Should religion be taught in schools?

crucamim

philologos wrote: »

Don't feed the troll. crucamim has been doing this over in the Atheism and Agnosticism sections and the Christianity section too.

Calling me "a troll" is very unkind. Have you any reason for insinuating that I do not believe what I write? I am what Mrs Thatcher would have called "a conviction poster".

Stinicker

I think Atheism should be offered as an option in schools. Teaching religion is a waste of time imo!

youngmagee

crucamim wrote: »

I am not a Christain, I am a Catholic.

I know there is little point in responding to that. so ....

crucamim wrote: »

It is not a public system. It is a Catholic system which receives taxpayer funding in return for providing a social service - educating the children of Catholics. Just as road contractors are paid for providing a social service ie. repairing roads.

Its not really the same but the contractors still have to do what their told. The goverment still sets out how and where roads are to be built.

philologos wrote: »

Don't feed the troll. crucamim has been doing this over in the Atheism and Agnosticism sections and the Christianity section too.

i agree. We will have to just agree to disagree. There is little point in arguing with him as im not sure if there is much benifit to us or him

RichieC

crucamim wrote: »

Calling me "a troll" is very unkind. Have you any reason for insinuating that I do not believe what I write? I am what Mrs Thatcher would have called "a conviction poster".

No doubt... as do many Christians around the world believe the same hateful tripe. Which is why we have these debates in the first place.

partyatmygaff

crucamim wrote: »

Calling me "a troll" is very unkind. Have you any reason for insinuating that I do not believe what I write? I am what Mrs Thatcher would have called "a conviction poster".

For your own sake, I would sincerely hope you don't actually believe in what you write.

Stinicker wrote: »

I think Atheism should be offered as an option in schools.

Err... so teaching nothing then?

Stinicker

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Err... so teaching nothing then?

It could be used to teach about respect for those of irreligion and religion alike, and used to instil humanist values, instead of the way Catholicism is taught.

crucamim

youngmagee wrote: »

Its not really the same but the contractors still have to do what their told. The goverment still sets out how and where roads are to be built.

Just as Catholic (and Protestant) schools have to teach certain subjects to a certain standard.

P.S. I disagree with the government imposing such requirements. I think that each school should be left to decide its own curriculum. A school not providing a satisfactory service will quickly suffer a declining number of students/pupils and, consequently, will incur a loss of funding. I believe in parent power.

crucamim

RichieC wrote: »

No doubt... as do many Christians around the world believe the same hateful tripe. Which is why we have these debates in the first place.

Thank you. You seem to have accepted that I am not a troll.

crucamim

Stinicker wrote: »

I think Atheism should be offered as an option in schools.

Not in Catholic schools. In schools owned by atheists, definitely.

crucamim

Stinicker wrote: »

It could be used to teach about respect for those of irreligion and religion alike, and used to instil humanist values, instead of the way Catholicism is taught.

How a Catholic school teaches Catholicism is a matter for Catholics. Just as how the Kerry GAA is organised is a matter for members of the GAA in County Kerry.

Chuck Stone

crucamim wrote: »

Speak for yourself. I want the Catholic Church to continue managing and controlling the schools which it owns. And I also want the Church of Ireland to continue managing and controlling the schools which it owns.
And I want the GAA to continue managing and controlling the property which it owns. And I intend to continue controlling the property which I own.

Please respect private property.

Oh i'm lovin' this. You really shouldn't evoke property rights and here's why.

The Catholic Church has been shown to be a systematic abuser of the most precious piece of private property that anyone will ever own - their own body.

You invoke and exalt property rights when these sick bastard cult leaders were violating children and building a state wide empire on de-facto slavery. Don't tell me it was a few bad Priests - bollocks it was. The whole system was rotten to the core.

Private fcuking property?

I personally consider every last blood and tear soaked molecule of Catholic Church property the proceeds of crimes against the people of this island and should be confiscated and returned to it's victims whom I consider it's rightfull owners.

Poutbutton

very thought energy sapping thread but for what it's worth...I believe that children should be taught to be open to the knowledge that other human beings may/may not hold certain beliefs/morals that some beliefs will differ from one's own. That some people NEED a structure created by ancient people to live by, some need the rules of a society or club or organisation to live up to or by because they just couldn't handle freedom....Religions created by leaders in society like the British/Greeks/Celts/Romans/Asians/Hebrew etc etc felt the need to believe in certain rules and causes to ensure their citizens lived the "right" way according to them, their time/belief at the time, often the only route to survival back when & even now was and is to conform to the religion you are attached to or born into...after that, I think that today in such an educated Ireland our "religion" classes in the Irish school curriculum needs to rapidly change to become a sociology class and like the rest of the world, minus organised religion, it needs to begin at early education level eg 4-5 years of age. Perhaps then we wont need to question mans inhumanity to man in their lifetime.

nozzferrahhtoo

I am not sure what the issue is. We send our children to schools to be taught what is true to the best of our collective knowledge. What is true about geography, what is true about history, what is true about maths and science.

