Does religious education really damage you?

Denerick

I always find it amazing when people like Dawkins claim that religion is essentially child abuse. I went to a Catholic school like most others in this country. In primary school I never thought twice that there was a God, and the Catholic Church was the true church etc. etc. I couldn't understand how anyone could think differently. Every authority figure I knew said the same thing. Surely they couldn't be wrong (Learning the truth about Santa was particularly crushing for me, by the way)

As a young adult I gradually drifted away from Christianity and would now consider myself agnostic, like many others in this modern, relatively secular island. (I consider most nominal Catholics to be agnostics, who just like the comfort of that deathbed insurance and the ability to get married in a church)

I think as a child, being taught all religions are essentially equal would have changed rather little. I quite liked the illusion of a supreme being looking over everything I do, it provided a moral bank through which I knew definitively what was right and wrong. I wouldn't say the religious cramming actually did me any harm.

You might cry 'opportunity cost!' but to that I'll respond that replacing the Catholic vacuum... with what, exactly? 'Tolerance classes'? My childhood confrontation with religion has been the making of me, for better or worse, and any intellectualism I ever had in my teens was with my long gestation with the accepted truths of my childhood. Overcoming those has been the making of me, in some way or the other.

What do you think?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Macha

For me it isn't so much the fact that religion is taught but:

a) the fact that one religion is preached as gospel, rather than educating people on the different religions out there and atheism

b) the messages that come with catholicism (women are second class citizens, homosexuals are abominations, etc etc)

Ickle Magoo

I think it depends on the situation. It's easy for someone who didn't find it harmful or damaging to claim it isn't damaging to anyone, that doesn't make it so. There are people who struggle to have a fulfilling sex life or who think they are going to hell because of their sexuality thanks to the influence religious teachings have had on them.

There are far too many people raised without religion who are good people and too many who claim religiosity who aren't for the "moral authority" argument to be taken seriously.

stimpson

Not sure I'd equate it to child abuse, but I consider it to be, at best, a complete waste of a child's time. There are countless relevant things they could spend their time doing rather than being thought this nonsense. Many catholic friends of mine think that it's impossible to teach morality to children without the fear of ending up in hell with the devil sticking red hot pokers up your arse for all eternity.

If parents want to teach this to their children in their own time, that's fine, but I have an issue with my taxes paying for the indoctrination of helpless children into their parents cult of choice. You may have liked the illusion of a supreme being looking over everything you do, but what exactly is gained by teaching this to kids? I like the idea of having invisible fairies at the bottom of my garden that would do my bidding, but I know it's not real and I don't expect it to be on the curriculum.

looksee

I don't think there is any particular harm in it, though I would prefer to see religious education in its current form taken out of the classroom. This is mainly because of the year long nonsense that accompanies first Communion. It takes up a ridiculous amount of the school year, and to the vast majority of children (and, I suspect, parents) the 'Communion' aspect is completely lost in the fuss.

As time goes on though and the population of non-Catholics increases, issues surrounding the sacrament/celebration will mean that it will become of less consequence in schools as there will be so much disruption with people opting out.

It would be perfectly possible for children to attend a Saturday class in the year up to First Communion, and those who seriously want to take the sacrament could do so.

Given the authority these automatic numbers give to the church though, I don't see it happening any time soon.

raah!

I don't believe it to have been massively damaging in any way. Especially in this day and age, I think it would take a fairly massive amount of "brainwashing" to indoctrinate someone against the respected opinions of ones peers.

I went to a convent, and we had religion classes, but our text book and I think most text books, included alot on other religions, and I remember on atheism we even got to listen to john lennon's song. And this was taught by serious nuns. I also don't believe the things are taught as "fact" I've only ever heard the bible described as "the inspired word of god". We were given historical lessons about the romans and areas of jerusalem. We learned about condoms and things aswell. Maybe this was just my religion classes though.

I think even very heavy teaching about things like "homosexuals are bad" would only be effective on the most abject simpletons. But yes, I think the neagative aspects of catholic doctrine are bad thigns to teach. Funnily enough we were never taught that homosexuals were bad, I know of many other schools where this was also not the case. But maybe there are some really bad ones, and maybe also people are just thinking about america or something.

As to filling the void for moral indoctrination, which has to occur some way or another, I think there has to be some sort of semi-religious idea to give someone a rational basis for morality. For me it's alot easier to think that a god "loves you etc." than it is to think that the government is really nice and you should follow the laws for some reason o ther than fear of being punished. If one relies on empathy that is not reason, and to justify it people often end up with no more than the tautological "it's nice to be nice".

stimpson

raah! wrote: »

As to filling the void for moral indoctrination, which has to occur some way or another, I think there has to be some sort of semi-religious idea to give someone a rational basis for morality. For me it's alot easier to think that a god "loves you etc." than it is to think that the government is really nice and you should follow the laws for some reason o ther than fear of being punished. If one relies on empathy that is not reason, and to justify it people often end up with no more than the tautological "it's nice to be nice".

Surely religion is the last place you should look for a rational basis for morality. If you need religion to be truly moral, then how come you don't see atheists out raping and pillaging like there is no tomorrow? Indeed, some of the most horrific acts in this country's recent history were committed by religious.

I would also point out that Christian moral reasoning ultimately boils down to "be good or you will be punished".

raah!

Well, I think that most christans would categorise this as "weak" christian morality. And this can be placed in the same category as being afraid of being caught by the police when pillaging.

The differing factor then is that you can say "you should be good, because god created the universe, loves you, made it possible for you to live and says you should. Also he's infinitely wise etc." But it's harder to derive a moral system based on love of the government than it is to do so with some infallible omnipotent being.

And I guess the reason athiests don't do that is; biological conditioning (empathy) , fear of being caught... or maybe some other moral system similar to that held by religious people.

I'm not saying there aren't religious people who don't operate on this same basis, I'm just saying that they have a rational basis to fall back on. Note that when I use the word "rational" I mean as an opposite to emotion. Empathy and fear are emotions. Granted, so is a thing like "love of god" or whatever it is that religions use, but they use this as an axiomatic grounding for a reational moral system.

nozzferrahhtoo

Denerick wrote: »

I always find it amazing when people like Dawkins claim that religion is essentially child abuse.

I would also find that amazing if he said it. He never has though.

What is called "Child Abuse" is the premature labeling of a child with the religion of its parents and an example is usually given by him in the form of an overhead slide of a news paper cutting depicting some children in a school nativity play with a title under it written like "A Muslim aged 4, a Jew aged 5 and a Christian aged 6 partook together in a play..."

