Should religion be taught in schools?

Nah, I just popped my head back in to see if this place had turned into the usual "god is crap vs. god is not crap" crap that religion on AH usually turns into.

*looks around* yep. Same ol' posters running on the same ol' hamsterwheels.

Round and round and round they go, where will they stop? the same place they started, it's a f*cking hamsterwheel!

Powerhouse

flutterflye wrote: »

Yar.

You don't seem to be getting the point.
Also, at the end of my post, I made it clear that I wasn't sure about secondary school, as I have no experience or adequate knowledge on the issue of religion in secondary schools.

We had religion class in my secondary school, but I never went.
But there again, I didn't go to most of my classes.

I do remember a few classes in 3rd year though, where the religion teacher was this 60 year old (at least) absolute nutjob.
He would shout down any student who so much as questioned anything he was saying.
So lets say someone asked "if god did not want people to be gay, why did he make them gay?"
Instead of considering the point, or even giving a half assed answer, he would spend half the class shouting at them for having the audacity to question their maker, and telling them they were wrong using bible quotes!

Anyway, I am far more concerned with biased religion being taught in primary schools as they are more vulnerable, and susceptible to just blindly believing anything they are told, especially by teachers and other adults.

The point I made was that twice as many student sit CSPE in the Junior Cert than sit religion which clearly shows that anyone who says religion is "almost mandatory" is talking nonsense.

I wrote nothing about your experiences in school so I have no idea how you are claiming that that is 'the point' that I am missing. I made a simple statement which I backed up with figures - no more no less.

Seachmall

Powerhouse wrote: »

I made a simple statement which I backed up with figures - no more no less.

But you didn't back up your figures up with anything.

Powerhouse

Seachmall wrote: »

But you didn't back up your figures up with anything.

I'd like to have painted a nice little backdrop with flowers and stuff behind the figures but it didn't really work for me.

Seachmall

Powerhouse wrote: »

I'd like to have painted a nice little backdrop with flowers and stuff behind the figures but it didn't really work for me.

So you quoted figures you made up?

Powerhouse

Seachmall wrote: »

So you quoted figures you made up?

No, I didn't. Why would someone make up figures?

Pace2008

Deleted User wrote: »

AMi I the onlyone here sick of the constant round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round......

I think you're the only so upset about the recurring topic that you have to recurrently express your distaste about the topic's recurrent nature every time the topic recurs.

Seachmall

Powerhouse wrote: »

No, I didn't. Why would someone make up figures?

You're making the point your argument is supported by the quoted figures but why should flutterflye believe your figures?

Pace2008

Pace2008 wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

AMi I the onlyone here sick of the constant round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round......

I think you're the only so upset about the recurring topic that you have to recurrently express your distaste about the topic's recurrent nature every time the topic recurs.

Hey, someone's gotta pipe up for the "not this crap again" brigade (of which I'm a proud brigadier).

Powerhouse

Seachmall wrote: »

You're making the point your argument is supported by the quoted figures but why should flutterflye believe your figures?

Has he said he doesn't believe them? I missed that bit.

Seachmall

Powerhouse wrote: »

Has he said he doesn't believe them? I missed that bit.

He has no reason to believe them, none of us do. You can't make a point and then say X figures support it without actually proving X figures are accurate. For all we know you just made them up.

Powerhouse

Seachmall wrote: »

He has no reason to believe them, none of us do. You can't make a point and then say X figures support it without actually proving X figures are accurate. For all we know you just made them up.

It is odd that it has taken so long for this to be raised. Incidentally Mossad (before he threw his toys out of the pram) claimed that religion is almost mandatory in schools. Why have you not asked him for supporting evidence?

Seachmall

Powerhouse wrote: »

It is odd that it has taken so long for this to be raised. Incidentally Mossad (before he threw his toys out of the pram) claimed that religion is almost mandatory in schools. Why have you not asked him for supporting evidence?

You made a specific claim with figures, I assumed you had a source or made them up.

Claims like Mossad's can just be exaggerated opinion, specific numbers are generally either sourced or made up. You didn't source so I'm assuming the latter.

You could easily be right, I just haven't seen a source*.

*I actually have seen an official release of the numbers, but that's irrelevant to my point.

Powerhouse

Seachmall wrote: »

You made a specific claim with figures, I assumed you had a source or made them up.

Claims like Mossad's can just be exaggerated opinion, specific numbers are generally either sourced or made up. You didn't source so I'm assuming the latter.

You could easily be right, I just haven't seen a source*.

*I actually have seen an official release of the numbers, but that's irrelevant to my point.

This is not an academic document I am writing. And frankly I would say that the fact that you know I am right, which you must if you have seen the figures, is hardly irrelevant to your point.

It is entirely relevant to your point. In fact in defines your point. It means your point is not to ensure accuracy in claims - despite the pseuo-acadmic approach work -but to 'sew it into this c*nt becuse I don't like what he's saying'.

Turtwig

Ok, I'll just put it out there I haven't a clue who is right, but if I saw some citations it would probably help me discern who's "facts" are more credible.

Seachmall

Powerhouse wrote: »

This is not an academic document I am writing. And frankly I would say that the fact that you know I am right, which you must if you have seen the figures, is hardly irrelevant to your point.

