Religion as a leaving cert exam???

edellc

So im in shock this wasnt around when i was in school, when did it happen and what happens if your child is being brought up an atheist within the school system can they opt out of this or is it that if they dont do it they dont get a leaving cert Im confussed???:eek:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055937859

sorry just checked its a junior cert exam but my question still stands

Truley

It came about as a Junior cert exam the year after I did my JC, so about 2004(ish) Don't be shocked by the title, it's really the study of world religions and the idea of religion etc not just Christianity. I think it's a good thing because religion and how it works is a pressing issue and a legitimate field of study. Think of it more as a history, sociology, humanities exam rolled into one. I doubt religious upbringing would have an effect on academic performance, I know my brother loved studying it and aced the exam despite being a devout athiest :pac:

Ickle Magoo

I think most education systems have some kind of "religion" subject, it was/is quite an important influence, in anthropological terms. We had RE (religious education) in scotland; compulsory to third year standard grade (equivalent to your jr cert). We learnt about all world religions, none was given any priority and it was purely how they developed, where and why - I found it very interesting. As long it's religious education and not religious instruction then I don't see an issue, regardless of lack of religiosity.

GLaDOS

I did Religion as a non exam subject, up to 4th year it was very much from a Catholic perspective (I got a much more laid back teacher for 5thand 6th though )

Canis Lupus

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I did Religion as a non exam subject, up to 4th year it was very much from a Catholic perspective (I got a much more laid back teacher for 5thand 6th though )

My memory of Religion was that it was a doss class and used to do HW for other classes. Having said that my memories of it are that it was mostly about christianity.

TEMPLAR KNIGHT

having just finished school last year, religion class deals with all types of religion these days and with other issues aswell like abortion, drug use etc

ColmDawson

I have no problem with religion being taught in schools if it's put forward as "this is what various cultures believe/have believed". Ideally, Zeus and Thor would be taught alongside Yahweh. I think that the more one learns about religion, the more likely one is to reject it.

strobe

TEMPLAR KNIGHT wrote: »

having just finished school last year, religion class deals with all types of religion these days and with other issues aswell like abortion, drug use etc

What does religion have to do with drug use etc?

Why not just have an anthropology subject with religion as a section that is covered in the curriculum? Or would that make far too much sense?

Ickle Magoo

It makes sense, I assume it's to avoid the inevitable hand-wringing angst, cries of discrimination and warnings of impending moral collapse from certain quarters that they don't...

Coriolanus

We did ethics in RE, instead of actual religion. Now the teacher may have argued from a Catholic pov, but it was never a case of, this is the right way and it's right because it's the Catholic way.

Dubhghaillix

I was the first year that had to do it as an exam. I went to a Jesuit school and we never did anything on world religions even though they were on the exam, just Judaism as a prologue to Christianity. By anyones standards it was a real joke of a subject; I did a synopsis the flippin' Da Vinci Code and got a B. It was just a drain on time for real subjects.

I know people who did it for the Leaving. They said it's just a load of intellectual masturbation about philosophy & Jesus.

Zillah

Non-exam class for me years ago. I had a fun hippy of a teacher, we did lots of guided meditation and that sort of lark. Seems it is entirely dependent on the whim of the teacher. Earlier years had a mix peculiar Catholic men not sure what exactly they were supposed to do.

Fad

I did it for the Leaving last year, it's not quite such a pisstake any more

As in, the exam isn't quite so predictable. We didn't have any philosophers on our exam

Amusingly, I'm not entirely sure I'd be an atheist if I didn't do LC religion, because I never really gave the whole thing enough thought and the philosophy section introduced me to deism/nihilism/agnosticism and whatnot.

Handsome Bob

I did religion before it became an examinable subject. It was cool enough, no fire and brimstone BS, just a kind of relaxed analysis of the various religions around the world. I finished secondary school in 2005 BTW.

