his car.
‘At the same time a friend of hers, also seven, who was of a Protestant family, died, and she was told that because her friend was Protestant she had gone to Hell and will be roasting in Hell forever.
‘She told me of those two abuses, she got over the physical abuse; it was yucky but she got over it.
‘But the mental abuse of being told about Hell, she took years to get over."
However, I think that attempting to censor or restrict the right of parents to raise their children within a framework of sincerely held beliefs or convictions would be both immoral and also impracticable.
If a parent has a sincerely held belief that their religion, or their brand of politics offers their children the potential for greater happiness, or eternal life after death, or greater benefits to you as an individual, or greater benefits to society as a whole - Do we have the ethical right to demand that they refrain from passing these on? And, practically speaking, since such beliefs and convictions can subconsciously colour your approach to life, how can you not pass on such values, at least subliminally? How would society enforce such censorship and restriction?
Society has to confine itself purely to what is taught in schools, I think. Secular schools should steer clear of religion. Nor do i think parents should have the right to exempt their children from certain aspects of education - I am thinking principally of sex and relationship education here- on either religious or political grounds.
I also have issues with religious schools - i see them as detrimental and divisive to society- but again, it is a free society, a democracy, and we do have freedom of religion, so it would be impracticable to ban them.
@O_G You are obviously perfectly entitled to your opinions. But upon what do you base the assertion that his book ,the God Delusion, lacks argument and rebuttal? Can you offer us an actual example where he states something without offering some evidence or argument for that statement?
You also said this; "How about while he's having a go at reasonable folk with reasonable beliefs, especially after explicitly saying mere pages before that he's not ? "
What do you mean? Can you offer an example?
Lots of people got very annoyed by his book. Many get very annoyed by his tone. Almost without exception, those annoyed are those who have a religious conviction which they feel Dawkins has trampled upon.
I saw very little in his book that would raise the blood pressure. If you have examples of factual inaccuracies or claims he has made, I would be very interested in reading them.
We need more people like Dawkins, challenging the influence of religious belief on our societies, not less, in my opinion....
"To try and teavch religion while simultaneously debunking it as a myth is far to sophisticated an argument for a child to grasp"
No it isn't. I was taught about Greek and Roman myths at age 9/10, under the understanding that these were once taken to be truth. Likewise, children need to be equipped with a knowledge about religion to understand the world - I think a child is more than capable of understanding that something is a story that some people think is true and some people don't. Especially if they're taught about religions generally rather than one religion.
"To not teach children about God - at least as far as the Catholic education ethos is concerned, is to deprive them of teaching about love, inclusion, fogiveness, kindness, sharing - all the attributes that can make a child a stable and worthwile member of adult society"
Do you really think that telling children that God is real and the contents of (say) the bible are true are the *only* ways to teach children these concepts?
"this thread is annoying me enough as it is reminding me of the experience."
Why?
"I can only suggest you re-read it since, as I recall, I didn't need to read more than a few chapters"
I really don't mean this in a nasty way, but I'm just not convinced you've read that much of the book. He deals with arguments against the existence of God fairly early on in order that he can move onto other things which he views as more substantive. I don't understand why you find that insulting.
No it isn't. I was taught about Greek and Roman myths at age 9/10, under the understanding that these were once taken to be truth. Likewise, children need to be equipped with a knowledge about religion to understand the world - I think a child is more than capable of understanding that something is a story that some people think is true and some people don't. Especially if they're taught about religions generally rather than one religion.
"To not teach children about God - at least as far as the Catholic education ethos is concerned, is to deprive them of teaching about love, inclusion, fogiveness, kindness, sharing - all the attributes that can make a child a stable and worthwile member of adult society"
Do you really think that telling children that God is real and the contents of (say) the bible are true are the *only* ways to teach children these concepts?
"this thread is annoying me enough as it is reminding me of the experience."
Why?
"I can only suggest you re-read it since, as I recall, I didn't need to read more than a few chapters"
I really don't mean this in a nasty way, but I'm just not convinced you've read that much of the book. He deals with arguments against the existence of God fairly early on in order that he can move onto other things which he views as more substantive. I don't understand why you find that insulting.
