Ruairi Quinn and secularisation of Ireland.

Cognitive Cascade

Firstly I am somewhat a supporter of a secular system but with a few exceptions that protect positive Irish traditions and culture, but aware of the negative aspects of religion.

But it should be acknowledged the important role members of the church have played in giving people a good education, supporting the sick and impoverished in all levels of society despite the scandals. Which leads to the point of the thread.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that Quinn is using this recent scandal to impose his fundamental atheistic beliefs through promoting and transforming an education that promotes family values and teaches children about all religions into a secular model that is purged of all that? No more primary school nativity plays or Christmas concerts for example.

Is Ruairi Quinn a hypocrit for wishing to impose his personal atheistic beliefs and hatred of all religious things on Irish society through "reforms"?

In my honest opinion I think he is.

Dave!

You seem to slip seamlessly between secular and atheistic. Ruairi Quinn is an atheist who is also a secularist. The founders of the USA were predominantly theists or at least deists, but they were secularists.

You don't have to be an atheist to see that there are fundamental problems with the Irish education system if a specific religious order gets to run the overwhelming majority of the public schools, and they're legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.

Furthermore, the Minister's reforms are largely with the support and consent of the Catholic Church, which is voluntarily offering to relinquish control of a certain number of schools.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

Firstly I am somewhat a supporter of a secular system but with a few exceptions that protect positive Irish traditions and culture, but aware of the negative aspects of religion.

But it should be acknowledge the important role members of the church have played in giving people a good education, supporting the sick and impoverished in all levels of society despite the scandals. Which leads to the point of the thread.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that Quinn is using this recent scandal to impose his fundamental atheistic beliefs through promoting and transforming an education that promotes family values and teaches children about all religions into a secular model that is purged of all that? No more primary school nativity plays or Christmas concerts for example.

Is Ruairi Quinn a hypocrit for wishing to impose his personal atheistic beliefs and hatred of all religious things on Irish society through "reforms"?

Yes sir he is.

Is the State acting unconstitutionally by denying funding to non-denominational schools and endowing religions -in particular the Catholic Church - by directly funding schools which teach their particular religious ethos while failing to fund a secular alternative?

Is the State guilty of discrimination by funding Schools which are allowed to legally discriminate against employees based on their religious ethos despite the fact that the State pays the wages of these same employees and that these schools make up over 90% of our State funded Primary Schools?

Yes Sir - It is.

Cognitive Cascade

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In the sense that some atheists like himself often strongly voice themselves about having religion or it's influences being forced upon people, when they adapt and impose certain policies that do just that with the exception of them having an atheistic rather than a religious approach and perspective.

Bannasidhe

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

In the sense that some atheists like himself often strongly voice themselves about having religion or it's influences being forced upon people, when they adapt and impose certain policies that do just that with the exception of them having an atheistic rather than a religious approach and perspective.

Where has Quinn announced he intends to open schools which teach Atheism and no other view?

Cognitive Cascade

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

In the sense that some atheists like himself often strongly voice themselves about having religion or it's influences being forced upon people, when they adapt and impose certain policies that do just that with the exception of them having an atheistic rather than a religious approach and perspective.

Where has Quinn announced he intends to open schools which teach Atheism and no other view?

What would be in such a curriculum?

Godge

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

In the sense that some atheists like himself often strongly voice themselves about having religion or it's influences being forced upon people, when they adapt and impose certain policies that do just that with the exception of them having an atheistic rather than a religious approach and perspective.

(1) Do you have any evidence that Ruairi Quinn is one of "some atheists" who "strongly voice themselves about having religion or it's influences being forced upon people"

(2) You are confusing yourself between atheist and secular. Forcing an atheist approach rather than a religious approach is saying to a cyclist you must cycle on this cycle lane rather than that cycle lane. Forcing a secular approach is saying you can cycle on any cycle lane you choose, we don't mind, or even not on a cycle lane if you so choose. As far as I know, but I don't have any evidence, Ruairi Quinn is secularist in his approach. In that case, it doesn't matter whether he is born again, Catholic, Muslim or atheist if he is saying you can have whatever approach you want.

(3) I also fail to understand how the absence of religious instruction in school is equivalent to atheism (the denial of God's existence).