Galvasean

I did religion (pre exam) in secondary school. It really depended on who your teacher was as there was no set curriculum. Some years you'd have some old fossil preaching the evils of abortion (we got to watch a video on the subject from the 70s, it was fun) or that evolution was 'just a theory' (as you can guess, the classes budding palaeontologist didn't let that one slip).
Other years you'd get a more liberal minded teacher who would give you information on many different world religions. Sometmes you'd geta more cheeky teacher who just liked to rip into various cults for teh lulz.
In 6th year it was a bit different. We would get guest speakers in each week representing a particular religion. The Jehovah's Witnesses tried the old 'fossils were merely left overs from the great flood' line'. That was one of my proudest moments in school: Suddenly everyone imediately looked at me as if to say, "Take it Sean!" What resulted was everyone getting a 101 course in the fossil record. Funnily enough I bumped into someone from school the other week whom I hadnt seen in years. He told me he still remembers 'that class where you told everyone about dinosaurs'.
The Harri Krishnas were cool. Spent the afternoon playing drums, singing and dancing - the perfect antidote to a stressful exam year.
Apparently the school had the Mormons in before but refuses to invite them in anymore because they set up a 'conversion van' outside the school.
We even had atheists in one week. It was weird because they didn't have a whole lot to say other than they didn't believe, the 'thousands of Gods, which is true?' argument and a few others we've seen onthis forum a zillion times. I think they were expecting more people to challenge their position and have to answer some questions, but no one asked them anything. The general consensus seemed to be 'yeah okay'.

TEMPLAR KNIGHT

strobe wrote: »

What does religion have to do with drug use etc?

ask my teacher, why the fuk would I know. the class deals with nearly everything that young people can come up against in todays world. the class is labled as just a religion class but it isnt just religion at all.

Zillah

Galvasean wrote: »

That was one of my proudest moments in school: Suddenly everyone imediately looked at me as if to say, "Take it Sean!" What resulted was everyone getting a 101 course in the fossil record.

Damn militant atheists and their words!

cypharius

I go to a Community school where Religion is a manditory subject if you don't have a letter from parents to opt out, it's all to do with the "Catholic ethos" of this school that the church does not fund at all... But I digress.

I did religion for JC, I just wrote the lyrics to "South of Heaven" by Slayer, which seemed funny to me at the time.

Funny part is that I got an F rather then an NG.

If you fail religion it has no impact, it's just another subject.

Truley

I think it's great to see religious studies as a subject as I believe a knowlege of world religions is every bit as important as maths, english or languages etc Sometimes even more so. My only regret is that more schools don't do this kind of thing, and start it earlier than second level, it should really be done in primary school. That's why I feel lucky to have gone to an ET school because the cultural and religous awareness I gained there was second to none. It was just as a perevious poster described with guest speakers, and demonstrations. We would even go as far as to celebrate different religious festivals which was always great fun. Waldorf schools take it a step further by studing cultural myths and legends. I've always had a strong belief that school should be seen as a sort of 'hub' of knowledge and learning, where it is shared and experienced, none of this 'opt out' BS we have now. Kids who experience this type of education go on to view the world in the same way, becoming more open minded and accepting adults.

edellc

thanks for the replies,
my baby is due in a few weeks and i've caused some controversy in the family as im not getting him baptised :eek:
I've no problem with him going to catholic school as we don't really have any other choices (will try for a non-denominational one first) i also have no problem with him learning about world religions i think its healthy and if at some point later on he decides he wants to be part of one then great that will be his choice and not something i forced on him

i just wasn't aware that it was now part of the exam system in schools but it seems that things have changed from when i went to school and frank open discussions are welcome rather than if you dont believe in god your going to hell so thats good

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

I think it's great to see religious studies as a subject as I believe a knowlege of world religions is every bit as important as maths, english or languages etc Sometimes even more so.

Complete BS man. Religion is one of those things where if no-one had invented it, no-one would need to invent it.

I've always had a strong belief that school should be seen as a sort of 'hub' of knowledge and learning, where it is shared and experienced, none of this 'opt out' BS we have now. Kids who experience this type of education go on to view the world in the same way, becoming more open minded and accepting adults.

If schools did a proper job in teaching kids how to process the information they come into contact with then they wouldn't need to have been introduced in school. If society needs to hand hold children in every encounter witha new idea, then the education system is not really working.

MagicMarker

I liked religion in school, teacher was hot!

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Complete BS man. Religion is one of those things where if no-one had invented it, no-one would need to invent it.

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that because religion is a made up idea that it makes it less a legitimate subject of study? I don't see why, whatever about your belief in God, religion and it's effect is as real a presence as the air we breathe.

If schools did a proper job in teaching kids how to process the information they come into contact with then they wouldn't need to have been introduced in school. If society needs to hand hold children in every encounter witha new idea, then the education system is not really working.

