Time allocated in Irish primary schools: 4% on science, 10% on religion.

Dades

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/how-schools-are-letting-down-our-young-children-3227280.html

Well this made me mad this morning. I've love to see these figures justified by the "ah, sure what harm does it do?" brigade. Primary school is the key time to introduce kids to the wonder and relevance of science. Instead they get taught myths and guilt as fact.

Irish Independent wrote:

IRISH primary pupils are losing out on vital lessons in science while schools devote twice as much time to religion, a major new international study reveals today.

Despite the huge growth in science-based jobs in industry, the OECD think-tank said minimal time is given to the subject at primary level here.

Irish Independent wrote:

According to the OECD 'Education at a Glance' report, Irish primary pupils spend only 4pc of their class time on science -- half the international average of 8pc.

By comparison, Irish primary schools devote 10pc of teaching time to religion, second only to Israel, and more than double the OECD average of 4pc.

So while primary pupils spend an hour a week on science, Department of Education rules require them to spend two-and-a-half hours a week on religion.

And the situation is not much better at second level, where science is given 8pc of class time, two-thirds of the OECD average of 12pc.

Also, I never know there was a Dept of Education requirement?

Bannasidhe

Dades wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/how-schools-are-letting-down-our-young-children-3227280.html

Well this made me mad this morning. I've love to see these figures justified by the "ah, sure what harm does it do?" brigade. Primary school is the key time to introduce kids to the wonder and relevance of science. Instead they get taught myths and guilt as fact.




Also, I never know there was a Dept of Education requirement?

Not even slightly surprised. Granddaughter is 6 today, among the presents she got at the weekend was a Carol Voderman maths book (got it weeks ago but forgot to give it to her so thought I'd add it to the pile). Small girl genuinely excited - and not just because it had gold stars - so we have a look at the tasks.
She flies through the first few assignments and gave them to me to correct.

I say 'well done! You must be learning loads of stuff in school!!'. 'Nah,' says she 'we do colouring in and talking about holy God mostly. I already told them I know how to colour in and I don't believe in holy God and I can't read properly yet so I would like to learn how to do that.' She then shook her head sadly and said 'but they don't listen, just say oh colour in this picture of holymarymotherofgod'.

Then she actually went :rolleyes:

doctoremma

Here, we teach primary kids evolution

joseph brand

And still the religious wonder why Atheists get annoyed over religion. They would rather we just ignore it, keep quiet. "Militant Atheists", they cry.

Substituting science and maths, with religion, is just as bad/useless/dangerous as substituting those vital subjects for the study of UFO's or watching Eastenders during class time. I dare say there are some who would love to see extra time allocated to religion and gaeilge. Makes us more Oirish. Back to tradition. Regressive. Stale. "Bleughh", I say.

Ireland needs an educated workforce to attract foreign investment; i.e. high tech companies such as Intel and HP.

Religion should be taught at home, rather than in school. Obviously I wouldn't like to see it taught to children as it conditions their minds to be able to believe in magic. "No evidence?" "Fine by me." "The lord told me not to question, but to have faith as we don't need proof."

Only last weekend my Dad told me that if I'm not a roman catholic, I'm not Irish.

You can't get any more Irish than blindly following a religion made up in the Middle East, calling a jewish man your lord and saviour and listening to orders from the CEO of that cult who resides in the Vatican. :rolleyes:

It's as Irish as kangaroo sh*t!

kate.m

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not even slightly surprised. Granddaughter is 6 today, among the presents she got at the weekend was a Carol Voderman maths book (got it weeks ago but forgot to give it to her so thought I'd add it to the pile). Small girl genuinely excited - and not just because it had gold stars - so we have a look at the tasks.
She flies through the first few assignments and gave them to me to correct.

I say 'well done! You must be learning loads of stuff in school!!'. 'Nah,' says she 'we do colouring in and talking about holy God mostly. I already told them I know how to colour in and I don't believe in holy God and I can't read properly yet so I would like to learn how to do that.' She then shook her head sadly and said 'but they don't listen, just say oh colour in this picture of holymarymotherofgod'.