Min

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is the State acting unconstitutionally by denying funding to non-denominational schools and endowing religions -in particular the Catholic Church - by directly funding schools which teach their particular religious ethos while failing to fund a secular alternative?

Is the State guilty of discrimination by funding Schools which are allowed to legally discriminate against employees based on their religious ethos despite the fact that the State pays the wages of these same employees and that these schools make up over 90% of our State funded Primary Schools?

Yes Sir - It is.

No it is not.

The state only funds schools that teach the national curriculum as set down by the state.

The state can stop funding Catholic schools or protestant, muslim or Jewish schools and then what education system does the state have?

Basically nothing, the state is indebted to the various religions and the education they provide.

Cognitive Cascade

Godge wrote: »

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

In the sense that some atheists like himself often strongly voice themselves about having religion or it's influences being forced upon people, when they adapt and impose certain policies that do just that with the exception of them having an atheistic rather than a religious approach and perspective.

(1) Do you have any evidence that Ruairi Quinn is one of "some atheists" who "strongly voice themselves about having religion or it's influences being forced upon people"

(2) You are confusing yourself between atheist and secular. Forcing an atheist approach rather than a religious approach is saying to a cyclist you must cycle on this cycle lane rather than that cycle lane. Forcing a secular approach is saying you can cycle on any cycle lane you choose, we don't mind, or even not on a cycle lane if you so choose. As far as I know, but I don't have any evidence, Ruairi Quinn is secularist in his approach. In that case, it doesn't matter whether he is born again, Catholic, Muslim or atheist if he is saying you can have whatever approach you want.

(3) I also fail to understand how the absence of religious instruction in school is equivalent to atheism (the denial of God's existence).

Religious studies teach students about other religions, values and beliefs besides those held by Catholicism, why not meet them halfway and include agnosticism and atheism in the subject curriculum instead of completely abolishing the subject?

Seth Brundle

FWIW Religious Education as taught in schools is not a Religious Education but, to a large extent, a Christian (esp. roman catholic) one. This is most apparent in primary education.

Would you prefer a school to dwell as much on Islam as it does on catholicism? I'd prefer for a particular religion to be taught in a church separately to school. School can still deliver some form of morals education including an overview of different cultures and religions.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cognitive Cascade

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No I do not believe that, and I do not appreciate the personal tone you are introducing here, it is condescending.

Do not foolishly jump to such assumptions just because I believe Quinn is a hypcrite and that I believe that it is more beneficial to have a more progresssive religious studies subject taught in schools rather than abolishing it outright.

Skrynesaver

Min wrote: »

No it is not.

The state only funds schools that teach the national curriculum as set down by the state.

The state can stop funding Catholic schools or protestant, muslim or Jewish schools and then what education system does the state have?

Basically nothing, the state is indebted to the various religions and the education they provide.

Actually prior the foundation of this state the Catholic church actively campaigned against the state provision of services and as a result has had access to exchequer funds to promote its world view through manipulation of the education system.

The fact that we, through our government, (or even those who believe in the church) have no right to remove, as patron of 92% of primary schools, a man who has been shown to be cavalier about children's welfare highlights one of the problems with the current model.

Back to the original post, (which is clearly the product of a Christian Brothers education), a secular society is one in which the religious and governmental spheres are kept separate thus allowing a maximum freedom of and from religion. For example in such a state the personal religious convictions of the minister for education would be irrelevant as there would be no religious aspect to that role. This would clearly suit you better given the current minister and wouldn't have given me nightmares when Mary Hanafin was in charge

Godge

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

Religious studies teach students about other religions, values and beliefs besides those held by Catholicism, why not meet them halfway and include agnosticism and atheism in the subject curriculum instead of completely abolishing the subject?

Should we also include Jehovah's Witness (how to knock on doors?), Mormon (will the sisterhood let us promote one-sided polygamy?), Screamers (can you imagine how that would go down in a classroom of 8-year olds?) and the Jedi religion (belief in the force) and give them all equal recognition?

The best way as Permabear has pointed out is the American model where religion is taught in the home and at Sunday school.

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

No I do not believe that, and I do not like the personal tone you are introducing here.

Did the thread not start with a personal attack on Ruari Quinn? Maybe I am his cousin and equally upset about personal attacks.

partyatmygaff

kbannon wrote: »

FWIW Religious Education as taught in schools is not a Religious Education but, to a large extent, a Christian (esp. roman catholic) one. This is most apparent in primary education.