The thought experiment attached to this is to imagine if it had said:

"A Republican aged 4, an anarchist aged 5 and a Liberal Democrat aged 6 partook together in a play...."

I think calling this "Child Abuse" is somewhat extreme, but the intention is in the right place. The children do not know WHAT they are and it is acting otherwise that is being depicted as some forum of "abuse".

I would not use the word "abuse" myself though. I would simply call it a massive parental failure.

However all that aside, my point is that the man is not calling RELIGION child abuse, though I am sure he and we acknowledge child abuse can occur within certain religions.

raah!

Perhaps he sees it as abuse because of the obvious animosity people like him feel towards certain people because of their ideological stance. In my opinion children don't really care what their specific ideological stance is, or about other peoples.

They do seem to care if people are different, and in this sense branding a child as a certain type of idealogue is damaging because it might make them different from other children. If all their parents agreed with each other it would be easier, but parents have a right to teach their children what they want to. And it's not really a massive step away from "gay people are a harm to their chldren" or "black children should attend black schools", because within schools it is only the differences that the chldren notice. Unless you have some other sort of argument to support why you think it is a massive "parental failure".

And there's no point in pretending that dawkins didn't have religion in mind when he was saying those things. He may have had other things in mind, but religion was definitely on his mind. If everything else I've ever read about him is anything to go on.

PeterIanStaker

Religious "education" might not be that bad.

In Ireland though we only have religious indoctrination.

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

If all their parents agreed with each other it would be easier, but parents have a right to teach their children what they want to.

So it is fine if they, say, want to teach children to murder blacks for example? Or that Jews contain communicable diseases and should be given a wide berth? Remember parents are not owners of their children, they are stewards.

raah! wrote: »

Unless you have some other sort of argument to support why you think it is a massive "parental failure".

I see it a massive failure in that by labeling a child something before it even has the first glimmer of even a chance to become or not become that label, you are failing to recognize your child as either an individual or even a potential individual.

Imagine as another example a parents introducing you to his 5 year old son and saying "Here is my son... he is straight" and you might get a glimmer of what I mean here. The parent has no idea WHAT a child will be in many areas of its life, so labeling him one of them is a massive failure of parenting in my opinion, especially if that parent then goes on to massively intrude on any possible chance of that child not fitting the label as some parents are wont to do.

raah! wrote: »

And there's no point in pretending that dawkins didn't have religion in mind when he was saying those things. He may have had other things in mind, but religion was definitely on his mind. If everything else I've ever read about him is anything to go on.

I am not psychic so I can only take people at what their words actually say, not what I would like to imagine they say. If he says he has something against the labelling of children, then I think he has something against the labeling of children. I have no reason to think he “may have had other things in mind” and you just declaring he may, adds no credence to it at all.

If he says "The labeling of a child with the religion of its parents is akin to child abuse" then I will assume he means "The labeling of a child with the religion of its parents is akin to child abuse" and would not do the injustice of putting, for example, the words "Religion is child abuse" into his mouth for him.

I imagine you rather dislike having words put in your mouth too, so I am sure you have some empathy with my feelings on the matter.

raah!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So it is fine if they, say, want to teach children to murder blacks for example? Or that Jews contain communicable diseases and should be given a wide berth? Remember parents are not owners of their children, they are stewards.

Not everyone shares your negative views on religion, to me it is not so easily comparable to murdering "blacks"

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I see it a massive failure in that by labeling a child something before it even has the first glimmer of even a chance to become or not become that label, you are failing to recognize your child as either an individual or even a potential individual.

I think you are attatching too much importance on labels, which, if the child does know what they mean, mean nothing. For example, you could baptise a child making them a catholic or whatever, but this means nothign to you if baptism means nothign to you. And tbh, you rarely see people going around calling their children anarchists or democrats or whatever. There are serious people who do that, but they are not in the majority, which is what your argument assumes.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Imagine as another example a parents introducing you to his 5 year old son and saying "Here is my son... he is straight" and you might get a glimmer of what I mean here. The parent has no idea WHAT a child will be in many areas of its life, so labeling him one of them is a massive failure of parenting in my opinion, especially if that parent then goes on to massively intrude on any possible chance of that child not fitting the label as some parents are wont to do.

This is quite different from labelling someone as a catholic after they have been baptised. Also, being straight means nothing to a child, and as soon as they are teenagers they should have developed independent thought. If they haven't, someone will be deciding for them what they are, and you are saying that it should be their peers and the rest of society rather than their parents. That is your argument.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not psychic so I can only take people at what their words actually say, not what I would like to imagine they say.

You are not a psychic, but I am sure you are capable of making inferences about matters not contained in a text from it's context.

Denerick

Nice to see this thread has went down the 'Religion is obviously bad and pyschotic, you're an idiot if you don't see that' route.

looksee

Denerick wrote: »

Nice to see this thread has went down the 'Religion is obviously bad and pyschotic, you're an idiot if you don't see that' route.

I don't see that at all. Several people have said that, while they don't agree with it, religious education is not actually damaging to a child.

If you have a point to make to show that religious education is good for children, why not make it, the conversation is only one sided if you allow it to be.

stimpson

raah! wrote: »

The differing factor then is that you can say "you should be good, because god created the universe, loves you, made it possible for you to live and says you should. Also he's infinitely wise etc." But it's harder to derive a moral system based on love of the government than it is to do so with some infallible omnipotent being.

So you''re saying that it's better to be good because some hypothetical omnipotent being may be looking over your shoulder? Surely it's the threat of being cast into the eternal fires of hell that is keeping the christian kids on the straight and narrow. Also, if you bring this super-being into it, you have to do some theological somersaults to answer questions like "why do bad things happen to good people?"

I certainly don't bring up my children to be good based on love of government. I don't believe my kids should be brought up with a "moral system", be it religious or political. I try to teach them to consider the consequences of their actions and how they might affect themselves and those around them and hope that I equip them with the ability to make good decisions.

raah!

So you''re saying that it's better to be good because some hypothetical omnipotent being may be looking over your shoulder?

I never said that, I merely mentioned that there is a rational basis. And if you mean "looking over shoulder" to mean fear of hell, then re-read my post and you will realise that this is not a correct interpretation. Personally I do believe it is better to have a rational basis for what you do. Acting based on emotions is no different from how animals act. But that's just me. For me doing this is just a means to self gratification. Empathy is there to help one survive and propogate one's genes (if looked at in a scientific sense). That's why it feels good to do nice things. If one recognises an evolutionary source of empaty one recognises that one is acting in order to gain a release of chemicals. A more economical source of doing this would be to take heroin. In this moral frame work based on evolution, there is no such thing as an altruistic action. The only difference between a junkie on the street and someone working for charity is longevity and sustainability of their sources of self gratification.

it's the threat of being cast into the eternal fires of hell that is keeping the christian kids on the straight and narrow

As I said, this fear of hell exists, but is external to the argument.
Yes there are people out there who act morally only because of fear. My argument is that without something like religion, you can have no other source of morality. Again I see love of a government or reverence of the leaders as something akin to religion

theological somersaults to answer questions like "why do bad things happen to good people?"