Then she actually went :rolleyes:

:eek: - sounds like the teacher is just not bothered.

kylith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not even slightly surprised. Granddaughter is 6 today, among the presents she got at the weekend was a Carol Voderman maths book (got it weeks ago but forgot to give it to her so thought I'd add it to the pile). Small girl genuinely excited - and not just because it had gold stars - so we have a look at the tasks.
She flies through the first few assignments and gave them to me to correct.

I say 'well done! You must be learning loads of stuff in school!!'. 'Nah,' says she 'we do colouring in and talking about holy God mostly. I already told them I know how to colour in and I don't believe in holy God and I can't read properly yet so I would like to learn how to do that.' She then shook her head sadly and said 'but they don't listen, just say oh colour in this picture of holymarymotherofgod'.

Then she actually went :rolleyes:

Out of the mouths of babes, eh?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

I’m not sure that education has ever been the over-riding priority of our education policy. It’s chiefly been about facilitating the restoration of the Irish language or, as in this case, facilitating religious instruction. I don’t know, but I’d expect the situation at primary level must be complicated by the schools being typically under the patronage of some religious figure.

However, even VEC secondary schools are required to offer a couple of hours per week of religious instruction to their Leaving Cert students, unless parents specifically request an exemption in writing.


It’s all a damn mess, but I think the issue is the lack of a coherent picture of what we do want education policy to deliver. A purely negative "we don’t want religion, we don’t want Irish" is never as effective as a positive "these are the things we want to achieve, and here are obstacles that need to be removed to enable that".

joseph brand wrote: »

Only last weekend my Dad told me that if I'm not a roman catholic, I'm not Irish.

In fairness to your Dad, Catholicism has been a fairly integral part of Irish life up to recently. Without it, we might never have had a reason to establish an independent State.

Bannasidhe

kate.m wrote: »

:eek: - sounds like the teacher is just not bothered.

Or is part of an institutionalised system that can't understand that a child in senior infants wants to learn how to read properly, do maths and discuss science not colour in pictures and hear about holygod all day.

Grandchild is very clear as to what she believes in the purpose of going to school - to teach her how to read so she can look up what she needs to know in books, teach her maths because that is very important (she told me if everyone in the country could do maths properly the bankers wouldn't have been able to loose our money because the grown ups would have understood what was happening ) and teach her science so she knows how stuff works.
Less then a week back at school and she has decided her teacher is very nice but useless at educating so has asked me to teach her how to read, and tell time. She told me she really doesn't need help colouring in as I taught her how to do that years ago.

The Mad Hatter

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or is part of an institutionalised system that can't understand that a child in senior infants wants to learn how to read properly, do maths and discuss science not colour in pictures and hear about holygod all day.

Grandchild is very clear as to what she believes in the purpose of going to school - to teach her how to read so she can look up what she needs to know in books, teach her maths because that is very important (she told me if everyone in the country could do maths properly the bankers wouldn't have been able to loose our money because the grown ups would have understood what was happening ) and teach her science so she knows how stuff works.
Less then a week back at school and she has decided her teacher is very nice but useless at educating so has asked me to teach her how to read, and tell time. She told me she really doesn't need help colouring in as I taught her how to do that years ago.

Your granddaughter sounds awesome.

Gumbi

I didn't realise how much we had spent on religion in primary up until recently. We did f*ck all science. I mean NONE.

Going to the church/various masses to prepare for confirmation, learning hymns and prayers, and various parables from the NT. Absolute BS.

I'm only 19 now, this only 7-8 years ago.

Sickening.

magicbastarder

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

]In fairness to your Dad, Catholicism has been a fairly integral part of Irish life up to recently. Without it, we might never have had a reason to establish an independent State.

someone should tell his dad about robert emmet, so. and thomas davis. and daniel o'connell. and parnell. and markievicz. and casement.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not even slightly surprised. Granddaughter is 6 today, among the presents she got at the weekend was a Carol Voderman maths book [...]