Oh fercrisake, Andy and Sandy, Teaching religion to young children doesn't give them acces to consolation or anything like it. All it does is pile layer upon layer of guilt and self loathing (if they are lucky), delays their intellectual development and development of their critical abilities and suppresses free thought..
The way it happened for me was that I was brought up as a Christian from an early age, required to go to church until about 16, and given plenty of Christian books to read. When I was very young I did read them and enjoy them. One of my then favourites, though I've not read it in a long time, was "Tales from the Ark" or something of a similar title. I think this still influences some of my philosophy even today, but anyway... Against this I was also bought Science books and encouraged to read them, too.
At some point about ten, something happened, I can no longer remember what, that just meant I stopped believing in it. My brother, too, at the same time (but he was two years younger than me [still is, if it comes to that]). Some instinct, perhaps, but certainly not a coherent argument. There followed what might be called a pitched battle that lasted a few years, during which my mother, under the "you're too young to really understand the issues" argument, went to some lengths to ensure that I didn't just give up her faith. Extra sessions with a youth leader, for example. I remember being intensely frustrated at the time and never took those sessions seriously, but have since changed my views somewhat.
The point is that all of this basically stopped at the age of 16. At that point I was "old enough to make my own decision". I do think my mum has a point. I don't think I could honestly explain, even then, what exactly made me uncomfortable beyond "it just feels wrong". Additionally, since this is what Mum believes strongly, she had a duty as a Christian parent to ensure that her children were brought up in good and proper knowledge of her faith. At no point though was it really indoctrination. It just wasn't. Indoctrination would have been cutting me off from the alternative views, and that never happened.
Now obviously when and if my turn comes to be a parent I won't raise a child in any faith, but I hope I would allow and encourage them to explore all sorts of world views. If teaching a child only religion is indoctrination, so is teaching a child nothing about it at all.
At some point about ten, something happened, I can no longer remember what, that just meant I stopped believing in it. My brother, too, at the same time (but he was two years younger than me [still is, if it comes to that]). Some instinct, perhaps, but certainly not a coherent argument. There followed what might be called a pitched battle that lasted a few years, during which my mother, under the "you're too young to really understand the issues" argument, went to some lengths to ensure that I didn't just give up her faith. Extra sessions with a youth leader, for example. I remember being intensely frustrated at the time and never took those sessions seriously, but have since changed my views somewhat.
The point is that all of this basically stopped at the age of 16. At that point I was "old enough to make my own decision". I do think my mum has a point. I don't think I could honestly explain, even then, what exactly made me uncomfortable beyond "it just feels wrong". Additionally, since this is what Mum believes strongly, she had a duty as a Christian parent to ensure that her children were brought up in good and proper knowledge of her faith. At no point though was it really indoctrination. It just wasn't. Indoctrination would have been cutting me off from the alternative views, and that never happened.
Now obviously when and if my turn comes to be a parent I won't raise a child in any faith, but I hope I would allow and encourage them to explore all sorts of world views. If teaching a child only religion is indoctrination, so is teaching a child nothing about it at all.
Lazy Gun - as always, a thoughtful and eloquent post. Thank you.
Regarding the parent issue... I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that we have 'an ethical right to demand' that parents don't foist their beliefs upon their children, and I appreciate that aside from ethics there are practical limitations to doing so.
But I do think it's a perfectly valid to question whether it is morally right to tell your child that one particular doctrine is the correct one, and all others are wrong. Personally, I'm not sure that parents have that level of ownership over their children where they can stamp them as 'Catholic' or 'Muslim' or whatever before they are even capable of understanding what these concepts mean.
Parents are in a position of power that demands responsibility. How they raise their children has a huge impact on the world - and we can see the potentially devastating effects of the above decision all around us.
Regarding the parent issue... I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that we have 'an ethical right to demand' that parents don't foist their beliefs upon their children, and I appreciate that aside from ethics there are practical limitations to doing so.