It's a fantastic and unique subject because it's a way of demonstrating to young children what goes on in the wider world and that yes, there are different viewpoints and ways of life outside of your own. It can help them gain an awareness and acceptance of difference from an early age. It introduces them to different religions and cultures when they would otherwise not have the opportunity. Then when they are older they would hopefully have the learning tools to better understand the people around them and to have greater empathy and a broader knowlege of the world. Can you suggest a better way of teaching children to process this information without being introduced in the classroom?

wonderfulname

Religion is no longer just a means to create good little Christians or convince people they have a vocation. You learn about, or are meant to, a number of different religions.

I for one didn't do religion for leaving cert, but i do enjoy having more knowledge of the bible than annoying ejits who stop me in the street. Makes for interesting conversation regarding most Christians incorrect interpretation of it, I mean if your going to dedicate your life to a book at least read it first!

I think anyone who takes a stance on an issue should understand it, and by that i mean from both sides.

PeterIanStaker

cypharius wrote: »

I did religion for JC, I just wrote the lyrics to "South of Heaven" by Slayer, which seemed funny to me at the time.

Brilliant! \m/
:cool:

studiorat

cypharius wrote: »

I did religion for JC, I just wrote the lyrics to "South of Heaven" by Slayer, which seemed funny to me at the time.

Funny part is that I got an F rather then an NG.

Well you should go back and learn those lyrics properly :rolleyes:...

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that because religion is a made up idea that it makes it less a legitimate subject of study? I don't see why, whatever about your belief in God, religion and it's effect is as real a presence as the air we breathe.

Footballs effect is as real a presence too, should kids have classes on the world cup and the premiership too? Religion, as a subject, is a curiousity piece and nothing more. No-one would lose out on something fundamental if it were removed form the curriculum, its the least important of all the subjects.

Truley wrote: »

It's a fantastic and unique subject because it's a way of demonstrating to young children what goes on in the wider world and that yes, there are different viewpoints and ways of life outside of your own.

You would want to have some pretty sheltered kids for them never to have come across different viewpoints of the world.

Truley wrote: »

It can help them gain an awareness and acceptance of difference from an early age. It introduces them to different religions and cultures when they would otherwise not have the opportunity. Then when they are older they would hopefully have the learning tools to better understand the people around them and to have greater empathy and a broader knowlege of the world.

If religion class was really about giving kids an awareness and acceptance of difference, then religion class would be world culture class, and would examine more differences between people than what flavour of sky fairy they hold to.

Truley wrote: »

Can you suggest a better way of teaching children to process this information without being introduced in the classroom?

Teach them to approach everything they come into contact with, with the same rational and logical approach. Teach them how to evaluate claims made to them, teach them how to take apart arguments and how to seperate viable points from logical fallacies. Become comfortable with this, and making allowances for different opinions and cultures is second nature. Wether or not learning about these difference is interesting is a personal view, not everyone is going to care, and for healthy individuals it wont be an issue.

Turtwig

During my secondary school days, I found religion to be the most exciting and invigorating topic subject. With the exception of my teacher in First Year, who was most likely a fundamental religious nut and probably was the decisive factor in really pushing me away from theism. The other two teachers I had were both loved by our entire class (well,er, a vast majority). We learned so much about other cultures, we even practised Muslim prayers, buddhist meditation, read passages from both the Qu'ran and Bible. We read Sophie's World which, by the way, if you haven't read it yet, seriously needs to be read because it a very nice introduction into Philosophy. To top that off we also a slight literary comparison of how the various mythologies and beliefs influenced the stories of a culture or author e.g Lord of the Rings. Not only that though the similarities in the various belief systems were also discussed. In short, I loved Religion back in the day.

(Yep, both our teachers were agnostics theists.:) Hence why religion was so darned awesome and insightful.)

All that being said, we didn't have to follow any particular syllabus. As long as the LC Religion Studies isn't centric or biased toward one religion then I have no objections to it being taught as a subject.

Dades

Truley wrote: »

I think it's great to see religious studies as a subject...

Likewise!

Truley wrote: »

... as I believe a knowlege of world religions is every bit as important as maths, english or languages etc Sometimes even more so.

What? It's as important to have your child educated in the various world religions as have them read and write and perform basic life functions? Seriously, that is so naive.

Never did religion in secondary school. Pretty happy about that

Truley

Dades wrote: »

Likewise!