Ahh, and it was only last week that snowflake was asking me to give her maths problems as we were driving back from Belfast. Is that Voderman book any good? Am asking since I was at her ET school last night where the teacher (the same wonderful soul as last year) introduced herself again, and went through this year's curriculum, including maths, every goal of which snowflake had reached at least six months ago -- she's clearly in need of further mathsy stuff -- yay!

I'm thrilled to repeat, btw, that our ET school doesn't spend so much as one second pretending that anybody's religious drivel is true.

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Catholicism has been a fairly integral part of Irish life up to recently

And so was death at an early age from a wide range of now-easily preventable diseases. As with religion, one should be aware of the threat, even if only to know how to avoid it all the better.

Dades

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It’s all a damn mess, but I think the issue is the lack of a coherent picture of what we do want education policy to deliver. A purely negative "we don’t want religion, we don’t want Irish" is never as effective as a positive "these are the things we want to achieve, and here are obstacles that need to be removed to enable that".

I don't know what to do about Irish but the religion one is fairly simple. Stop teaching that one religion is true, and move all preparation for sacraments (or RC teaching) to after school hours.

If anything, have one hour of world religion/ethics/civics a week, and then use that freed up time to teach science or something useful to that generation of kids.

It's a no-brainer and the only people who oppose it are either afraid that after-school indoctrination won't stick as much, or want it done during school so their children's *spiritual welfare* isn't a burden on them (or their pilates class).

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I’m not sure that education has ever been the over-riding priority of our education policy. It’s chiefly been about facilitating the restoration of the Irish language or, as in this case, facilitating religious instruction. I don’t know, but I’d expect the situation at primary level must be complicated by the schools being typically under the patronage of some religious figure.

However, even VEC secondary schools are required to offer a couple of hours per week of religious instruction to their Leaving Cert students, unless parents specifically request an exemption in writing.


It’s all a damn mess, but I think the issue is the lack of a coherent picture of what we do want education policy to deliver. A purely negative "we don’t want religion, we don’t want Irish" is never as effective as a positive "these are the things we want to achieve, and here are obstacles that need to be removed to enable that".In fairness to your Dad, Catholicism has been a fairly integral part of Irish life up to recently. Without it, we might never have had a reason to establish an independent State.

I agree with most of your post but while I see where you are coming from with 'Catholicism has been a fairly integral part of Irish life up to recently. Without it, we might never have had a reason to establish an independent State.' I would profoundly disagree that we would never have had an independent State - Irish republicanism grew out of Presbyterianism, prior to the likes of Bonar Law and Randolph Churchill stirring up Unionist sentiment to fever pitch in Ulster advocates for Irish independence were genuinely from all religious backgrounds (Mitchel was Presbyterian, Tone and Smith O'Brien were COI).

The RCC in Ireland negotiated a deal with Westminster whereby in exchange for being allowed to set up Catholic schools (all State schooling was Anglican) it would fully endorse the Act of Union. With the repeal of the Penal Laws (which affected all non-Anglicans, not just Catholics) the RCC became part of the establishment and it's reward was control of education. It's goal was to create generations of Irish people who believed that to be Irish was to be Catholic. Sadly, they succeeded.

It excommunicated republicans during the War of Independence - how by any stretch of the imagination can that be considered to be in favour of Irish self-determination?

The problem was that by the time we did get independence this Irish = Catholic lie was part of our national psyche. Our failure as a nation is that Cosgrave's government did not take control of education (Cosgrave was so devout a Catholic that he actually had permission for a private chapel in his house). We not only left the existing RCC school structure in place but made it the only means of accessing education for everyone but the wealthy.