But I do think it's a perfectly valid to question whether it is morally right to tell your child that one particular doctrine is the correct one, and all others are wrong. Personally, I'm not sure that parents have that level of ownership over their children where they can stamp them as 'Catholic' or 'Muslim' or whatever before they are even capable of understanding what these concepts mean.
Parents are in a position of power that demands responsibility. How they raise their children has a huge impact on the world - and we can see the potentially devastating effects of the above decision all around us.
@Andy Hughes.
I would agree with you that children are hard-wired to believe pretty much anything they are told, particularly from adults.I would however have some issues with other points you raise.
" To try justify teaching and religion and simultaneously debunking it is far too sophisticated for children"
I am not sure that is true at all - but why do we have to teach religion in schools at all? In a secular society, why do we need faith schools at all?
You said this "To not teach children about God - at least as far as the Catholic education ethos is concerned, is to deprive them of teaching about love, inclusion, fogiveness, kindness, sharing - all the attributes that can make a child a stable and worthwile member of adult society, "
Why would it deprive them of teachings about love, inclusion, forgiveness, kindness and sharing? Are all these attributes exclusive to religion and faith, in your opinion? Claiming such attributes are exclusive to faith or religion based teaching, or that such values could not be taught without a faith or religious framework is, with respect, nonsense...
You make another statement I would question-
"I am happy that my children have had an introductrion to faith, which they have then chosen to abandon, rather than not to have had that introduction, and then not become the kind loving sharing and giving women that they are - to the benefit of their hsbands, children, poarents, and the wider world - since they all work with children"
Are you claiming that the only reason they have grown up as kind, loving and sharing women is because of that early exposure to faith? Faith that they themselves later abandoned?
I would agree with you that children are hard-wired to believe pretty much anything they are told, particularly from adults.I would however have some issues with other points you raise.
" To try justify teaching and religion and simultaneously debunking it is far too sophisticated for children"
I am not sure that is true at all - but why do we have to teach religion in schools at all? In a secular society, why do we need faith schools at all?
You said this "To not teach children about God - at least as far as the Catholic education ethos is concerned, is to deprive them of teaching about love, inclusion, fogiveness, kindness, sharing - all the attributes that can make a child a stable and worthwile member of adult society, "
Why would it deprive them of teachings about love, inclusion, forgiveness, kindness and sharing? Are all these attributes exclusive to religion and faith, in your opinion? Claiming such attributes are exclusive to faith or religion based teaching, or that such values could not be taught without a faith or religious framework is, with respect, nonsense...
You make another statement I would question-
"I am happy that my children have had an introductrion to faith, which they have then chosen to abandon, rather than not to have had that introduction, and then not become the kind loving sharing and giving women that they are - to the benefit of their hsbands, children, poarents, and the wider world - since they all work with children"
Are you claiming that the only reason they have grown up as kind, loving and sharing women is because of that early exposure to faith? Faith that they themselves later abandoned?
naomi24 - "With all due respect, having read this and several previous posts from you on the subject of religion, I seriously question your claim that you are an atheist."
Feel free to question.
Just because I appreciate the Catholic ethos does not make me a believer in God.
I appreciate the skill used in making my glasses - it doesn't mean I am an optician!
Surely you can appreciate the ability to see the goodness in an ethos without the need personally to embrace it? That is where I am with Christianity.
As you know - I attend Mass weekly. I do not take communion. I will not give to collections for Life, or the maintenance of the cathedral in Birmingham. I sing the hymns because i enjoy singing them. I also enjoy singing Saturday night by Whigfield - but it's not aimed at anyone when I do!
I like the feeling of community and support afforded by a church congregation, much as on the rare occasions I attend, i enjoy the same feelings at a football match - but I have no desire to play for Stoke City.
So, hopefully this clears up any doubts you may have about my position regarding God and religion - I do not believe there is a God, and have not since I was a teenager, but I am not so fanatically against religion that it stops me enjoying the parts that I enjoy, even though I do not believe in its core of a life after death in heaven with God.
Feel free to question.
Just because I appreciate the Catholic ethos does not make me a believer in God.
I appreciate the skill used in making my glasses - it doesn't mean I am an optician!