So I see no problem teaching kids what is true about Religion. Study all the religions. Find out what adherents to each believe. Understand their cultural practices and traditions. We share this planet with them and many of us likely to go to their countries, so understanding cultural norms and taboos would make us great ambassadors for our own cultures.

Read some of their texts. Study the history of what their religions have led them to do… or to have done to them. Study the harms each religion has caused so that maybe we do not repeat past mistakes.

Teach the fallacies and critical thinking errors that normally lead people into thinking there are god entities… to ensure that if any of those kids DO end up thinking there is a god they do not do it for reasons that have been many times debunked, or are based on massive glaring errors in thinking.... both of which those who wish to spread religion in our world are all too happy to exploit all too often.

Teach also the development of each of the religions, showing how things like the Christ Myth are just plagiarisms of previous folklore and legends. Explore how old stories are told and retold and become the new stories. Show how, for no evidential reasons whatsoever, religions die and others are born... after all the existance of allah but the now non existence of Thor is nothing more than cultural. There was no evidence found or presented that suggests such or at least no one has explained to me what data we suddenly came accross that suggests we were wrong about one and now right about another.

The content of such a class would necessarily tie into other classes. I do not think any English Literature class is complete without at least a cursory knowledge of the Bible. No decent History class can avoid the history of religion.

The actual idea there is a god entity however there is no reason to think is true… no one has presented even the first scrap of evidence, argument, data or reasons to think it is true… and when challenged to provide any some of the most prolific posters on this very thread cop out and run for the hills. I see no justifiable reason therefore to teach children anything even remotely approaching that any of the religions, or the gods within them, are true or accurate.

Ghost Buster

Stinicker wrote: »

I think Atheism should be offered as an option in schools. Teaching religion is a waste of time imo!

:rolleyes:

Ghost Buster

crucamim wrote: »

Not in Catholic schools. In schools owned by atheists, definitely.

One dumb post compounded by an even dumber reply = Dumb squared

Ghost Buster

crucamim wrote: »

How a Catholic school teaches Catholicism is a matter for Catholics. Just as how the Kerry GAA is organised is a matter for members of the GAA in County Kerry.

State owned schools owned and paid for by the tax paying population which is becoming increasingly non catholic.

Ghost Buster

crucamim wrote: »

Not in Catholic schools. In schools owned by atheists, definitely.

Were all atheists. Some just disbelieve in one more God than others

Osgoodisgood

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Err... so teaching nothing then?

Yes I'm not sure how that works either.

"Now class, open your Atheist guide to Chapter 1, It's Quite Unlikely That There's a God so There's No Good Reason To Believe In One.
Finished? Okay, everybody stare blankly out of the window until June."

philologos

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Err... so teaching nothing then?

I guess he means adopting the atheism that was taught in schools in Russia during Communism, and the atheism that was taught in schools under Mao.

nozzferrahhtoo

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Yes I'm not sure how that works either.

"Now class, open your Atheist guide to Chapter 1, It's Quite Unlikely That There's a God so There's No Good Reason To Believe In One.
Finished? Okay, everybody stare blankly out of the window until June."

I do not think many atheists at all wish for an "atheist course" as such, but if one insisted on fantasizing about the content of such a course I think it would be a lot more complex than what you paint above.

You could, for example, envision a chapter on Critical thinking and analysis. Also one could envision at least 1 if not more chapters on the common fallacies, how to spot and avoid them, and how they commonly lead to Theistic thinking.

The dangers of confirmation bias alone would likely take a chapter all of itself.

And that is just off the top of my head without even thinking very hard. Such a course could contain a lot more than you give it credit for.

Though I feel it important to repeat that very few atheists actually do want an atheism course of any kind. The "world religions" course envisioned by many would suffice, especially if coupled with all attempts to teach any one religion as true or correct, or that this god entity actually in any way exists or that there is even a single reason to think it does.

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

I guess he means adopting the atheism that was taught in schools in Russia during Communism, and the atheism that was taught in schools under Mao.

Wasn't this to with people giving their undying allegiance to the state and just replacing devotion to a god with devotion to the state?
This has nothing to do with teaching atheism, "teaching" atheism consists of not invoking a god to explain things we don't yet understand .

philologos

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Wasn't this to with people giving their undying allegiance to the state and just replacing devotion to a god with devotion to the state?
This has nothing to do with teaching atheism, "teaching" atheism consists of not invoking a god to explain things we don't yet understand .

I'm referring to atheism class in both Russian and Chinese schools during this period. Yes, it was used as a tool to promote communism but it still involves atheism.