And so the RCC indoctrination machine was not only allowed to continue it's insidious propaganda that Irish people are Catholic first, Irish second by emphasizing loyalty to the Church above all - it was given control over practically the entire school system which allowed it to re-write history and paint itself as the fount of Irish independence not the collaborative ally with Westminster seeking to maintain the existing status quo it actually was.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Ahh, and it was only last week that snowflake was asking me to give her maths problems as we were driving back from Belfast. Is that Voderman book any good? Am asking since I was at her ET school last night where the teacher (the same wonderful soul as last year) introduced herself again, and went through this year's curriculum, including maths, every goal of which snowflake had reached at least six months ago -- she's clearly in need of further mathsy stuff -- yay!

I'm thrilled to repeat, btw, that our ET school doesn't spend so much as one second pretending that anybody's religious drivel is true.

The Voderman books are excellent. Very clear, mixture of text and images with the gold stars included . It's a series of books aimed at different age ranges - we have flown through 5-6 and are now on 6-7. I got them in Aldi .

Bannasidhe

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Your granddaughter sounds awesome.

She's a lot more demanding then any 3rd level student I have ever taught and is impossible to fob off with the ol 'that's a very interesting question' standby us lecturers use as we frantically search the little grey cells for the answer. Mind you, Irish university students don't tend to ask questions (apart from the mature ones)...

I give them sweeties if they ask a good question , Hermionie (as we call her) prefers an immediate answer. If none is forthcoming she tells me to look it up and get back to her.....:o

GCU Flexible Demeanour

magicbastarder wrote: »

someone should tell his dad about robert emmet, so. and thomas davis. and daniel o'connell. and parnell. and markievicz. and casement.

I suspect someone did; but why would they be reminding him of Daniel O'Connell in this connection?

robindch wrote: »

And so was death at an early age from a wide range of now-easily preventable diseases. As with religion, one should be aware of the threat, even if only to know how to avoid it all the better.

I'm not sure that death from an early age was ever acknowledged in the Constitution as having a special place in Irish life.

Dades wrote: »

I don't know what to do about Irish but the religion one is fairly simple. Stop teaching that one religion is true, and move all preparation for sacraments (or RC teaching) to after school hours.

It's a case of "easy to say". I suspect we could do it for VEC schools, but you'd need to address the ownership issue in the schools with religious patrons.To do that, you'll need to have some broader vision as to what we're doing.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would profoundly disagree that we would never have had an independent State - Irish republicanism grew out of Presbyterianism, prior to the likes of Bonar Law and Randolph Churchill stirring up Unionist sentiment to fever pitch in Ulster advocates for Irish independence were genuinely from all religious backgrounds (Mitchel was Presbyterian, Tone and Smith O'Brien were COI).

Oh, absolutely. The early Irish republicans used to discuss whether Catholics should even have the vote; Tone's belief seemed to be that superstitous Catholicism would quickly wither in a Republic, so he hadn't a particular problem with including them.
However, the thing that got us over the line - the thing that actually mobilised people and socialised them into believing they were something different - was Catholicism. We know this because of the Irish State that was actually created - within a few years of independence, a Dail dominated by Irish "Republicans" of one kind banned divorce. When most of the rest of the "Republicans" entered the Dail subsequently, they proposed Dev's Constitution.
There's no final way of telling. But if Catholicism had melted, in the same way as the language, they would have been no particular grevance to mobilise 'Irish' people as a group.
There actually isn't a coherent alternative conception of an Irish nation, without Catholicism. I expect that statement will have people jumping up and down. But there's no point in denying the pivotal role that Catholicism has had in our development as a people.

Dades

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's a case of "easy to say". I suspect we could do it for VEC schools, but you'd need to address the ownership issue in the schools with religious patrons.To do that, you'll need to have some broader vision as to what we're doing.

When you say a "broader" vision, what could be broader than envisioning an education system that caters for all, while allowing for 'focused' RE at a time that isn't detrimental to others? Or is that too broad?