What? It's as important to have your child educated in the various world religions as have them read and write and perform basic life functions? Seriously, that is so naive.

I didn't mean English as in reading and writing I mean English in the sense of the leaving cert subject where kids learn off an essay about King Lear and regurgitate it on the day. I don't think the secondary school syllabus teaches basic life functions, it certainly didn't when I went there anyway.

Dades

Truley wrote: »

I didn't mean English as in reading and writing I mean English in the sense of the leaving cert subject where kids learn off an essay about King Lear and regurgitate it on the day. I don't think the secondary school syllabus teaches basic life functions, it certainly didn't when I went there anyway.

I'm in agreement about Shakespeare being somewhat redundant, but English as a subject in general is much more than that. It's more important that people can differentiate "their" and "they're" on a job application, than know what myths other people believe (if it's not your religion - it's a myth!)

When I say basic life functions I refer to maths and the basic problem solving techniques it provides. Addition, subtraction, etc. etc.

Truley

Dades wrote: »

I'm in agreement about Shakespeare being somewhat redundant, but English as a subject in general is much more than that. It's more important that people can differentiate "their" and "they're" on a job application, than know what myths other people believe (if it's not your religion - it's a myth!)

When I say basic life functions I refer to maths and the basic problem solving techniques it provides. Addition, subtraction, etc. etc.

I'm not trying to say maths or english aren't legitimate subjects don't think I'm disagreeing with you on their importance. What I'm saying is religious studies is still a beneficial subject that done well can equip children/ adolescents with extremely important life and social skills. Most people here's experience with RE comes from the Catholic education system which is largly considered a tag on 'doss' subject. When I went to school it wasn't called religion but 'core cirruculum' and was basically a study of world cultures/religions. It was a far more structured and formal subject than what I imagine is done in Catholic schools. And yes, I found what I learned from it extremely beneficial in later life, and to me it has helped me in my line of work and study more than theroms and 'peig' ever did. I'm speaking from my own experience and my friends that went to the same school. Maybe it does make me naive, that's your opinion.

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

And yes, I found what I learned from it extremely beneficial in later life,

Such as what exactly?

Truley wrote: »

and to me it has helped me in my line of work and study more than theroms and 'peig' ever did.

Only about 20% of what I did in school has proven to be beneficial to me in my line of work, and even that 20% only gave a relatively short introduction into what I do now.

Whats 'peig', btw?

Truley wrote: »

I'm speaking from my own experience and my friends that went to the same school. Maybe it does make me naive, that's your opinion.

None of your friends did and kind of science, business or arts subject then? No chemists, physicists, mathematicians, accountants, business managers, IT specialists, foreign language translators, landscape architects, farmers or (non religion class) teachers amongst your friends then?

Dades

Truley wrote: »

And yes, I found what I learned from it extremely beneficial in later life, and to me it has helped me in my line of work and study more than theroms and 'peig' ever did.

What was taught to you in your "core curriculum" that you, as a person, would not have embraced on your own terms in life?

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Such as what exactly?

By the time I was 12 and myself and my Project school friends went to the local convent school is was clear that we had a better understanding and tolerance for different religions and cultures than the girls that had come from the local catholic school, many of the teachers pointed this out. Most of the girls in my class knew nothing of other religions (including their own). I could have tore our 'religion' teacher apart with my knowledge of Christianity and the bible. By twelve I had a pretty indepth knoweldge (and experience) of mormanism, seikhism, buddahism and islam. As a result I didn't suscribe so easily to the hype and fear that surrounded other religions (such as the islam bashing that took place post 9/11.) On top of that learning about other religions gave me a perspective on the daftness of it all, so I felt that I had the freedom to reject religious practices. Most girls in my class wouldn't have been religious, but would still thought the idea of athiesm unthinkable, because all they knew or understood was the religious instruction they got from home.

Only about 20% of what I did in school has proven to be beneficial to me in my line of work, and even that 20% only gave a relatively short introduction into what I do now.

Whats 'peig', btw?

Exactly, so why not study something that could potentially be very benefical in your adult life? Or at least something that could open your mind and be incredibly interesting.

Peig is an Irish novel students spend two years studying in second level. It's supposed to teach us Irish :P

None of your friends did and kind of science, business or arts subject then? No chemists, physicists, mathematicians, accountants, business managers, IT specialists, foreign language translators, landscape architects, farmers or (non religion class) teachers amongst your friends then?