I would much prefer theological summersaults to tautological ones. And I'm not even talking about any specific religion, I'm just saying there is no rational basis for morality unless you introduce one, and that people need a good reason to accept this as something which will affect all of their actions in the future.


What if your children were of the rational type and said "why should I consider the consequences on other people that don't affect me?" what if they were to say "why give money to charity?". And you could respond "that's not nice" and they could say "why do I have to be nice?" and then you could say "it's nice to be nice". Or being nice to other people means you'll have a nicer time.

But in my experience, if you are only out for self gratification, being nice only gets you so far. Stealing things is easy, and so is doing things like selling drugs and downloading music from the internet.

In this world too, the effects of things like stealing from a supermarket on anyone other than some filthey fatcat who probably won't notice anyway are very hard to detect (this is just an example of how it is ok to do bad things to bad people. Wars... executing criminals etc.). So stealing from supermarkets is fine. It is easy to come up with justifications for any action if we are let to it, and have any inkling of independence of thought.

Anyway, you don't seem to have grasped my argument, I am talking about what happens when there is no religion to govern people morally. What do people propose we put in instead. And how is this going to be any different from religion?

jackinyogrill

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would also find that amazing if he said it. He never has though.

Yes he has. He was a guest on RTE's The Panel a few years ago, and his closing line was, "If you raise your child to believe in religion, you are committing child abuse." He said it with a smile on his face, too.

Because he's become the patron saint of atheism (lame joke kind of intended), me and my friends feel than we can't just describe ourselves as 'atheist' anymore, because the word conjures up associations with Dawkins' worst anti-theist proselytising (like that obnoxious stunt with the ads on buses in London). We call ourselves 'non-theists' instead.

Eliot Rosewater

raah! wrote: »

Anyway, you don't seem to have grasped my argument, I am talking about what happens when there is no religion to govern people morally. What do people propose we put in instead. And how is this going to be any different from religion?

It's a very interesting argument, if I'm grasping it correctly. I'd base my broad moral code on individual property rights (I wouldn't steal from the supermarket because those things are not mine) because I feel that that is "right". But you seem to be suggesting that this is like religion, and in a way it is because because it's very axiomatic and it's putting fate in a broad abstract concept. It's also driven by fear and self-interest: one practises it in the hope that one will also be dealt similar respect from others and that one's property will not be stolen.

But in modern society people are often forced to respect property rights by the justice system. Suppose someone abstains from stealing out of fear of judicial punishment. Am I right in saying that you would not consider that abstention a part of their moral code? Thus a moral code is a combination of abstract beliefs and actions to satisfy them, rather than the actions alone?

Truley

As another poster described it, I am all for religious 'education' as opposed to 'indoctrination.' I found it incredibly beneficial in primary school where we had a formal multi denominational curriculum, very different from the catholic only education I got in secondary level. However I've seen the current leaving cert/ junior cert religious curriculm that my younger brother has gone through and I think it's fantastic.

I don't think knowing about different religions is any more 'harmful' or a waste of time than knowing about the industrial revolution or the second world war. So I think a formal multi-denominational religious programme should be on offer at both primary and secondary level, though I got ate on the A+A forum for even suggesting it

Ickle Magoo

Truley wrote: »

So I think a formal multi-denominational religious programme should be on offer at both primary and secondary level, though I got ate on the A+A forum for even suggesting it

As I remember the vast majority of posters on A&A agree with multi-denominational religious education classes, it was the suggestion that religious education was as important as maths and english you got eaten for...

raah!

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

But in modern society people are often forced to respect property rights by the justice system. Suppose someone abstains from stealing out of fear of judicial punishment. Am I right in saying that you would not consider that abstention a part of their moral code? Thus a moral code is a combination of abstract beliefs and actions to satisfy them, rather than the actions alone?

Yes, unless they had a moral code based around respecting the judicial system. I would see theirs, as an unthinking means to self preservation, and yours as a way to adhering to your idea of "right". So yes, actions alone, or actions based on emotions alone can only be, in my opinion, self serving.

So I would say one needs some abstract concept to hold up, but also one which one thinks is worthy of their respect. So for example, respect for the law, can only go so far if one is never given any reasons to disrespect it. And given the nature of human beings nad how they disagree, people often find reasons to disagree with the laws/judicial systems, and it would therefore be difficult for them to maintain respect for them, and feel that their idea of right is the 'right' one.

Oh_Noes

I think that it's better to have it than to not have it. I've never found that I took any big moral lessons from religious education, but I did take a few things, belief in god not being one of them. It's silly to think that children are that unassuming, especially these days.

A lot of what's taught in religious education classes gives you a greater understanding of one of the central forces that influences the culture/society we live in today. It's not so long ago that the church more or less governed this country, and most of this framework is still in place in people's attitudes, behaviours and traditions in ways that are arbitrary in relation to the bible. Funerals, wakes, christenings, weddings are all something that happen in the realm of the church so it's nice to get familiar with the church when you're young.

Religion classes in school are no different to any other classes, the traditions and methodologies involved in the research and teaching are all just as subjective. But this is the reality we live in and it helps if everyone is on the same page. Once you're given the information, you choose what you want to do with it, rather than passively being a consumer of it.

The OP pointed out that the majority of adults in modern day Ireland are agnostic, yet most of us have been through religious education. It's obviously not damaging or abusive, it's a good starting point to derive your own beliefs from. Sort of like a Devil's Advocate kind of scenario.

mountainy man

I got religious education from a protestant perspective, bland bland and more bland , i have called them "pedestrians "ever since , i wouldn't say it damaged me , just drove me away from ever wanting to have anything to do with religion . religion has no place in schools , education is all about facts not fairy stories

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

not so easily comparable to murdering "blacks"

Nor did I claim it was, once, ever. My point was merely to show you examples of how there are SOME limits worth having a discussion about on what a parent can go around teaching their children.

raah! wrote: »

I think you are attatching too much importance on labels

Do you. Thats great. We differ on this then because I see telling a child what he or she is long before he or she even has the first chance to decide that for themselves is a massive failure on the part of a parent to recognise their child as an individual.

raah! wrote: »

you rarely see people going around calling their children anarchists or democrats or whatever

Exactly! Now if you sit back and allow yourself to understand WHY that is, you will be on the right track to understanding the thought experiment I mentioned in the first post.

raah! wrote: »

you are capable of making inferences about matters not contained in a text from it's context.

