Poll: Religion as a school subject?

robindch

Can't remember if this has been polled before, but even if it has, well, what the hell. Let's see what it's like in 2011!

Here's the specifics on the choices:

• I think religion should not be taught in school: no discussion, mention or anything concerning religious stories in school.
• I think religion should be taught, but not as if it were true: teach about religious stories and beliefs from lots of religious traditions, but discussed as "ideas that people believe" and no specific preference given to any particular one, and none of them taught as if it were true.
• I think religion should be taught as if it were true: possibly teach about religious stories from lots of religious traditions, but give special attention to one specific religious tradition and teach it as if it were fully true.

.

Tonyandthewhale

I'm atheist or agnostic. I think religion should be taught, but not as if it were true

I clicked no religion in school whatsoever not because I'm against teaching kids about other cultures or their own heritage but simply because I don't think a specific religion class or religious instruction curriculum is justifiable on this basis.
Basically I'm against religion class because it implies religion is the be all and end all of world culture when there's a lot more to it than that. Also, considering how conservative and catholic a lot of teachers are in Ireland it all too easily becomes 'Catholic class' or 'dirty pagan class' which is to be avoided at all costs.

I do think religious stories and traditions and the beliefs (and non-beliefs) of the peoples of the world should be discussed in school but it doesn't just have to be about religion.
There are many aspects of Irish and world culture beyond religion that also merit attention in our schools so instead of having a religious education class why can't we have a cultural education class and also bring in folklore and dress and art and all the other aspects of how different people view the world.

Turtwig

I'm religous. I think religion should not be taught in school

I'm a ****ing muppet. Clicked the wrong option.:mad:

Burgo

I'm atheist or agnostic. I think religion should be taught as if it were true

Is religion mandatory in secondary school? I remember having to do it up until the junior cert, but the year below me had to do it until the leaving.

Voted for the second option.

The Mad Hatter

I'm atheist or agnostic. I think religion should be taught, but not as if it were true

What Malty said. I meant to click option 2.

robindch

I'm atheist or agnostic. I think religion should be taught as if it were true

Malty_T wrote: »

Clicked the wrong option

There's no edit option, moderatorly or not, I'm afraid!

Please click carefully!

AhSureTisGrand

I'm atheist or agnostic. I think religion should be taught as if it were true

While I don't have a problem with children learning impartially about religion, I can imagine situations where I have a problem with what's not being taught ie other more useful subjects. With this in mind, I don't think religion could merit more than about two classes per week, unless it delved into something interesting like philosophy or ethics

ShooterSF

I'm atheist or agnostic. I think religion should be taught, but not as if it were true

I selected option 1 but not because I have any issue with it being taught. I just feel there are better subjects. I'd say the same about Irish too. Maybe offering religious studies as an optional subject in secondary school.

As for primary school I think a civics style subject could handle some study of religions as well as ethical discussions etc. I don't think much time though should be spent on religions to be frank. You could give children a broad idea of many different believes within 10 hours of school time I'd imagine.

Sarky

I'm atheist or agnostic. I think religion should be taught as if it were true

Religion is an interesting enough subject. I don't think it should be removed from schools. But it's a question of belief, not education, so teaching any one faith as fact is dangerous and stupid. Teaching a bit about most or all religions would be fine. Reducing ignorance is never a bad thing, and far too many people with one viewpoint are ignorant of others.

There's a good chance too that the more you learn about religion as a whole, the more it appears to be make-believe or population control systems. But that's just an added bonus on top of improved tolerance and reduced ignorance.

CerebralCortex

I'm atheist or agnostic. I think religion should be taught, but not as if it were true

I think it should be consigned to history class.

Sarky

I'm atheist or agnostic. I think religion should be taught as if it were true

Except half of it is myth and fairy tales, not history. More than half, tbh

CerebralCortex

I'm atheist or agnostic. I think religion should be taught, but not as if it were true

Sarky wrote: »

Except half of it is myth and fairy tales, not history. More than half, tbh

Indeed, this is true. You're saying teach the myth in all it's facets? Might not be a bad idea.

Niles

I can't find an option that fits my opinion so I'll just say it.

I do not think it should be mandatory, though I've no problem with it being an optional subject in any school. However, if a denominational school wants to teach it as if it were true, that's fine. But not in a public school.

Chuck Stone

I'm atheist or agnostic. I think religion should be taught, but not as if it were true

I picked #1. I can't see a class dedicated to teaching cultural superstitions being in any way useful or indeed delivered in a neutral manner.

Also, how do we decide which religions get which status? Is there a place for Scientology or Wahhabism? No, it would descend into a farce.

There are some concepts like Weber's Proestant Work Ethic where religion is interesting but I think that could be well left to 3rd level.

Penn

I'm atheist or agnostic. I think religion should be taught as if it were true

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I think it should be consigned to history class.

I think it's about more than history though. A religion class (which doesn't claim any one religion is true ie. Option 2) would explain how cultures are the way they are today, current religious practices and the reasons behind them, how some organisations interpret the same documents differently.... I think it would make for quite an interesting subject, but too large to just be shoe-horned into history class.

strobe

I'd like to see it as a module in an anthropology curriculum as an optional subject in secondary school. In primary school I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be touched on in the Social, Environmental and Scientific Education module, if time allows for it.

Burgo

I'm atheist or agnostic. I think religion should be taught as if it were true

Burgo wrote: »

Is religion mandatory in secondary school? I remember having to do it up until the junior cert, but the year below me had to do it until the leaving.

Voted for the second option.

no

Daftendirekt

I'm atheist or agnostic. I think religion should be taught as if it were true

I'm in favour of teaching students about the major world religions (and maybe some of the minor ones) without favouring any one in particular. I'd rather see it slotted into a broader 'Cultural Studies' course rather than having a time slot specifically dedicated to teaching religions, though.

I think it's a good idea to expose kids to a variety of different world-views early on, since they're going to encounter them one way or another. And less ignorance about these things is usually a good thing.