Actually, I think you'll find it's *only* apparent in primary education where what exactly is taught depends on the school in question. Case in point: Educate together schools and the Islamic school in Clonskeagh.

As for secondary schools, I recommend you have a look at their respective exam papers. There's absolutely nothing whatsoever in there to suggest that it's 100% Catholic or even 100% Christian as you seem to be implying. In fact, there's quite a broad spread of material.

Junior Cert
Leaving Cert

dvpower

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

Religious studies teach students about other religions, values and beliefs besides those held by Catholicism, why not meet them halfway and include agnosticism and atheism in the subject curriculum instead of completely abolishing the subject?

Where is the suggestion that the subject be abolished?
Religious instruction should be abolished, not education.

Cognitive Cascade

Godge wrote: »

Should we also include Jehovah's Witness (how to knock on doors?), Mormon (will the sisterhood let us promote one-sided polygamy?), Screamers (can you imagine how that would go down in a classroom of 8-year olds?) and the Jedi religion (belief in the force) and give them all equal recognition?

We will leave that up to the professionals to decide.

Godge wrote: »

The best way as Permabear has pointed out is the American model where religion is taught in the home and at Sunday school.

Where would atheism be taught?

dvpower

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

Where would atheism be taught?

In the home and at Sunday school (if Atheists want to establish them).

Godge

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

We will leave that up to the professionals to decide.



Where would atheism be taught?

So you would leave it to the professionals to decide whether my favourite religions (Mormon, Jehovah's witness, Jedi and Screamer) be taught as part of the curriculum yet you added in atheism without a second thought earlier in the thread.

Was there someone calling others a hypocrite earlier?

Skrynesaver

Atheism doesn't need to be taught, it's the default setting. Ethics, critical thinking, reason ... these need to be taught, do they ever need to be taught

Dr Galen

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

We will leave that up to the professionals to decide.



Where would atheism be taught?

How do you teach atheism? There's nothing to teach is there?

I'm an atheist, I'm don't believe there is a god, end of story. Thats gonna be a pretty short lesson tbh.

Cognitive Cascade

Godge wrote: »

So you would leave it to the professionals to decide whether my favourite religions (Mormon, Jehovah's witness, Jedi and Screamer) be taught as part of the curriculum yet you added in atheism without a second thought earlier in the thread.

Was there someone calling others a hypocrite earlier?

Hypocrite I think not, Moromon and Jehovah's witness could hypothetically be included as they are not parody religions invented by atheists, compared to "Pastafarianism", "Jediism", "Oprahism" and "Screamer".

Cognitive Cascade

Dr Galen wrote: »

How do you teach atheism? There's nothing to teach is there?

Sure there is, give them a book Richard Dawkins wrote, such as "The God Delusion", or other atheist literature and give them exams or essays to write on the relevant material for example. :cool:

Skrynesaver

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

Hypocrite I think not, Moromon and Jehovah's witness could hypothetically be included as they are not parody religions invented by atheists, compared to "Pastafarianism", "Jediism", "Oprahism" and "Screamer".

Why only exclude made up religions if they were made up with the intention of entertaining others?

By the way the Screamers were a real religion (insofar as there is such a thing)

Cognitive Cascade

Skrynesaver wrote: »

Why only exclude made up religions if they were made up with the intention of entertaining others?

By the way the Screamers were a real religion (insofar as there is such a thing)

I am curious, tell me about Screamers.

Dr Galen

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

Sure there is, give them a book Richard Dawkins wrote, such as "The God Delusion", and give them exams or essays to write for example. :cool:

but thats just turning atheism into a quasi religious movement. Often suggested by those of a religious persuasion.

My own theory is that this is because it seems totally strange for such people that an atheist can quite happily cope with the gap that not having a religion creates. Many religious people claim that their faith fills that gap, and can't seem to understand that not all of us have such a gap or indeed need it filled.

I'd have no issue with a Civics or even Philosophy type class in schools, that taught kids about all such stuff, religions, culture, etc etc. That would be a good thing, but only say for an hour or two a week, nothing like the current level of religious education we currently have.

Formal instruction in a religion should be taking place in the home and the church/sect in question.

Dr Galen

I just wanted to go back to your OP and address a few of the points in it

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

Firstly I am somewhat a supporter of a secular system but with a few exceptions that protect positive Irish traditions and culture, but aware of the negative aspects of religion.