Surely you can appreciate the ability to see the goodness in an ethos without the need personally to embrace it? That is where I am with Christianity.
As you know - I attend Mass weekly. I do not take communion. I will not give to collections for Life, or the maintenance of the cathedral in Birmingham. I sing the hymns because i enjoy singing them. I also enjoy singing Saturday night by Whigfield - but it's not aimed at anyone when I do!
I like the feeling of community and support afforded by a church congregation, much as on the rare occasions I attend, i enjoy the same feelings at a football match - but I have no desire to play for Stoke City.
So, hopefully this clears up any doubts you may have about my position regarding God and religion - I do not believe there is a God, and have not since I was a teenager, but I am not so fanatically against religion that it stops me enjoying the parts that I enjoy, even though I do not believe in its core of a life after death in heaven with God.
Do you approach God with the thought of avoiding punishment or destruction uppermost in your minds? Or, is it because of your appreciation for God?
It should not be surprise to learn that the way of God is to draw his people toward him in a positive way. Never does he resort to forcing you to serve him.
Jesus said to the Jews: “No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him.”—John 6:44.
Children learn rapidly. They learn advertising slogans and many things that you sometimes wish they had not heard, so children realize the importance of the Bible truth they have? A young Witness said: “What drew me to the truth is that that is what it is—the truth. I always had to have things explained, I always asked: Why? The Bible is clear as day, you can really hold onto it.” Jesus said: “The truth will set you free.” It has freed thousands, not only from religious bondage but also from drugs, immorality, the danger of venereal disease, superstitions, false doctrines and the worries and troubles that mark this wicked world.—John 8:32.
It should not be surprise to learn that the way of God is to draw his people toward him in a positive way. Never does he resort to forcing you to serve him.
Jesus said to the Jews: “No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him.”—John 6:44.
Children learn rapidly. They learn advertising slogans and many things that you sometimes wish they had not heard, so children realize the importance of the Bible truth they have? A young Witness said: “What drew me to the truth is that that is what it is—the truth. I always had to have things explained, I always asked: Why? The Bible is clear as day, you can really hold onto it.” Jesus said: “The truth will set you free.” It has freed thousands, not only from religious bondage but also from drugs, immorality, the danger of venereal disease, superstitions, false doctrines and the worries and troubles that mark this wicked world.—John 8:32.
LazyGun - "Claiming such attributes are exclusive to faith or religion based teaching, or that such values could not be taught without a faith or religious framework is, with respect, nonsense..."
Indeed it is - which is why I didn't say that. I made no claim that such teachings are exclusive to faith based teaching, merely that faith based teaching takes these aspects as its core ethos. It is perfectly possible to learn this things outside a religious teaching environment - and many do.
Indeed it is - which is why I didn't say that. I made no claim that such teachings are exclusive to faith based teaching, merely that faith based teaching takes these aspects as its core ethos. It is perfectly possible to learn this things outside a religious teaching environment - and many do.
LazyGun - "You make another statement I would question-
"I am happy that my children have had an introductrion to faith, which they have then chosen to abandon, rather than not to have had that introduction, and then not become the kind loving sharing and giving women that they are - to the benefit of their hsbands, children, poarents, and the wider world - since they all work with children"
Are you claiming that the only reason they have grown up as kind, loving and sharing women is because of that early exposure to faith? Faith that they themselves later abandoned?"
No, not at all, they learned those things in no small part from my input as well.
But Catrholic primary schools do not deal in 'hell and damnation' as they did years ago. Many no longer hold daily prayers or weekly mass anymore, but the fundamental atmosphere of kindness and inclusion is what I appreciated for my children. That is not to say they would not have received that in a non-faith school - or that education in a faith school leads only to kind well-rounded individuals, that is patently not true.
My point was simply that a faith school approach is based on the good parts of life, and that cannot be a bad thing. I think children learn quite soon enough that the world is not a good place to be at times, but they should be all;owed to assimilate that fact as they grow.