World of difference between inferences and wholesale insertion of words into the mouth of a person who has never, and would never, say them. The claim that "religion is child abuse" is not only one he never made, but would and could never make and is in and of itself an indefensible statement.

However people are often moved to change someones defensible statements into indefensible ones for the purpose of strawman. It is a sad aspect of our species alas.

nozzferrahhtoo

Denerick wrote: »

Nice to see this thread has went down the 'Religion is obviously bad and pyschotic, you're an idiot if you don't see that' route.

I would hate to think the thread is going that way and thankfully this is not the approach I have taken to it either. The point I, for one, am making here is nothing like “Religion is obviously bad and psychotic”

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

you can say "you should be good, because god created the universe

You could _say_ that but alas given the existence of god is something we simply have no data on, let alone its creation and subsequent maintenance of our universe, by saying it you are, from the outset, basing your “moral system” on a grounding in dishonesty. Not really the first block in the foundation of any system I personally would like to subscribe to alas.

However it is worth conceding that most of our teaching methods to children are, in some sense, based on dishonesty. We tell them a long series of “white lies” which we refine constantly in just about every subject we teach them***.

raah! wrote: »

And I guess the reason athiests don't do that is; biological conditioning (empathy)

Given that it is no more than a guess in your words, this is actually not TOO bad. If you stop guessing and actually follow that line of reasoning you might find it more conducive to reason than you think.

The shared human conditions, and the subsequent desires shared by them in the majority of cases that are so vast that they almost appear objective, is a very strong basis for a moral and social system using nothing more than what has been called "The golden rule"

I wrote about it in fact here:

http://www.atheist.ie/2009/02/the-immorality-of-claiming-morality/



*** As a random example, the structure of the atom which we first tell them is a centre being circulated on one plane by little balls, then later in school refine this to a centre being circulated in a spherical method by little balls, until at college level you learn that the centre is hardly a centre at all, and the balls are actually a "cloud" made up of the probability of an element with charge being in any one place at any one time.

nozzferrahhtoo

jackinyogrill wrote: »

He was a guest on RTE's The Panel a few years ago, and his closing line was, "If you raise your child to believe in religion, you are committing child abuse." He said it with a smile on his face, too.

The great thing about the internet is that you get to check when people make claims like this. The video you speak of is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdYMcRjbfI4

and I just re-watched it for you, since you clearly did not yourself, and the only mention of the word “abuse” comes in the form that I will transcribe as accurately as possible from one listen:

Do not teach children that this is YOUR religion, that’s child abuse. To label a child like ‘This is a catholic child, this is a Muslim child…. ‘ that is child abuse because the child is too young to know what it thinks about it

Which is, I note, EXACTLY what I have been saying on this thread and nothing to do with what you just wholesale inserted in his mouth for him. What is it about Dawkin's mouth that people like to put things in it I wonder?

His “Closing Line” as you put it, was nothing to do with abuse at all. It was actually on the subject of how one does not need belief in god to appreciate religious art, architecture and literature.

I have no vested interest in Dawkins. I actually think his attitude sometimes that of a spoiled brat when he gets annoyed and there is much I disagree with him on. However at least the basis for my problems with him are ACCURATE and I go to the bother of checking them before I say them.

jackinyogrill wrote: »

me and my friends feel than we can't just describe ourselves as 'atheist' anymore. We call ourselves 'non-theists' instead.

Here I heartily agree with you! I never, except maybe as a term of convenience in longer prose, describe myself as an atheist. Or a non-theist. Or an anti-theist.

I am merely someone who believes that “If a proposition is laid before me devoid of ANY supporting evidence AT ALL then I merely dismiss that proposition as unsubstantiated and proceed without it”.

GIVEN that the god hypothesis is devoid of even a shred of a scrap of supporting evidence I therefore dismiss it as unsubstantiated and proceed without it.

“Atheist” is merely what OTHER people label me because of this consequence of my methodology. I find the word itself a non-term, like “Non-Astrologer” and have no time for it myself.

jackinyogrill wrote: »

Dawkins' worst anti-theist proselytising (like that obnoxious stunt with the ads on buses in London)

Might be worth correcting this too for accuracy. Although you clearly do not directly say the bus was HIS "stunt" it can be read that way and I am not sure which way to read it and which way you meant it.

Either way, whether to correct you or preempt someone reading it wrong, it is worth pointing out this was NOT his "stunt" but that of a comedian and blogger in England called Ariane Sherine. Dawkins merely told her if she could raise 5000GBP he would match it for her. In the end she raised a LOT over 100k in less than a month.

philologos

I think it was beneficial for me, especially in trying to make sense of things for myself. I didn't really appreciate the value of an ethos or of religious education until my final two years whereby I was searching really.

I think faith schools should exist alongside secular schools. Parents have the legal right of choice in respect to moral and religious education in the Constitution, and this has commonly been interpreted in terms of offering faith schools. The problem is there aren't much secular schools at all which needs to be rectified.

I think people have no right to deprive parents of this choice, especially when their tax money is going into it. Nobody should be called a child abuser for allowing their child to explore their faith.

stimpson

raah! wrote: »

I never said that, I merely mentioned that there is a rational basis. And if you mean "looking over shoulder" to mean fear of hell, then re-read my post and you will realise that this is not a correct interpretation. Personally I do believe it is better to have a rational basis for what you do. Acting based on emotions is no different from how animals act.

But it's not a rational basis. Belief in an invisible god despite a complete lack of proof of existence is not rational, therefore tempering your behavior to please a being that may not exist is wholly irrational.

As I said, this fear of hell exists, but is external to the argument.
Yes there are people out there who act morally only because of fear.

How is it external? Many christians fear being cast into hell and this fear is a prime motivator for their actions. The flip side is eternal reward in heaven for being good. How can their actions be truly moral if their motivation is getting their soul into heaven?

My argument is that without something like religion, you can have no other source of morality. Again I see love of a government or reverence of the leaders as something akin to religion

Indeed, I see religion as something akin to politics. Nevertheless, there are many reasons to have a moral balance, empathy being one. Desire to benefit from living in a better society being another. If I base my moral compass on the teachings of an invisible pink unicorn that I believe exists, am I somehow truly moral?

What if your children were of the rational type and said "why should I consider the consequences on other people that don't affect me?" what if they were to say "why give money to charity?". And you could respond "that's not nice" and they could say "why do I have to be nice?" and then you could say "it's nice to be nice". Or being nice to other people means you'll have a nicer time.