It is entirely relevant to your point. In fact in defines your point. It means your point is not to ensure accuracy in claims - despite the pseuo-acadmic approach work -but to 'sew it into this c*nt becuse I don't like what he's saying'.

My point is you're going around spouting random numbers without any attempts to source them.

I have no idea what your point is by the way, I just remembered seeing your numbers and then reading your comment that your point is backed up by your numbers. Your point isn't backed up by numbers because your numbers aren't backed up by anything. You have an opinion at the moment, not a point worth discussing.

Powerhouse

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok, I'll just put it out there I haven't a clue who is right, but if I saw some citations it would probably help me discern who's "facts" are more credible.

Do you need a bibliography too, Professor?

Turtwig

Powerhouse wrote: »

Do you need a bibliography too, Professor?

Nah I don't. I just like nice internet etiquette and communication but you are under no obligation to comply of course. So I'll just leave my bit there for now.

CiaranMT

Powerhouse wrote: »

Do you need a bibliography too, Professor?

It's standard practice in these debates.

Powerhouse

Seachmall wrote: »

My point is you're going around spouting random numbers without any attempts to source them.

I have no idea what your point is by the way, I just remembered seeing your numbers and then reading your comment that your point is backed up by your numbers. Your point isn't backed up by numbers because your numbers aren't backed up by anything. You have an opinion at the moment, not a point worth discussing.

Hang on there, you wrote a short time ago "I actually have seen an official release of the numbers".

What numbers? You are now saying that you have no idea what my point is so how can you have seen numbers relating to my point?

Powerhouse

Malty_T wrote: »

Nah I don't. I just like nice internet etiquette and communication but you are under no obligation to comply of course. So I'll just leave my bit there for now.

I'll comply without a bother in two seconds, but can you clarify exactly what it is that you expect me to clarify as I want to avoid moving goalposts!

Seachmall

Powerhouse wrote: »

Hang on there, you wrote a short time ago "I actually have seen an official release of the numbers".

What numbers? You are now saying that you have no idea what my point is so how can you have seen numbers relating to my point?

I know your point has to do with the rate of CSPE vs. RE. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with these numbers.

Right now you're expecting us to take your word that the numbers are accurate. Why should we trust you? You wouldn't be the first person to make up numbers on the internet.

flutterflye

Powerhouse wrote: »

The point I made was that twice as many student sit CSPE in the Junior Cert than sit religion which clearly shows that anyone who says religion is "almost mandatory" is talking nonsense.

I wrote nothing about your experiences in school so I have no idea how you are claiming that that is 'the point' that I am missing. I made a simple statement which I backed up with figures - no more no less.

This was the only part directed at you;

Yar.

You don't seem to be getting the point.
Also, at the end of my post, I made it clear that I wasn't sure about secondary school, as I have no experience or adequate knowledge on the issue of religion in secondary schools.

Anything I said about personal experience, or anything after the above quote was just extra stuff I was saying.

Maybe I could have been clearer.

And again, religion is "almost mandatory" in most primary schools, which is why I tried to explain that I didn't know much about secondary school, which is what you seem to be talking about.

Comprende?

Powerhouse

Seachmall wrote: »

I know your point has to do with the rate of CSPE vs. RE. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with these numbers.

The point I was making in response to a claim that CSPE should be made compulsory and that RE should not be "almost mandatory" was that more than twice the number of students sit the CSPE Junior Cert than sit religion suggests the opposite.

Now what official numbers have you seen?

Rosita

Seachmall wrote: »

You could easily be right, I just haven't seen a source*.

*I actually have seen an official release of the numbers, but that's irrelevant to my point.

Where did you see an official release of the numbers?

Seachmall

Powerhouse wrote: »

The point I was making in response to a claim that CSPE should be made compulsory and that RE should not be "almost mandatory" was that more than twice the number of students sit the CSPE Junior Cert than sit religion suggests the opposite.

Fair enough.

Now what official numbers have you seen?

That's not for me to source.

Can you understand why I asked you where you got the numbers from? I'm not being pedantic* but if you're going to make claims, and then expect people to believe those claims, you may want to provide a source.

*I am being pedantic.

Burgo

Powerhouse wrote: »

The point I was making in response to a claim that CSPE should be made compulsory and that RE should not be "almost mandatory" was that more than twice the number of students sit the CSPE Junior Cert than sit religion suggests the opposite.

Now what official numbers have you seen?

I thought both CSPE and Religion were mandatory subjects up until the junior cert?

dvpower

I just couldn't take it anymore

http://www.examinations.ie/statistics/statistics_2010/JC_619_2010.pdf

Religion: 20,336 + 5,594
C.S.P.E 54,753


However, CSPE is a mandatory subject so the numbers point to nothing at all.

Seachmall

dvpower wrote: »

I just couldn't take it anymore

http://www.examinations.ie/statistics/statistics_2010/JC_619_2010.pdf

Religion: 20,336 + 5,594
C.S.P.E 54,753


However, CSPE is a mandatory subject so the numbers point to nothing at all.

I was having fun :mad:

crucamim

Religion should not be taught in schools owned by the State. As for other schools, the owners of the school should be left to decide whether or not religion is taught, what religion is taught and how it is taught.