An Irish solution to an Irish problem?

But it should be acknowledge the important role members of the church have played in giving people a good education, supporting the sick and impoverished in all levels of society despite the scandals. Which leads to the point of the thread.

I'm an atheist, and no fan of organised religion. I'm also a fan of good common sense, and I would not deny for 1 second that particularly the catholic church in this country has done a lot of good. Many people would not have received a decent education or access to healthcare as you rightly state. That said, it's certainly not absolution for the wrongs. I would agree that a bit of balance would help all sides come to an accommodation though.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that Quinn is using this recent scandal to impose his fundamental atheistic beliefs through promoting and transforming an education that promotes family values and teaches children about all religions into a secular model that is purged of all that?

A secular model wouldn't be purged of all that though, would it?

An atheist model would be perhaps.

It's already been explained here, secular does not mean atheist. It would be about neither promoting or denigrating.

No more primary school nativity plays or Christmas concerts for example.

In a secular system, then no, there would be no Nativity plays, as that is really a Christian thing. If there is such a want for one then parents should have two choices:

a) send their kids to an independent of Government Christian ethos school
b) organise with their local place of worship to put one on

Christmas concerts, again when aligned to schools and for the purpose of religious celebration would also be gone, see above for the options. No issues with just a general Christmas/holidays concert by the kids though.

Godge

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

Hypocrite I think not, Moromon and Jehovah's witness could hypothetically be included as they are not parody religions invented by atheists, compared to "Pastafarianism", "Jediism", "Oprahism" and "Screamer".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jediism

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/16640/teenage-screamer-is-beheaded-in-colombia

"Oprahism" mention I did not, which does not appear to be a religion at all. Neither did I mention "Pastafarianism" which is a parody religion.

However, the above two links show that Jediism and Screamer do have some real followers and are worthy of the same treatment. Similarly, there are other religious movements such as the New Age Movement, the Baha'i and many more. Where would Confucianism fit in your list? or Juche?

The point I was making in my last post is that it was hypocritical of you to include atheism in the curriculum on a whim but to later say that my choice of religions should be left to the professionals to decide.

It is becoming quite clear in this thread that the teaching of religion in schools throws up a heap of issues and it is best left to parents to decide how and when their children should receive religious instruction outside of the school.

Shea O'Meara

As a former Left wing politician , Quinn would obviously not support the church and state as one, but I'm pretty sure as a democratically elected person he recognises the church's right to exist.

I find it embarrassing that the state is still so tied to the church. A good number of foreign people I've met over the years believe the Pope calls the shots in Ireland and the Government simply look after the housekeeping.

It's important to remember that although the church supplied schools hospices etc. the money came from the faithful and the free labour from the even more faithful. They didn't apply for a bank loan to purchase the tracts of land they own, it was in most cases donated by feebleminded folk on their death bed after being told horror stories about burning in hell, from the church. So forgive me if I take any 'good deeds' the church did/does with a pinch of salt.

Seth Brundle

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

A good number of foreign people I've met over the years believe the Pope calls the shots in Ireland and the Government simply look after the housekeeping.

Dev, Bertie,...

dpe

Always worth remembering that the Catholic church didn't engineer itself the (near) monopoly on the school system through some altruistic impulse; its simply the best way to keep the racket ticking over with new converts. What's the expression? "Give me the child until he is seven and I'll give you the man" The Church took that Jesuit truism to its logical conclusion.

I simply don't buy the argument that people were given an education they wouldn't have otherwise got thanks to the church; if the church hadn't been there the state would perforce have to have stepped in, just like in every other civilised country.

Its an anachronism that I really hope is finally broken by the time my toddlers are ready for school, but I doubt it will be that quick unfortunately.

Scofflaw

Skrynesaver wrote: »

Atheism doesn't need to be taught, it's the default setting. Ethics, critical thinking, reason ... these need to be taught, do they ever need to be taught

Atheism isn't the default setting, at least as far as the scientific evidence goes. The default setting is religion (or, perhaps more accurately, religiousness) - hardly surprising, given religion is a feature of virtually every culture ever.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pride Fighter

Ruairi Quinn's reforms through the forum on patronage and pluralism would be something I'd support, however it will not go far enough. There are approximately 3,000 primary schools in Ireland, most of these are Catholic ethos and Educate Together makes up only just above 2%.