You could also respond that you don't have to be nice. They'll figure that out themselves soon enough. You can also teach them that they can act as they wish but their actions have consequences. On a more basic level (before you can reason with them) you can use positive and negative reinforcement to teach them what is acceptable behavior. I find your hypothetical conversation to be quite unimaginative in how to raise children.

But in my experience, if you are only out for self gratification, being nice only gets you so far. Stealing things is easy, and so is doing things like selling drugs and downloading music from the internet.

In this world too, the effects of things like stealing from a supermarket on anyone other than some filthey fatcat who probably won't notice anyway are very hard to detect (this is just an example of how it is ok to do bad things to bad people. Wars... executing criminals etc.). So stealing from supermarkets is fine. It is easy to come up with justifications for any action if we are let to it, and have any inkling of independence of thought.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. As an atheist, I don't accept that any of those things are OK. You can easily find religious people who think war and executing criminals is acceptable. All they need is an ambiguous passage from the bible to justify it to themselves. Indeed, it could be argued that this absolves them of the need to be truly moral, and they just need to be able to find legal loopholes in the bible to justify their actions.

Anyway, you don't seem to have grasped my argument, I am talking about what happens when there is no religion to govern people morally. What do people propose we put in instead. And how is this going to be any different from religion?

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with you. Religion doesn't govern people morally. If it did, then we would live in a Utopian world of peace and harmony, instead we have peope killing each other over who is gods favourite.

At the end of the day, people will follow their own moral compass, regardless of religion. Their beliefs may effect where their compass points, but they have free will and can choose to ignore religious teaching when it suits.

prinz

I can't even remember primary religion, and in secondary school, despite it being owned by a Catholic order and run on a Catholic ethos, our religion classes comprised of all major world religions, philosophy and a bit of literature, history art etc. Our school had students from a variety of Christian denominations, and some Jews and Muslims. Worked out well for us all. No one religion was being taught as gospel or shoved down our throats like many people would love to believe.

philologos

stimpson wrote: »

How is it external? Many christians fear being cast into hell and this fear is a prime motivator for their actions. The flip side is eternal reward in heaven for being good. How can their actions be truly moral if their motivation is getting their soul into heaven?

Where are you getting this from? - There is no reward for being good, in Christianity (as far as I can see Scripturally anyway). Christians also have nothing to fear concerning hell, if they believe in Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2:8-9 wrote:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Romans 8:1 wrote:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Salvation, is not of our own doing. We are saved, not because of what we do, but because of what Jesus Christ did. This is why Christianity is quite unique amongst all religions. Christianity says that God loved us first, and saved us from our sins so that we might live for Him in return.

I try to live the best way I can, in appreciation of what Christ did for me. Nothing else.

stimpson wrote: »

Indeed, I see religion as something akin to politics. Nevertheless, there are many reasons to have a moral balance, empathy being one. Desire to benefit from living in a better society being another. If I base my moral compass on the teachings of an invisible pink unicorn that I believe exists, am I somehow truly moral?

I desire, a world that God desires. Any action which contributes to the world being as God desires, to me is moral. Any action which contributes to the world not being as God desires, to me is immoral.

stimpson wrote: »

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with you. Religion doesn't govern people morally. If it did, then we would live in a Utopian world of peace and harmony, instead we have peope killing each other over who is gods favourite.

You're entitled to this opinion, but at the end of the day it is an opinion just as mine is. It makes the assumption that God must punish immediately, or that we can only follow Him if He exists. It is possible due to free will that people can rebel against God.

stimpson wrote: »

At the end of the day, people will follow their own moral compass, regardless of religion. Their beliefs may effect where their compass points, but they have free will and can choose to ignore religious teaching when it suits.

I agree, that atheists, theists and everyone else has a moral compass. I argue that moral compass is in us for a reason. We can choose to ignore that reason, and in turn skew our moral compass, but at the end of the day, if there is to be a universal right and wrong, we need to ask why.

I believe this concerning our moral compass:

Romans 2:12-16 wrote:

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

A lot of your criticism doesn't seem to be specifically about what Christianity says but about what you think that Christianity says about us.

I think that a lot of the posts on this thread on education are a bit sensationalist. There are people who have greatly benefited from faith based education, and I don't think there is enough basis to get rid of it. Unless, that is the real reason is to get rid of believers rather than educating.

jackinyogrill

prinz wrote: »

I can't even remember primary religion, and in secondary school, despite it being owned by a Catholic order and run on a Catholic ethos, our religion classes comprised of all major world religions, philosophy and a bit of literature, history art etc. Our school had students from a variety of Christian denominations, and some Jews and Muslims. Worked out well for us all. No one religion was being taught as gospel or shoved down our throats like many people would love to believe.

Not that anecdotal evidence proves anything, but my secondary school took the complete opposite tac; other religions were discussed ony insofar as they could be dismissed for deviating from the Catholic ideal, and our textbook contained a whole raft of stupidities pertaining to Eastern religions. Discussion as to the existence or non-existence of God was imited to, "God exists, because God created the world. Now shut up."

Maybe the difference lies in the rural/urban divide, with metropolitan areas like Dublin having had a longer exposure to different cultures and belief systems than small rural areas like the one I grew up in. What do the rest of ye think?

Pittens

My Catholic Education was mostly academic and religious classes were generally like civics ( which we also had) and was pretty left wing on social issues . The priest who wants a citizen tax - Healy - he was there once. On the whole the teaching was vaguely anti-materialist, anti-American ( the killings of Romero) and slightly anti-capitalist. It was always taken by non-religious teachers. Since my education was at the tail end of the eighties, and into the nineties and in rural Ireland I wonder exactly when and where all this religious indoctrination came from elsewhere ( the anti-gay stuff) that modern atheists are so keen to slough off. If anything the teaching was PC.

As an aside: this is, I think, the nature of the kind of teachers who volunteered to teach these kind of classes as it was extra-ciricular for them too and not exam related . They tended to be young and vaugely leftist. Anyway civics or religion could easily deal with moral aspects common to both ideologies of the left and religion: is it right that Africa is so poor? etc.

I am afraid the religious fundamentalism that seems to have bloomed since then ( mar dhea) has passed me by.

Of course this liberal view was indoctrination like any other form ( as Donegalfella would no doubt attest).

As for "child abuse". Dawkins mentions a kid who, at the age of 6, or 7, and on the death of her protestant friend asked a teacher whether her friend went to Heaven. The teacher replied no - the dead friend was in hell - and this affected the woman for life.