But I think we both know what the church is really saying: The State may fund the running of these schools, but as long as we own the deeds to the land we're going to continue to demand priority one way or another.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I suspect someone did; but why would they be reminding him of Daniel O'Connell in this connection?I'm not sure that death from an early age was ever acknowledged in the Constitution as having a special place in Irish life.It's a case of "easy to say". I suspect we could do it for VEC schools, but you'd need to address the ownership issue in the schools with religious patrons.To do that, you'll need to have some broader vision as to what we're doing.Oh, absolutely. The early Irish republicans used to discuss whether Catholics should even have the vote; Tone's belief seemed to be that superstitous Catholicism would quickly wither in a Republic, so he hadn't a particular problem with including them.
However, the thing that got us over the line - the thing that actually mobilised people and socialised them into believing they were something different - was Catholicism. We know this because of the Irish State that was actually created - within a few years of independence, a Dail dominated by Irish "Republicans" of one kind banned divorce. When most of the rest of the "Republicans" entered the Dail subsequently, they proposed Dev's Constitution.
There's no final way of telling. But if Catholicism had melted, in the same way as the language, they would have been no particular grevance to mobilise 'Irish' people as a group.
There actually isn't a coherent alternative conception of an Irish nation, without Catholicism. I expect that statement will have people jumping up and down. But there's no point in denying the pivotal role that Catholicism has had in our development as a people.

I would say that the RCC co-opted the Republican movement and Irish independence to further it's own agenda. I would agree that it played a pivotal role in creating the State that emerged, but what we got is a failed State. I do not agree that there were no other options available.
You are also discounting that Irish republicans defied the RCC by rebelling. Only when it became obvious that Independence was going to come did the RCC change sides - purely in order to retain its existing power base and in hopes of extending it's control over all facets of Irish life. It used it's control over education to make us believe that without Catholicism there is no unifying force in Ireland when in fact, republicanism itself provided that.

CerebralCortex

joseph brand wrote: »

And still the religious wonder why Atheists get annoyed over religion. They would rather we just ignore it, keep quiet. "Militant Atheists", they cry.

Substituting science and maths, with religion, is just as bad/useless/dangerous as substituting those vital subjects for the study of UFO's or watching Eastenders during class time. I dare say there are some who would love to see extra time allocated to religion and gaeilge. Makes us more Oirish. Back to tradition. Regressive. Stale. "Bleughh", I say.

Ireland needs an educated workforce to attract foreign investment; i.e. high tech companies such as Intel and HP.

Religion should be taught at home, rather than in school. Obviously I wouldn't like to see it taught to children as it conditions their minds to be able to believe in magic. "No evidence?" "Fine by me." "The lord told me not to question, but to have faith as we don't need proof."

Only last weekend my Dad told me that if I'm not a roman catholic, I'm not Irish.

You can't get any more Irish than blindly following a religion made up in the Middle East, calling a jewish man your lord and saviour and listening to orders from the CEO of that cult who resides in the Vatican. :rolleyes:

It's as Irish as kangaroo sh*t!

Just another reason I consider Ireland just another place to live.

Kidchameleon

Some kids dont want to learn about religion. Some kids do.

Some kids dont want to learn about science. Some kids do.

Its a tad militant to suggest forcing some kids to learn about relegion at home. I agree that it should not be about one particular religion, it should be about life / ethics /philosophy. And of course learning about all the various religions and their historys. Let the kids make up their own mind.

We need kids to grow up with knowledge from the sciences / arts and the philisophical in an equal measure.

You guys should look up a guy called Sir Ken Robinson.

Galvasean

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Some kids dont want to learn about religion. Some kids do.

Some kids dont want to learn about science. Some kids do.

I'm sure if you left it up to the kids they'd like to learn about Call Of Duty in school so I'm not entirely sure what this part of your post has to do with anything?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It used it's control over education to make us believe that without Catholicism there is no unifying force in Ireland when in fact, republicanism itself provided that.

I'm not sure that republicanism did. I don't see the evidence for it.