What will happen is the Church will divest patronage for about 2-300 schools and I'd guess Educate Together will get about half, with the other half going to VEC's and others.

This would still leave over 2,500 religous ethos schools or 83% of the schools in the hands of the RCC, COI amongst others.

In short, people of faith have nothing to fear. Choice will just widen and we'll see how things go in the future.

Skrynesaver

Scofflaw wrote: »

Atheism isn't the default setting, at least as far as the scientific evidence goes. The default setting is religion (or, perhaps more accurately, religiousness) - hardly surprising, given religion is a feature of virtually every culture ever.

cordially,
Scofflaw

True, the personification of natural forces, from the wind to creation itself, is common across all cultures, hence the need to teach reasoning, critical thought and ethics.

partyatmygaff

Skrynesaver wrote: »

True, the personification of natural forces, from the wind to creation itself, is common across all cultures, hence the need to teach reasoning, critical thought and ethics.

Another not-so-subtle linking of atheism to "reasoning, critical thought and ethics" as if the two mean the same thing.

"Atheism" is just a lack of belief in God. It's not "reason, critical thought and ethics" wrapped up in to one neat little word as you seem to be implying.

As for teaching of "reason, critical thought and ethics", you'll be very surprised to hear that LC religion is one of the few subjects on the LC curriculum that actually seems to encourage critical thought and ethics. The sciences (Chemistry for example) rely by and large on memory work as there's nothing particularly thought-provoking on the course. A huge shock for you, i'm sure.

Chuck Stone

Min wrote: »

The state can stop funding Catholic schools or protestant, muslim or Jewish schools and then what education system does the state have?

The CC is not akin to a benevolent billionaire who came to help the poor and destitute. The CC got its power and money from the people of this country through donation and got much of its funds to run the the schools from the state (the citizenry again).

Where the hell do you think the CC got its money and property from, God?

Basically nothing, the state is indebted to the various religions and the education they provide.

IIRC the Catholic Church is in debt to the victims of its institutional dysfunction to the tune of ½ a Billion euro. Imo it is lucky to have gotten off so light.

Shea O'Meara

kbannon wrote: »

Dev, Bertie,...

Indeed. Here's a scary one for you.....In the next FFail renaissance..party leader O'Cuiv...bring the country back to the Dev days were corruption was rampant in state and church and the Taoiseach was as infalible as the Pope.

Icepick

Scofflaw wrote: »

Atheism isn't the default setting, at least as far as the scientific evidence goes. The default setting is religion (or, perhaps more accurately, religiousness) - hardly surprising, given religion is a feature of virtually every culture ever.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Atheism is, of course, the default setting. Religion is part of enculturation.

Scofflaw

Icepick wrote: »

Atheism is, of course, the default setting. Religion is part of enculturation.

I would suggest that you read the most recent scientific research on the subject. Critical thinking and non-agency-based reasoning is something that has to be acquired, and does not come naturally to most people. In the absence of deliberate atheist acculturation, these are pre-requisites for atheism (although they certainly do not necessarily lead to atheism in every case).

The claim that "atheism is the default setting" waves away any suggestion that human brains contain any wiring at birth, and are simply a spongy mass devoid of any prior tendencies of thought - as apt to be socialised in the manner of fish or bees as in any manner recognisably human.

This is rather clearly not the case, and the absence of any specific religion at birth does not make atheism the default state if any pre-disposition to agency-based reasoning is present, as seems to be the case in every human culture. The evidence strongly suggests that left to themselves, a group of humans with no outside influences and no prior acculturation will naturally come to religion through agency-based reasoning, as every known human culture has done. There may be one or two exceptions to that observation, but the belief that atheism is the default setting struggles with the omnipresent evidence of human religiosity in every period and region.

Skrynesaver has it:

True, the personification of natural forces, from the wind to creation itself, is common across all cultures, hence the need to teach reasoning, critical thought and ethics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would suggest that you read the most recent scientific research on the subject. Critical thinking and non-agency-based reasoning is something that has to be acquired, and does not come naturally to most people. In the absence of deliberate atheist acculturation, these are pre-requisites for atheism (although they certainly do not necessarily lead to atheism in every case).