Huh When I say beneficial I don't necessarily mean qualification wise. School can be about personal development as well as academic scoring. All of my friends from primary school have agreed that the religious education we got has been eye opening and beneficial.

Truley

Dades wrote: »

What was taught to you in your "core curriculum" that you, as a person, would not have embraced on your own terms in life?

But I could have embraced maths in my later life too, I was still made study it in school. I don't know what my life would have been like if I hadn't been taught core curriculum, at the time I learned alot from it and enjoyed it. I found it helped me cope better with the pushy catholic ethos of my secondary school.

Gregor Samsa

I went to a CBS back in the day when there were still a few brothers left, so obviously religion class was seen as a big deal by the school (but not by the pupils).

I remember in third class, there was a section in the religion book about the origin of the universe. The book presented a page with 3 columns: The Genesis story, The Steady State Theory, and the Big Bang. These were presented to us as each competing on the same level in terms of possibility (but obviously even with the latter 2, god was mooted at the creator). When I questioned the (lay) teacher about the validity of this, the teacher replied "No one knows what happened, so it could be any of the three." I asked her which one she thought was most likely, she hinted towards Adam and Eve and all that, without being too committal, and was then saved by the bell. Any respect for religious education in schools that might have lingered in me vaporised after that.

Later, in 6th year, we had a Christan Brother teaching religion. I remember one class where he went through the "miracles" of Jesus, and offered rational explanations taking into account the culture of the time for each one of them that didn't rely on hocus pocus. If anyone else in the class was actually listening to him, and parents got wind of it, I'd say he would have been done for heresy. I got some of my respect for religious education (in the broad sense) back after that.

Dades

Truley wrote: »

But I could have embraced maths in my later life too, I was still made study it in school.

Considering you need to pass basic maths to get into university, that's hardly ideal!

Truley wrote: »

I don't know what my life would have been like if I hadn't been taught core curriculum, at the time I learned alot from it and enjoyed it. I found it helped me cope better with the pushy catholic ethos of my secondary school.

I think we've lost track of the original disagreement here.

Most here would agree that a class that teaches from the Big Book of World Religions is a useful one. You are only being taken up on the suggestion that learning about world religions is at least as important as maths and English.

That there are areas in both of the latter curriculums (curricula?) that are tedious and unnecessary is unquestioned, but to suggest that a fluffy "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing" subject better prepares you for Real Life is, imo, naive.

I also think that kids' parents will be the true teachers of ethics, or bigotry, as the case may be.

Truley

Dades wrote: »

Considering you need to pass basic maths to get into university, that's hardly ideal!

I think we've lost track of the original disagreement here.

Most here would agree that a class that teaches from the Big Book of World Religions is a useful one. You are only being taken up on the suggestion that learning about world religions is at least as important as maths and English.

That there are areas in both of the latter curriculums (curricula?) that are tedious and unnecessary is unquestioned, but to suggest that a fluffy "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing" subject better prepares you for Real Life is, imo, naive.

Fine that's your opinion I'm not trying to change it. I said that in my experience religious education has taught and helped me to the same extent any of the 'real' academic subjects have. Even more so in the case of Irish, French and Maths. I'm not saying it's the case for everyone. I'm drawing from my own positive experiences of school, with the idea that it could be considered as a model for future children's education.

I also think that kids' parents will be the true teachers of ethics, or bigotry, as the case may be.

I don't agree, children learn very quickly that what they are taught at home does not always correspond with how things are in the real world.

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

By the time I was 12 and myself and my Project school friends went to the local convent school is was clear that we had a better understanding and tolerance for different religions and cultures than the girls that had come from the local catholic school, many of the teachers pointed this out. Most of the girls in my class knew nothing of other religions (including their own). I could have tore our 'religion' teacher apart with my knowledge of Christianity and the bible. By twelve I had a pretty indepth knoweldge (and experience) of mormanism, seikhism, buddahism and islam. As a result I didn't suscribe so easily to the hype and fear that surrounded other religions (such as the islam bashing that took place post 9/11.) On top of that learning about other religions gave me a perspective on the daftness of it all, so I felt that I had the freedom to reject religious practices. Most girls in my class wouldn't have been religious, but would still thought the idea of athiesm unthinkable, because all they knew or understood was the religious instruction they got from home.