I agree that answer is, in itself, a form of child abuse. However what is the atheist answer? "She's Dead. Dead. No more. Dead as a dodo. Gone. And me too, gone soon. And you eventually. Gone. You worthless little wretch."

A "liberal" religious answer would be: no, in heaven. Let the child have that comfort blanket.

We are talking about children here. Mild religion may do no harm, and as they grow older be an inoculation against the hard stuff ( I remind everybody that the American Teleban grew up in an Atheist family) and be largely forgotten.

In fact, if religion is innate - and Dawkins admits it is - teaching a liberal form of religion may be essential.

Pittens

Christians also have nothing to fear concerning hell, if they believe in Jesus Christ.

That's a protestant reading of that piece by Paul ( who, was not Jesus by the way so that is basically his view of the matter).

Catholics hold a different view. Anyway this thread is about any religious education, across all denominations. I think mild religion is fine, madrassa bad.

Truley

jackinyogrill wrote: »

Maybe the difference lies in the rural/urban divide, with metropolitan areas like Dublin having had a longer exposure to different cultures and belief systems than small rural areas like the one I grew up in. What do the rest of ye think?

To be honest I think it has more to do with the ambiguous religion curriculum most Catholic schools would have had at the time, giving most teachers free reign to cover what they wanted how they wanted. So it completely depended on who was teaching you.

Then again when your religion class consists of a mix of Protestants, Catholics, Seikhs, Athiests or whatever it can be much harder for a teacher to malign other faiths and philosophies, or give an overly one sided slant on a subject. So by default an urban area would tend to be more multi cultural, and I can definately see where you're coming from.

Benny Lava

I wouldn't say it damages you as long as you know to take religion with a few pinches of salt.

stimpson

I desire, a world that God desires. Any action which contributes to the world being as God desires, to me is moral. Any action which contributes to the world not being as God desires, to me is immoral.

Indeed, this is the problem with religion. You actually desire a world that you perceive your god to desire based on your interpretation of the bible. The problem is that different people have different interpretations.

You're entitled to this opinion, but at the end of the day it is an opinion just as mine is. It makes the assumption that God must punish immediately, or that we can only follow Him if He exists. It is possible due to free will that people can rebel against God.

My point was that one does not need religion to be truly moral. The only assumption I make is that god probably does not exist and therefore any religious basis for morality is fundamentally flawed.

I agree, that atheists, theists and everyone else has a moral compass. I argue that moral compass is in us for a reason. We can choose to ignore that reason, and in turn skew our moral compass, but at the end of the day, if there is to be a universal right and wrong, we need to ask why.

I agree with much of this, but I would question the idea of universal right and wrong. Surely this is a personal thing. Even for someone who is religious it depends on their interpretation of scripture.

I think that a lot of the posts on this thread on education are a bit sensationalist. There are people who have greatly benefited from faith based education, and I don't think there is enough basis to get rid of it. Unless, that is the real reason is to get rid of believers rather than educating.

And let us not forget that there are many people whose lives have been irreparably damaged by faith based education.

Personally, my big issue is that state schools are being used to present religion as fact, in that it's presented to children by an authority figure along with factual subjects like English, maths, etc. This means that the child is less likely to question what they are being told.

I also take issue that schools are legally required to devote 2.5 hours per week to religion. As an atheist parent, I don't have a choice in this. I don't see why it religious "education" can't be done outside school hours.

jackinyogrill

stimpson wrote: »

I also take issue that schools are legally required to devote 2.5 hours per week to religion. As an atheist parent, I don't have a choice in this. I don't see why it religious "education" can't be done outside school hours.

I can't remember if this has been mentioned before, but the constitution favours your judgement in this regard. The school absolutely cannot force your child to attend religious education if you would prefer they didn't. All it takes is a signed note to the principal.

philologos

stimpson wrote: »

Indeed, this is the problem with religion. You actually desire a world that you perceive your god to desire based on your interpretation of the bible. The problem is that different people have different interpretations.

It isn't as problematic for the Christian, because there is an assurance that if even you, and others who sit together and reason the Scriptures together don't know everything, that there is someone who does know who can guide the study.

Your point here seems to suggest that there is a god for everyone in the audience, most Christians would understand that there is only one God.

stimpson wrote: »

My point was that one does not need religion to be truly moral. The only assumption I make is that god probably does not exist and therefore any religious basis for morality is fundamentally flawed.

Truly moral is meaningless if we don't understand that there is a true morality that is binding on all people. Otherwise, your conclusion about being truly moral only really means what you think being truly moral is, rather than it being truly moral for all.

That's what is flawed when one doesn't consider morality in a universal light.

stimpson wrote: »

I agree with much of this, but I would question the idea of universal right and wrong. Surely this is a personal thing. Even for someone who is religious it depends on their interpretation of scripture.

If morality is a personal thing, it is useless. There can be no "true morality" in that case. For the believer, it would involve what God thinks. They could interpret the Scripture any way they pleased, but ultimately it is down to God.

stimpson wrote: »

And let us not forget that there are many people whose lives have been irreparably damaged by faith based education.

I think it is utterly sensationalist unless you are talking about cases where people have intentionally added things to what they are teaching, or twisted things.

I think the State needs to keep supporting all people in society, whether theists or atheists and it is their responsibility to do so in education.

stimpson wrote: »

Personally, my big issue is that state schools are being used to present religion as fact, in that it's presented to children by an authority figure along with factual subjects like English, maths, etc. This means that the child is less likely to question what they are being told.

I disagree entirely. Just because a child is taught about God doesn't mean that they won't question. Before I arrived at my current position, I personally had to question deeply about whether it was right. I think most reasonable people would do the same.

I think questioning should be encouraged in faith based education, as it is questioning that helps a stronger faith to form.

stimpson wrote: »

I also take issue that schools are legally required to devote 2.5 hours per week to religion. As an atheist parent, I don't have a choice in this. I don't see why it religious "education" can't be done outside school hours.

That's the point of having both faith schools, and secular schools side by side, so that parents are at liberty to choose what their own kids are taught concerning faith and morals. That's what I believe should happen.

However, I don't think you are at liberty to decide what other parents decide concerning that teaching.

Fuinseog

Pittens wrote: »

My Catholic Education was mostly academic and religious classes were generally like civics ( which we also had) and was pretty left wing on social issues . The priest who wants a citizen tax - Healy - he was there once. On the whole the teaching was vaguely anti-materialist, anti-American ( the killings of Romero) and slightly anti-capitalist. It was always taken by non-religious teachers. Since my education was at the tail end of the eighties, and into the nineties and in rural Ireland I wonder exactly when and where all this religious indoctrination came from elsewhere ( the anti-gay stuff) that modern atheists are so keen to slough off. If anything the teaching was PC.