"I am happy that my children have had an introductrion to faith, which they have then chosen to abandon, rather than not to have had that introduction, and then not become the kind loving sharing and giving women that they are - to the benefit of their hsbands, children, poarents, and the wider world - since they all work with children"
Are you claiming that the only reason they have grown up as kind, loving and sharing women is because of that early exposure to faith? Faith that they themselves later abandoned?"
No, not at all, they learned those things in no small part from my input as well.
But Catrholic primary schools do not deal in 'hell and damnation' as they did years ago. Many no longer hold daily prayers or weekly mass anymore, but the fundamental atmosphere of kindness and inclusion is what I appreciated for my children. That is not to say they would not have received that in a non-faith school - or that education in a faith school leads only to kind well-rounded individuals, that is patently not true.
My point was simply that a faith school approach is based on the good parts of life, and that cannot be a bad thing. I think children learn quite soon enough that the world is not a good place to be at times, but they should be all;owed to assimilate that fact as they grow.
@Andy- I think your comments from your original posts could have been intepreted like that, so thanks for your clarification- that you agree that good behavioural attributes and their teachings are not exclusively religious or faith- based.
I would be interested in hearing why people believe that religious or faith- ased schools are needed though. Why, in a secular society, do we need religious or faith-based schools at all? And should exemptions from lessons -like sex and relationships or even potentially some science lessons, because they may run counter to the faith teachings of the religion the child is being brought up in-be allowed?
And when you say this - "but the fundamental atmosphere of kindness and inclusion is what I appreciated for my children." -Aren't you implying that this fundamental atmosphere is, in your opinion, something that is absent from secular primary schools?
I would be interested in hearing why people believe that religious or faith- ased schools are needed though. Why, in a secular society, do we need religious or faith-based schools at all? And should exemptions from lessons -like sex and relationships or even potentially some science lessons, because they may run counter to the faith teachings of the religion the child is being brought up in-be allowed?
And when you say this - "but the fundamental atmosphere of kindness and inclusion is what I appreciated for my children." -Aren't you implying that this fundamental atmosphere is, in your opinion, something that is absent from secular primary schools?
@Goodlife - You are right that children do indeed learn rapidly - They are like sponges, soaking up information from all sources,mostly without any critical analysis.
And I would agree that we should endevour to teach children the truth - so why would we wish to expose them to the teachings of the bible, except perhaps as an illustration of what some people believe? There is certainly very little in the Bible that can categorically be asserted as truth.
And Jesus was perfectly right when he said the truth shall set you free. You can see the effects of that for yourself - belief and religiosity is inversely proportional to the amount of education you receive.
And I would agree that we should endevour to teach children the truth - so why would we wish to expose them to the teachings of the bible, except perhaps as an illustration of what some people believe? There is certainly very little in the Bible that can categorically be asserted as truth.
And Jesus was perfectly right when he said the truth shall set you free. You can see the effects of that for yourself - belief and religiosity is inversely proportional to the amount of education you receive.
LazyGun - "And when you say this - "but the fundamental atmosphere of kindness and inclusion is what I appreciated for my children." -Aren't you implying that this fundamental atmosphere is, in your opinion, something that is absent from secular primary schools?"
Yes, to an extent I am, but that viewpoint is based entirely on the vast experience of my lovely wife, who inspects primary schools professionally, and does notice a distinct difference in the approach to pastoral care between faith and non-faith primary schools.
That said, she was deputy head at an inner-city Catholic primary which had a massive Muslim intake. Five of her top-year juniors are now in prison for violent crime, including murder - so it doesn't always work, and i would meve be so naiive as to think or suggest that a faith approach is the answer to society's ills.
Yes, to an extent I am, but that viewpoint is based entirely on the vast experience of my lovely wife, who inspects primary schools professionally, and does notice a distinct difference in the approach to pastoral care between faith and non-faith primary schools.
That said, she was deputy head at an inner-city Catholic primary which had a massive Muslim intake. Five of her top-year juniors are now in prison for violent crime, including murder - so it doesn't always work, and i would meve be so naiive as to think or suggest that a faith approach is the answer to society's ills.
Latest Posts
Editor's Blog15 mins ago
Arts & Literature18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles35 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles41 mins ago