I'm a little confused here. You are describing your experiences up to 12 years of age? We are talking about religion on the leaving cert, for 13-18 year olds. If you were already well versed in religions by the age of twelve, then that has little to do with what was tought in LC religion class.

Truley wrote: »

Exactly, so why not study something that could potentially be very benefical in your adult life?

Hey, if I was allowed to spend more time on sciences and abandon the classes that I saw as useless (English, Irish and French (useless because of how or what they actually taught) and religion).

Truley wrote: »

Or at least something that could open your mind and be incredibly interesting.

Interesting to you maybe, I figured out real early that all religions boil down to the same things - the two Ps, pride and power. The idea of learning about how other cultures deal with their fear of death and human centric narcissism just seems like an uneccesary distraction when you are trying to pass an exam in order to into university (should you need to get into university) and get a career.
Like I said before, teach kids how to think, how to discuss new issues they encounter, is all you need to do to create an open minded individual. Hand-holding for religion still gives it a higher place than it deserves, you dont do it for football or videogames, why is religion so special?

Truley wrote: »

Peig is an Irish novel students spend two years studying in second level. It's supposed to teach us Irish :P

Ok, thanks. Dont remember anything I did for Irish in the LC.

Truley wrote: »

Huh When I say beneficial I don't necessarily mean qualification wise. School can be about personal development as well as academic scoring. All of my friends from primary school have agreed that the religious education we got has been eye opening and beneficial.

More beneficial than the other subjects they did, because that was your claim?
I dont know, I'm tempted to say the only benefit I can see from it is if someone entered school already a bigot, and needed that corrected. I dont think it should be much of a shock to anyone that other cultures will have different ideas about things, and I dont understand why you need classes every week to learn how to tolerate that other people will have differing ideas to me. I must have been brought up differently.

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

Fine that's your opinion I'm not trying to change it.

I have a feeling that this is your way of compartmentalising other peoples criticisms of you so that you dont have to take them too seriously. You seem to respond with this quite regularly and its quite irritating.

Truley wrote: »

I said that in my experience religious education has taught and helped me to the same extent any of the 'real' academic subjects have. Even more so in the case of Irish, French and Maths. I'm not saying it's the case for everyone. I'm drawing from my own positive experiences of school, with the idea that it could be considered as a model for future children's education.

You said nothing of it being just in your experience and made no allowances for it not being for everyone, you just made a blanket statement that religious studies is a great subject, as, if not more, important than all the others. Read your post again.

Truley wrote: »

I don't agree, children learn very quickly that what they are taught at home does not always correspond with how things are in the real world.

Only if they are given the opportunity at home to appreciate different ideas.

toiletduck

An exam subject? How awful. It was an enjoyable one in school for me (well most of the time). There was nothing set out in stone on what to be taught.

Up to JC, it was a mix between an old style Catholic who levelled blame at the jews for killing Jesus to a cool lay teacher who got us to examine the issues around the Columbine school shooting to Gaza's fall from grace

LC was different. Had vehemently anti-abortion teachers (worst class to have after lunch due to the pictures, videos etc), 'evolution is just a theory' types, a teacher who speculated on whether the Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids (seriously), having guests like ex-alcoholics, ex-offenders etc. A real variety!

To think that has been reduced to "I reckon the Muslims are coming up this year" is kinda sad.

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm a little confused here. You are describing your experiences up to 12 years of age? We are talking about religion on the leaving cert, for 13-18 year olds. If you were already well versed in religions by the age of twelve, then that has little to do with what was tought in LC religion class.

I describe my primary school experiences because they are more in keeping with what is taught in the current leaving cert curriculum as opposed when I did the leaving and it was Catholic instruction only.

Interesting to you maybe, I figured out real early that all religions boil down to the same things - the two Ps, pride and power. The idea of learning about how other cultures deal with their fear of death and human centric narcissism just seems like an uneccesary distraction when you are trying to pass an exam in order to into university (should you need to get into university) and get a career.

If it's a leaving cert exam then it is awarded CAO points like any other subject. And there are an array of fields of study where the study of world religions and their orign are helpful, sociology, politics, theology :P history to name but a few.

Like I said before, teach kids how to think, how to discuss new issues they encounter, is all you need to do to create an open minded individual. Hand-holding for religion still gives it a higher place than it deserves, you dont do it for football or videogames, why is religion so special?