As an aside: this is, I think, the nature of the kind of teachers who volunteered to teach these kind of classes as it was extra-ciricular for them too and not exam related . They tended to be young and vaugely leftist. Anyway civics or religion could easily deal with moral aspects common to both ideologies of the left and religion: is it right that Africa is so poor? etc.

I am afraid the religious fundamentalism that seems to have bloomed since then ( mar dhea) has passed me by.

Of course this liberal view was indoctrination like any other form ( as Donegalfella would no doubt attest).

As for "child abuse". Dawkins mentions a kid who, at the age of 6, or 7, and on the death of her protestant friend asked a teacher whether her friend went to Heaven. The teacher replied no - the dead friend was in hell - and this affected the woman for life.

I agree that answer is, in itself, a form of child abuse. However what is the atheist answer? "She's Dead. Dead. No more. Dead as a dodo. Gone. And me too, gone soon. And you eventually. Gone. You worthless little wretch."

A "liberal" religious answer would be: no, in heaven. Let the child have that comfort blanket.

We are talking about children here. Mild religion may do no harm, and as they grow older be an inoculation against the hard stuff ( I remind everybody that the American Teleban grew up in an Atheist family) and be largely forgotten.

In fact, if religion is innate - and Dawkins admits it is - teaching a liberal form of religion may be essential.

i can't believe someone is defending religion. how uncool!

Irish people need organsiation in their lives. religion offers this.religion class teaches morals, something the celtic tiger generation lack.
is our post God society really better than Christian Ireland?
there appear to be more murders these days than say the eighties as people do not really think it a big deal to go out and terminate someones life.

93% of the population are catholic so it should not really come as a surprsie that a catholic ethos should be promoted.

stimpson

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't as problematic for the Christian, because there is an assurance that if even you, and others who sit together and reason the Scriptures together don't know everything, that there is someone who does know who can guide the study.

Your point here seems to suggest that there is a god for everyone in the audience, most Christians would understand that there is only one God.

There are more religions than christianity, and even christians disagree oon the "true" nature of god.

Truly moral is meaningless if we don't understand that there is a true morality that is binding on all people. Otherwise, your conclusion about being truly moral only really means what you think being truly moral is, rather than it being truly moral for all.

But everyone has their own moral compass. There is no "true morality". What you consider to be immoral is going to be different to what I consider and vice-versa.

There can be no "true morality" in that case. For the believer, it would involve what God thinks. They could interpret the Scripture any way they pleased

That seems to be the case.

I think it is utterly sensationalist unless you are talking about cases where people have intentionally added things to what they are teaching, or twisted things.

It's not sensationalist. I know it's something that the religious would like to absolve themselves of responsibility for, but it did happen and it is the faith aspect to it that enabled these things to happen. You are (or at least I was) thought to look up to and not to question clergy so these people were put in a position where they could abuse without fear of being caught.

That's the point of having both faith schools, and secular schools side by side, so that parents are at liberty to choose what their own kids are taught concerning faith and morals. That's what I believe should happen.

That is the problem. There are no secular primary schools in this country. Most are run by the catholic church, many by protestant denominations, a few Educate Together, 2 islamic, 1 jewish and 2 VECs. the ET schools are multi-denominational (not non-denominational) and even the VEC's have the children say a prayer before school.

However, I don't think you are at liberty to decide what other parents decide concerning that teaching.

I think you'll find that as a citizen, a taxpayer and a parent I have as much a right to my say as anyone else. I have no issue if religious parents wish to instruct children in their own time, but school is not the place for it.

philologos

stimpson wrote: »

There are more religions than christianity, and even christians disagree oon the "true" nature of god.

This much is admittedly true. It has 0 bearing on whether or not the God of Christianity actually exists though. The way the conversation seems to be is talking about God as a concept in peoples minds, rather than a God who could well be in actual existence.

That's fine, but we seem to be on different wavelengths.

stimpson wrote: »

But everyone has their own moral compass. There is no "true morality". What you consider to be immoral is going to be different to what I consider and vice-versa.

I disagree. Everyone has a conscience which can inform them right from wrong, good from evil. Just because people decide to use their conscience, or to deviate from such standards doesn't mean that a universal standard of right and wrong cannot exist.

As I've said already, the concept of morality makes no tangible sense if it isn't a universal one.

stimpson wrote: »

It's not sensationalist. I know it's something that the religious would like to absolve themselves of responsibility for, but it did happen and it is the faith aspect to it that enabled these things to happen. You are (or at least I was) thought to look up to and not to question clergy so these people were put in a position where they could abuse without fear of being caught.

Ah I see. I didn't see that aspect of it admittedly. Even if we are going down the alley of sexual child abuse, one has to realise that there are more denominations involved in education than the RCC. I've argued that huge reforms need to be seen in education. I don't agree that banning faith schools is one.

You correctly add those brackets, it would be nice if you asked me before assuming my position. I don't believe any person should be exempt from questioning.

stimpson wrote: »

That is the problem. There are no secular primary schools in this country. Most are run by the catholic church, many by protestant denominations, a few Educate Together, 2 islamic, 1 jewish and 2 VECs. the ET schools are multi-denominational (not non-denominational) and even the VEC's have the children say a prayer before school.

I agree with you. It is a problem and one that I feel should be rectified. I respect the choice of a parent not to bring their child to a faith school.

stimpson wrote: »

I think you'll find that as a citizen, a taxpayer and a parent I have every bit as much a right to my say as anyone else.

If we are getting into taxes, we also have to realise that people of faith also pay taxes. That's why I suggest that there should be both faith schools and secular schools.

I don't believe you have a right to decide what type of education someone else's child receives in respect to morals or faith, at least according to our Constitution.

Fuinseog

I think you'll find that as a citizen, a taxpayer and a parent I have as much a right to my say as anyone else. I have no issue if religious parents wish to instruct children in their own time, but school is not the place for it.[/QUOTE]

if you send your child to a catholic school then you have to accept the rules. the best schools in this country have a religious ethos.

too bad that there are not that many non denominational schools around. people need direction and religion can offer them this, true the catholic church does not offer leadership but a godless society is not something that suits the Irish.
you also have the situation, whereby the parents expect their offspring to learn religion in school and the school expect them to learn it at home.

philologos

Fuinseog wrote: »

too bad that there are not that many non denominational schools around. people need direction and religion can offer them this, true the catholic church does not offer leadership but a godless society is not something that suits the Irish.
you also have the situation, whereby the parents expect their offspring to learn religion in school and the school expect them to learn it at home.