The claim that "atheism is the default setting" waves away any suggestion that human brains contain any wiring at birth, and are simply a spongy mass devoid of any prior tendencies of thought - as apt to be socialised in the manner of fish or bees as in any manner recognisably human.

This is rather clearly not the case, and the absence of any specific religion at birth does not make atheism the default state if any pre-disposition to agency-based reasoning is present, as seems to be the case in every human culture. The evidence strongly suggests that left to themselves, a group of humans with no outside influences and no prior acculturation will naturally come to religion through agency-based reasoning, as every known human culture has done. There may be one or two exceptions to that observation, but the belief that atheism is the default setting struggles with the omnipresent evidence of human religiosity in every period and region.

Skrynesaver has it:



cordially,
Scofflaw

And perhaps that's because a group must reach a point empirically and technologically where the question of "what's over that hill" can begin to be answered with any sort of accuracy and conviction.

dpe

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would suggest that you read the most recent scientific research on the subject. Critical thinking and non-agency-based reasoning is something that has to be acquired, and does not come naturally to most people. In the absence of deliberate atheist acculturation, these are pre-requisites for atheism (although they certainly do not necessarily lead to atheism in every case).

The claim that "atheism is the default setting" waves away any suggestion that human brains contain any wiring at birth, and are simply a spongy mass devoid of any prior tendencies of thought - as apt to be socialised in the manner of fish or bees as in any manner recognisably human.

This is rather clearly not the case, and the absence of any specific religion at birth does not make atheism the default state if any pre-disposition to agency-based reasoning is present, as seems to be the case in every human culture. The evidence strongly suggests that left to themselves, a group of humans with no outside influences and no prior acculturation will naturally come to religion through agency-based reasoning, as every known human culture has done. There may be one or two exceptions to that observation, but the belief that atheism is the default setting struggles with the omnipresent evidence of human religiosity in every period and region.

Skrynesaver has it:



cordially,
Scofflaw

Or in other words, the default setting for humans is "dumb as rocks".

Pedant

I welcome the day when philosophy is taught in schools instead of religion, from Aristotle to Descartes, Descartes to Kant, Kant to Nietzche.

Students need to be taught how to think, not how to obey.

Bannasidhe

Pedant wrote: »

I welcome the day when philosophy is thought in schools instead of religion, from Aristotle to Descartes, Descartes to Kant, Kant to Nietzche.

Students need to be thought how to think, not how to obey.

Philosophy AND civics.

Pedant

Icepick wrote: »

Atheism is, of course, the default setting. Religion is part of enculturation.

Agnosticism is the default setting. They don't know of religion, culture, belief or non-belief in general until they are taught it.

Pedant

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Philosophy AND civics.

Yes, as long as the civics course doesn't have a narrow curriculum and doesn't develop into a form of political indoctrination. Students should be thought how to criticize the state as well and point out its flaws.

Bannasidhe

Pedant wrote: »

Yes, as long as the civics course doesn't have a narrow curriculum and doesn't develop into a form of political indoctrination. Students should be thought how to criticize the state as well and point out its flaws.

Absolutely.
Students should be taught the rights and responsibilities of citizenship - an important aspect of both being constructive criticism and analysis of political structures plus discussion of how flaws can be rectified. Perhaps then we could breed some ethical politicos and an informed and engaged electorate.

Pedant

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Absolutely.
Students should be taught the rights and responsibilities of citizenship - an important aspect of both being constructive criticism and analysis of political structures plus discussion of how flaws can be rectified. Perhaps then we could breed some ethical politicos and an informed and engaged electorate.

Yes, courses in CSPE and Philosophy should begin in Junior Infants (:D)

Scofflaw

Pedant wrote: »

Agnosticism is the default setting. They don't know of religion, culture, belief or non-belief in general until they are taught it.

Agnosticism isn't the default setting either, since agnosticism is a position of indecision or doubt, not ignorance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bannasidhe

Pedant wrote: »

Yes, courses in CSPE and Philosophy should begin in Junior Infants (:D)

I started them in second class - I went to a cool (non-denominational!) school.

Icepick

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would suggest that you read the most recent scientific research on the subject. Critical thinking and non-agency-based reasoning is something that has to be acquired, and does not come naturally to most people.

Non-existence of belief into something does not need to be a result of critical thinking. Mostly it's the result of not knowing that the subject exists.