It plays a massive role in our world history. It has influenced the way we think and act today, it has influenced our art and literature, our political system, our wars. It's a pressing current issue in the social and political sphere. Football and videogames have an effect too, but not to the same extent organised religion has.

More beneficial than the other subjects they did, because that was your claim?

No it wasn't.

I dont know, I'm tempted to say the only benefit I can see from it is if someone entered school already a bigot, and needed that corrected. I dont think it should be much of a shock to anyone that other cultures will have different ideas about things, and I dont understand why you need classes every week to learn how to tolerate that other people will have differing ideas to me. I must have been brought up differently.

It's not necessarily a class on tolerance. It's a class on something that exists in the world and has a massive inpact on our day to day lives, that includes children's.

I have a feeling that this is your way of compartmentalising other peoples criticisms of you so that you dont have to take them too seriously. You seem to respond with this quite regularly and its quite irritating.

I wasn't saying it to you so relax

Dades

Truley wrote: »

I don't agree, children learn very quickly that what they are taught at home does not always correspond with how things are in the real world.

Surely the same must be said about what they are taught in school?

How things are in the Real World are how they decide to perceive them. I suspect your world view would be no different had you not had the classes you speak of - that is just who you are.

strobe

Truley wrote: »

I'm not trying to say maths or english aren't legitimate subjects don't think I'm disagreeing with you on their importance. What I'm saying is religious studies is still a beneficial subject that done well can equip children/ adolescents with extremely important life and social skills.

I don't want you to feel like people are ganging up on you or anything Truley, but what important life and social skills exactly? If I meet a Muslim, Jew, Hindu and Catholic sitting at a table I just talk to each of them the exact same way I would talk to a Budhist, Atheist, Protestant and Shintoist at another table, or German, Indian, Norwegian and Irishman at another......I can't see how exactly knowing the ins and outs of their particular beliefs would effect that. In fact I would really hope that if I knew absolutely everything about each of their beliefs it would have absolutely no effect on how I interacted with them.

Don't get me wrong, I think religion is a fascinating subject. When I was a kid one of my favourite topics was Greek and Roman mythology and it still is. I just can't see how, unless I went into theology or something specifically as a career choice, it would prove useful to know. I certainly can't imagine how it would be even potentially as useful as Maths or English or French or Geography.

Truley

Dades wrote: »

Surely the same must be said about what they are taught in school?

How things are in the Real World are how they decide to perceive them. I suspect your world view would be no different had you not had the classes you speak of - that is just who you are.

I think so too, probably not as early on given my home life and second level education, but you're probably right. And don't get me wrong I'm not under any impression that school (esp the leaving cert) curriculum is supposed to be some kind of colossal mould on your character and world view. I do think however it should be a better reflection on the reality of the adult world.

For example a catholic kid who goes to a catholic school can still see that the adult world doesn't emulate what they are being told day in day out. They will quickly see their religious education for what it is, a pile of brainwashing cr*p.

But if we were to go down the secular route like so many people are calling for, I still think it could lead to confusion because it wouldn't be a realistic reflection on the children's backgrounds, their home lives, their society etc That's the impression I get from America anyway, where despite the school system fundamentalism is huge, and there is a constant disharmony because the religious majority feel ostracized.

That's why I like the idea of multi-denominational religious education, because it's more all encompassing, less likely to lead to clashes, and a more realistic reflection of the 'real' world where you can't always 'opt out' of religious influence, unfortunately

I don't want you to feel like people are ganging up on you or anything Truley, but what important life and social skills exactly?

Ok well I found from my own experience it helped me get a better perspective on the religious brainwashing I was subjected to in secondary school (I know that sounds harsh but it was how I see it.) It helped me career wise because I went on to study social policy and then worked with children and their families from different backgrounds, where religion has come up as an issue numerous times. I think it helped me alot on a personal level, and I know other people who have said the same. But most of all I guess I got a broader world view, I don't think there is such a thing as too much knowledge on a subject.

Ickle Magoo

Secular education IS multi-denominational...there is even provision made for particular religious instruction outside school hours if you look at the ET model. Secularism is just a division of state from church & visa versa, it doesn't equate to cutting religion out of schools altogether, even years ago when I was at a secular school in the UK

9/10yrs of religious education is a bit of over-kill if the idea is to know a bit about world religions isn't it? If the ideal is to learn about culture and world views then I think a humanities class or something would serve much better.

