I've felt slightly uncomfortable today. I teach in a school (boarding, a bit alternative) with a proud tradition of absence of religion. We don't do religious assemblies (though have speakers with a religious background talk to the school about non specific religious issues every now and again and the occasional Christian or Buddhist monk live in the woods on site - yes really!), no chapel but do offer religious studies as a subject. I found out today that the head of RS runs confirmation classes for the students on the side - these are not advertised in a public arena so I guess the invitation must be done within class or in a 1-2-1 situation. I begrudgingly agree that children should be taught about religion so that they can make informed decisions about their attitude to religion but surely a religious studies teacher needs to be seen as an unbiased source of information regardless of their personal beliefs. It feel a bit too much like an abuse of position to me - a recruiter. Or am I letting my cut and dried atheist views get in the way of a reasonable "service"? BTW, the girl I was talking to when I discovered this comes from a non religious background, is very troubled (I'd call her vulnerable) and has only "thought about all this" after her recent RS classes.
Would be interesting to have the views of others before I have a chat with the head and make myself look an arse.
Chat Forum
Another religion thread - teachers and religious dealing with students.
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
teaching head on of course they are using their position of trust to convert the "vulnerable "student. What is worse is they think they are helping/saving them.
Inform the head - abuse of trust and or position.
I doubt the school authorities or the fee paying parents would approve of this and it wont bein the job description/role profile.
Cover yourself by saying you are jsut bringing it to their attention and are making no judgement if you prefer and leave the head to act.
Wee in the RE tutors shoe as well and dont worry they will forgive you and offer you the other shoePosted 1 year ago # -
Whats RS, and secondly change taught to indoctrinate in relegion, also as she is vulnerable, just keep an eye on her and her teacher, and always let someone else know, whats going on keep notes etc.
Posted 1 year ago # -
RS= religious studies
Posted 1 year ago # -
Or are you a recruiter for atheism?
Posted 1 year ago # -
my thoughts exactly - hence the question!
Posted 1 year ago # -
If the troubled child is hungry she will eat, and if she wants sex or religion she will look for them, not have it covertly preached to her.
Posted 1 year ago # -
before I have a chat with the head and make myself look an arse.
Have a chat with the head - what harm can it do ? If this guy is doing something which he shouldn't be doing, then it should be reported. If what he's doing has the approval of those whose approval is needed, then there won't be any problem with you talking about it.
Although it should be remembered that he is only 'running confirmation classes' not organising human sacrifices. I wouldn't get worked up about it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
It's the head teacher's call not yours. You can inform the head or you can talk to the teacher concerned and ask if they have already informed the head, which would be the sensible career decision. If they confess that they haven't brokered the subject with the head then suggest they absolutey should and take it from there.
Posted 1 year ago # -
From my Catholic background I understand Confirmation classes to be preparation for the sacrament of Confirmation, usually at around 10-14 years old. It will therefore have been preceded by Baptism, usually as a a newborn, then both Confession and First Communion at around seven, which are repeated regularly (every Sunday if available) until their current age. Since the girl is from a non-religious background it would be unusual to jump straight in at Confirmation if she is undergoing a conversion.
So to me there are two possibilities, either she does have a Catholic background in which case Confirmation classes may well be welcomed by her and her family, or something more fishy is going on. Probably the best person to clear it up would be the RS teacher, talk to them about it and see. Then take it up with head if necessary.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Er, confirmation isn't exclusive to Roman Catholicism.
Quite literally, Jesus wept.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Of course it isn't. But midlifecrashes gave his opinion from his catholic perspective ....... what's wrong with that ? are non-catholic confirmations that radically different ?
"Quite literally, Jesus wept"
Don't you think that's a tad overreaction ?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Agree with whats been said, I think it's wrong and a breach of trust. Informing the head and leaving it up to them is the best course of action in my opinion.
Posted 1 year ago # -
No offence taken here, just trying to fill in possibilities from my ex-catholic perspective. As an atheist, the OP might find the info useful in interpreting what might be going on, and what might be expected from a Confirmation class.
I know of several non-believing families have their children go through all the sacraments as a box ticking exercise to get into the right school later on.
Posted 1 year ago # -
crikey. interesting one. if teaching, or passing on a religious doctrine, why not just pass on the whole lot from all religions? it can only be informative to teach kids the ideas of different religions and cultures early? but in this case it sounds a bit singular. Kids have an open mind and take as much stuff in from different sources as possible. why stifle things by imposing yer ideas?
Posted 1 year ago # -
ernie - not quite. MLC gave the view that there were only two options: (1) she's a catholic or (2) there's indoctrination going on. Protestantism also has various churches that practise confirmation.
Jesus wept - at the suggestion that a faith teacher has suggested getting god to a young girl who seems lost. Convert seems to view this as inherently bad because it's religion and, ergo a breach of trust, but fails to recognise that staunch atheism - and in this case the atheism of objection to religious suggestion - is equally abusive.
I may have no faith whatsoever, and little time for religion, but I have as little time for the idea that somehow we are inherently without god or religion. That's as unattractive position to defend as any that says we are made in god's image (or whatever the other myriad faith systems and religions suggest).
The idea that we may only be atheistic, and that identified vulnerable teenagers need to be saved from themselves by not being allowed to make these explorations for themselves is, IMO, as abusive as forcing any religiosity on them.
It seems that the issue here is not the vulnerability of this teenager, but the extent of the apparent bigotry of convert and the fact that has necessarily coloured his/her judgement as a teacher.
Posted 1 year ago # -
First time back to the thread since I posted it...
ourmaninthenorth - not sure I would call my position one necessarily of bigotry- please reread. I have stated my background and the very point of the post was to check the opinions of others with maybe a different background for balance. A bigot would not be interested in seeking differing opinions.
I also think you may have missed the main crux of the issue. I don't have an issue with confirmation classes taking place (in school or elsewhere) for those that are into that sort of thing. It is the position of the RS teacher(certainly not a faith teacher as you state)within a non secular school whose position I feel should be to inform about what is out there in an objective, historical and factual way. How can this be done without prejudice if the students are aware of the bias of the teacher to such an obvious degree? I little like a politics teacher doing his thing with a labour party lapel badge on show.
Posted 1 year ago # -
our man are you suggesting that the person in trust who is "saving" the child is doing their job or doing something that they personally beleive in?It is not their job or role and perhaps the childs issues are better served by something other than a confirmation of faith by a well meaning believer who may or may not be able to actually help with the underlying issues. They are vulnerable, young and they are an adult in a position of trust. the issue is are they abusing this not necessarily a debate on faith per se. No one is questioning their abilty to choose for themselves just whether this teacher has the permission or objectivity to do this.
It is her choice to be saved but is it really that controversial to suggest it is easier to influence young minds and easier to influence vulenrable young minds and from a position of authority? I am still not sure this is correct - it may not neccessarily be wrong either.hence I would let someone paid more than me decide.Posted 1 year ago # -
Did I read that right - a teacher is running "private classes" only for pupils who he selects on the side without any official sanction and without public knowledge...
...ignore your religious misgivings. Can you not see a child protection issue?
Assuming that is actually not as dodgy as it sounded to me, then despite me not approving of religious instruction is schools I can see no real issue with it affecting his "impartiality" as a religious studies teacher.
Posted 1 year ago # -
With respect, what the OP thinks is neither here nor there, it's not his responsibility to make a call one way or the other.
He needs to inform the head, and then the head can make a decision as to whether it's a problem or not and take any necessary actions accordingly; that's what he's paid to do.
(I'm actually fairly shocked that this wouldn't be second nature for a teacher anyway...)
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