A brief description courtesy of Wikipedia on the anti-religious campaign run by the Soviets during three separate anti-religion campaigns from 1917 - 1941. Atheism at school was taught right up to the 70's as far as I know, possibly later.

The tactics varied over the years and became more moderate or more harsh at different times. Among common tactics included confiscating church property, ridiculing religion, harassing believers, and propagating atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed.

Edit: More on state atheism here.

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

I'm referring to atheism class in both Russian and Chinese schools during this period. Yes, it was used as a tool to promote communism but it still involves atheism.

A brief description courtesy of Wikipedia on the anti-religious campaign run by the Soviets during three separate anti-religion campaigns from 1917 - 1941. Atheism at school was taught right up to the 70's as far as I know, possibly later.


Edit: More on state atheism here.

Bringing up this would be interesting in a discussion on the dangers of replacing devotion to one entity with devotion to another, but not really relevant in a discussion about people just getting rid of devotion to god.

philologos

My point was that atheism can be taught in schools and was under state atheist regimes.

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

My point was that atheism can be taught in schools and was under state atheist regimes.

And as I said, this wasn't about teaching atheism but teaching devotion to the state.
People just replaced a divine god with Stalin or Mao and gave them god-like properties, these regimes just show the dangers of blind allegiance and unquestioning devotion, not some inherent danger from atheism.

philologos

Cú Giobach wrote: »

And as I said, this wasn't about teaching atheism but teaching devotion to the state.
People just replaced a divine god with Stalin or Mao and gave them god-like properties, these regimes just show the dangers of blind allegiance and unquestioning devotion, not some inherent danger from atheism.

I find it a woeful excuse really. The fact is that they were taught atheism in school. It may have been an intermediary step to fulfilling their other goals but this is very much still what happened. It's largely why countries such as Estonia are majority atheist to this day.

nozzferrahhtoo

Cú Giobach wrote: »

And as I said, this wasn't about teaching atheism but teaching devotion to the state.
People just replaced a divine god with Stalin or Mao and gave them god-like properties, these regimes just show the dangers of blind allegiance and unquestioning devotion, not some inherent danger from atheism.

True. You will find that it is not "god" that most atheists are against and warn against and fight against, but Dogma in all its forms. The pointless canard of attempting to associate atheism with failed states is one based on willfully missing the fact that such states were just replacing one dogma with another. The typical theist playing the "Atheist State" card however would prefer you not to realise that.

There simply has never been a state resembling closely enough what most atheists actually espouse for us to know anything about how such a state would function. As a better man than me once said, you can fault atheism just as soon as you find a state that has descended into ruin, failure, dictatorship, poverty torture, shame and starvation after having followed the teachings of people like Lucritious, Democratus, Spinosa, Russel, Einstein, Jefferson and Paine.

philologos

^^ I don't see why I can't fault atheism the second it fuels Mao, Stalin or any other ruthless dictator. Most atheists would lap up the opportunity to do this in respect to religion.

However, the balanced approach would be to say that anything can be distorted or shaped into a tool to pursue selfish ambition, just that atheism was made into a tool in the case of communism. That's just acknowledging historical fact I'm afraid

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

My point was that atheism can be taught in schools and was under state atheist regimes.

Atheism can be part of a religion. Buddhism, or in the case that you love to so selflessly resort to Stalin's regime. This was state adoration. However to suggest atheism itself IS a religion is stupid. Christianity is a religion, theism however isn't necessarily. Atheism is somewhat similar too, it could be part of a religion but it doesn't have to be and it's even more vague than theism because it's a non entity e.g non stamp collecting, non bug collecting, non animal enthusiast.



Also, are you saying where you are born has a factor on what your beliefs are?

philologos wrote: »

^^ I don't see why I can't fault atheism the second it fuels Mao, Stalin or any other ruthless dictator. Most atheists would lap up the opportunity to do this in respect to religion.

You are comparing squares with purple circles. Theism isn't a religion; Christianity is. Atheism isn't a religion either.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Atheism can be part of a religion. Buddhism, or in the case that you love to so selflessly resort to Stalin's regime. This was state adoration. However to suggest atheism itself IS a religion is stupid. Christianity is a religion, theism however isn't necessarily. Atheism is somewhat similar too, it could be part of a religion but it doesn't have to be and it's even more vague than theism because it's a non entity e.g non stamp collecting, non bug collecting, non animal enthusiast.

I didn't do this at all. It is historical fact however that atheist classes happened in schools in Russia and China. One can bury ones head in the sand as much as they would like but this is the truth.

Malty_T wrote: »

Also, are you saying where you are born has a factor on what your beliefs are?

I presume you mean in the example of Estonia? - No. I'm just suggesting that the Soviets did a pretty good job at drilling atheism in that it has outlasted communism as a political ideology there.