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

If it's a leaving cert exam then it is awarded CAO points like any other subject. And there are an array of fields of study where the study of world religions and their orign are helpful, sociology, politics, theology :P history to name but a few.

Its useful in CAO terms only because someone decided it was a requirement, not because anything contained in it was inherently useful to third level courses (kinda like Irish for the leaving cert being a requirement for almost all courses). One thing I've seen in my third level education is how weak and simple the 2nd level material is compared to what you do in 3rd level. Most courses dont actually require you to have done the material in 2nd level either, you can take catch up classes and pick up the entire material ina few weeks.

Truley wrote: »

It plays a massive role in our world history. It has influenced the way we think and act today,

How does religion influence the way we think and act? Ethics and things like the "golden rule" predate the main religions. Even if they didn't, the fact that most people base their actions on the thought of what a sky faiy will do them is a bad thing, better to get them out of that kind of thinking.

Truley wrote: »

it has influenced our art and literature,

I would wager copious amounts of drugs have influenced art and literature on a par with the level of religion, its far from the only source of inspiration there is.

Truley wrote: »

our political system,

Political democracies are a greek invention, no? Quite different from the patriarchal pseudomonarchies you get ruiling religious cults.

Truley wrote: »

our wars.

Its certainly used an excuse for war, by people who see how easy it is to drive the unwashed masses with promises of greater reward in heaven.

Truley wrote: »

It's a pressing current issue in the social and political sphere.

The economic state of the world is far more pressing at the moment, what with the recession ruining many peoples chances for jobs.

Truley wrote: »

Football and videogames have an effect too, but not to the same extent organised religion has.

Tell that to the millions of people watching the world cup.

Truley wrote: »

It's not necessarily a class on tolerance. It's a class on something that exists in the world and has a massive inpact on our day to day lives, that includes children's.

The good parts of religion (morals etc) predate it (and are better expressed and argued without envoking a contradictory jerk-off sky fairy) and the bad things boil down to the same bad things that cause all bad things - pride and the desire for power. Religious class is entirely unecessary, a simple ethics and debating classes covers all aspects in a way that will let kids better set for encountering issues that arent covered in the relatively short time in class.
The problem is the hardline christians, who cant think of how to make a fully functioning member of society without a healthy infusion of christian god, have been replaced with hardline deists, who cant think of how to make a fully functioning member of society without a healthy infusion of generic brand sky fairy.

Truley wrote: »

I wasn't saying it to you so relax

So you dont deny its a defense mechanism for you to discount other peoples criticisims?

Dades

Truley wrote: »

But if we were to go down the secular route like so many people are calling for, I still think it could lead to confusion because it wouldn't be a realistic reflection on the children's backgrounds, their home lives, their society etc That's the impression I get from America anyway, where despite the school system fundamentalism is huge, and there is a constant disharmony because the religious majority feel ostracized.

Again, I think you're misrepresenting what people are calling for. Most people here agree a generic World Religion class at some point in kids' schooling is a good idea. It's just nowhere near as important as teaching good communication or basic math skills.

This is probably my fault for backing you into a corner on one point you made, but in general we all in complete agreement!

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

But if we were to go down the secular route like so many people are calling for, I still think it could lead to confusion because it wouldn't be a realistic reflection on the children's backgrounds, their home lives, their society etc That's the impression I get from America anyway, where despite the school system fundamentalism is huge, and there is a constant disharmony because the religious majority feel ostracized.

There is disharmony because the religious majority want their beliefs taught as fact in science classes. the problem is that these people dont understand that personal opinion is never at the same level as demonstratable evidence and that they think they deserve to be protected from any questioning and criticism. Multi denominational religious education wont solve this problem, because they will they will see the teaching of other religions in religion class as the same as teaching evolution and the scientific method in science and teach their kids to reject it out of hand. Like Dades said, most of a kids beliefs about the real world are influenced by what they are told at home.

Truley wrote: »

That's why I like the idea of multi-denominational religious education, because it's more all encompassing, less likely to lead to clashes, and a more realistic reflection of the 'real' world where you can't always 'opt out' of religious influence, unfortunately

And why isn't a general ethics class better than this? Teach all kids secular ethics (which predate and surpass religious ethics) and debating techniques (which will teach them to give the opposition a chance to speak, and how to recognise and counter bad arguments and logical fallacies) and you dont need to envoke magic as a reason.