I don't think it is just "too bad". The Government has a responsibility to provide schools for people who do not wish their children to learn about religion where there is adequate demand particularly considering that 6% of the Irish population do not profess any belief. That is twice the CofI population.

The latest CSO figure suggested that 86% of the population were Roman Catholics, and 5% subscribed to other Christian beliefs, 6% non-believers / not stated, 3% others.

Fuinseog

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think it is just "too bad". The Government has a responsibility to provide schools for people who do not wish their children to learn about religion where there is adequate demand particularly considering that 6% of the Irish population do not profess any belief. That is twice the CofI population.

The latest CSO figure suggested that 86% of the population were Roman Catholics, and 5% subscribed to other Christian beliefs, 6% non-believers / not stated, 3% others.

religious eduction these days is more about ethics and philosophy, which can do the young ones no harm.

when you send your child to a certain school it is generally a sign of willingenss to accept the school ethos.

how many people out there really do not want their children to go to a school, which teaches religion?

sure, the state could set up such a school in major cities like dublin, but would thye get the numbers?

most schools have one class of religion per week. is it really worth the hassle of changing schools over 30-40 mins?

most who really do not want to attend this class simply go the library.

I have the feeling that there is a large amount of people who like awake at night wondering how they can challenge the state or school. there are no lenghths that they are not willing to go to pursue this.

stimpson

Jakkass wrote: »

This much is admittedly true. It has 0 bearing on whether or not the God of Christianity actually exists though. The way the conversation seems to be is talking about God as a concept in peoples minds, rather than a God who could well be in actual existence.

Funny how there seems to be no evidence for it.

I disagree. Everyone has a conscience which can inform them right from wrong, good from evil. Just because people decide to use their conscience, or to deviate from such standards doesn't mean that a universal standard of right and wrong cannot exist.

As I've said already, the concept of morality makes no tangible sense if it isn't a universal one.

But it's not universal. Many people have different opinions on the morality of drug taking, prostitution, theft, downloading music off the internet, rap music...

Ah I see. I didn't see that aspect of it admittedly. Even if we are going down the alley of sexual child abuse, one has to realise that there are more denominations involved in education than the RCC. I've argued that huge reforms need to be seen in education. I don't agree that banning faith schools is one.

I wasn't talking exclusively about child abuse. There is also physical and psychological abuse. you can't just point the finger at catholics either, as institutionalised abuse has happened in other denominations. And I never mentioned banning faith schools.

You correctly add those brackets, it would be nice if you asked me before assuming my position. I don't believe any person should be exempt from questioning.

I didn't mean you presonally. I meant children in general.

If we are getting into taxes, we also have to realise that people of faith also pay taxes. That's why I suggest that there should be both faith schools and secular schools.

I don't believe you have a right to decide what type of education someone else's child receives in respect to morals or faith, at least according to our Constitution.

Neither do I. It's the use of taxpayers money to fund the churches religious instruction, and the lack of choice that I have issue with.

There is nothing in the constitution that requires the state to provide faith based education. It says the State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement private education initiatives, with due regard for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

There is nothing that says it must bankroll religious schooling. It could be argued that the state should provide secular schooling to all at a minimum and endeavour to support additional religious instruction (or indeed, leave this up to the parent)

stimpson

Fuinseog wrote: »

most schools have one class of religion per week. is it really worth the hassle of changing schools over 30-40 mins?

You do not know what you are talking about. Primary schools musty legally provide 2.5 hours of religious education per week.

You may think it's OK for my child to go to the library for this time, but I would rather that the time be used effectively.

philologos

stimpson wrote: »

Funny how there seems to be no evidence for it.

That is also something I disagree with, but it'd probably be best to go to the Christianity forum for that.

stimpson wrote: »

But it's not universal. Many people have different opinions on the morality of drug taking, prostitution, theft, downloading music off the internet, rap music...

Universally binding. People might deviate, and people have the free will to deviate, but you can bet your luck that when another has wronged you, you will insist that they were wrong. Not that they were subjectively wrong, but objectively wrong.

There is no point in talking about right and wrong any more unless it means something to other people. If your definition of right and wrong only applies to you, it is of limited value. People have a concept of rules of fair play amongst each other even if there is disagreement elsewhere.

stimpson wrote: »

I wasn't talking exclusively about child abuse. There is also physical and psychological abuse. you can't just point the finger at catholics either, as institutionalised abuse has happened in other denominations.

Child sex abuse, in Ireland as far as I am aware is limited to the RCC, emotional abuse, I have very little information on at all, but if it has taken place, I would suggest a serious look into it. I believe that such abuse is possible in every school. Faith schools for the most part aren't involved in such abuse, and I it would be wrong to suggest such.

For the most part, faith based education has served a lot of people very well. I support parental freedom on the subject of faith and morals, that's the reason why I think that there needs to be both secular and faith schools.

stimpson wrote: »

I didn't mean you presonally. I meant children in general.

I apologise for taking you up wrongly!

stimpson wrote: »

Neither do I. It's the use of taxpayers money to fund the churches religious instruction, and the lack of choice that I have issue with.

Many tax payers are people of faith, many are atheists. That's why the money should be used to support both.

The lack of choice argument isn't really valid when one is quite eager to deny parents of faith the same opportunity as you have in terms of education in the same breath.

stimpson wrote: »

There is nothing in the constitution that requires the state to provide faith based education. It says the State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement private education initiatives, with due regard for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

It is the way it has been commonly interpreted here. The same happens in the UK at the minute with faith and secular schools existing alongside each other.

stimpson wrote: »

There is nothing that says it must bankroll religious schooling. It could be argued that the state should provide secular schooling to all at a minimum and endeavour to support additional religious instruction (or indeed, leave this up to the parent)

It doesn't have to, but the way it has been done is this way, and parents of faith also pay taxes. The State should provide both faith and secular schools. It must make a continued effort to balance these out more effectively.

What is clear though, if I am to defend rights for all, I think that these rights should extend to people of faith and people of no faith. Your argument for secular schooling becomes invalid from my perspective, the second you attempt to deny people of faith the right to faith schools for their children.

prinz

stimpson wrote: »

You do not know what you are talking about. Primary schools musty legally provide 2.5 hours of religious education per week. You may think it's OK for my child to go to the library for this time, but I would rather that the time be used effectively.

This thread isn't about religion in school. It is about any damage done as a result. The State should provide strictly secular schools, not many people would argue with you there.

Going to the library is using time effectively, IMO anyway. Any number of ways to effectively use that time which would benefit your child.