Now, clearly it's all "what if's" and there's no way of telling. Land reform seemed effective in promoting political stability. On the other hand, if the tenants weren't mostly Catholic and the landlords mostly Protestant, who knows how things might have developed?

I think all I really wanted to say - which I think people are comfortable with - is we can't do a whole "Catholicism? Who let that in here? I never touched the stuff."

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not sure that republicanism did. I don't see the evidence for it.

Now, clearly it's all "what if's" and there's no way of telling. Land reform seemed effective in promoting political stability. On the other hand, if the tenants weren't mostly Catholic and the landlords mostly Protestant, who knows how things might have developed?

I think all I really wanted to say - which I think people are comfortable with - is we can't do a whole "Catholicism? Who let that in here? I never touched the stuff."

It's quite simple to my way of thinking. During the War of Independence people were given a stark choice - continue to rebel and advocate for an Irish republic or obey the RCC strictures to desist otherwise face excommunication. We have an Irish republic ergo people ignored the RCC's stance in favour of following a unifying political ideology.

pwurple

That is far too much time spent on it alright. While I think there is a place for religion in schools, along with every other subject, it should be the very bottom of the priority list.

I don't remember it taking up that much time when I was in school... is this new?

Penn

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its a tad militant to suggest forcing some kids to learn about relegion at home. I agree that it should not be about one particular religion, it should be about life / ethics /philosophy. And of course learning about all the various religions and their historys. Let the kids make up their own mind.

I think most people would agree that religion classes should be replaced with something else, perhaps teaching about all religions as concepts rather than truth, and also combining the class with ethics etc.

But in the case of a specific religion to which that child's parents has determined they will belong to until they're old enough to decide for themselves, it should not be taught in a public school as being fact, and there should not be more time spent on it than important subjects like science.

It is not the responsibility of a public school to educate children in the religion chosen for them by their parents. That is the job of the parents. I would have no objection to school buildings being used for religion classes outside of school hours and funded by the church or parents. But a specific religion should not be taught as part of the school curriculum and should definitely not be given more time than subjects such as science.

Gumbi

Gumbi wrote: »

I didn't realise how much we had spent on religion in primary up until recently. We did f*ck all science. I mean NONE.

Did yous not get told why all the trees died every autumn?

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

There actually isn't a coherent alternative conception of an Irish nation, without Catholicism. I expect that statement will have people jumping up and down. But there's no point in denying the pivotal role that Catholicism has had in our development as a people.

You're conflating involvement with control and making the fundamental error that Vatican's self-interest and its concomitant need to assimilate people and cultures, was honest, or even useful, to anybody other than the Vatican.

Parnell wrote:

No man has a right to fix the
Boundary to the march of a nation.
No man has a right
To say to his country
"Thus far shalt thou
Go and no further".

Said no pope, ever.(*)

(*) Speaking of which, I seem to recall that the church and Parnell fell out at some point.

Bannasidhe

pwurple wrote: »

That is far too much time spent on it alright. While I think there is a place for religion in schools, along with every other subject, it should be the very bottom of the priority list.

I don't remember it taking up that much time when I was in school... is this new?

I remember during my brief stay at an RCC controlled national school in the early 70s that in addition to 'religious' instruction many other subjects had a distinct Catholic bias in the pedagogy used - literacy lessons used bible stories alongside Run Spot Run (and Rith Bran Rith), in Irish classes we were taught to recite An Athair. Catholic iconography was the only acceptable form of visual images on the walls etc etc.

Now, 40 years later my granddaughter is colouring in pictures of Noah's Ark (and drawing in dinosaurs ), reading about baby Jesus and the three kings and being taught that God made the world - no mention of evolution cos 'ah sure they are only little and wouldn't understand' :mad:.

That is the insidious nature of it. By the time science etc is introduced the religious crap has been deeply planted.

No doubt they have some religiously way of teaching maths - let's count the number of people on the cross children - now if we take away one thief how many messiahs are left?

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Some kids dont want to learn about religion. Some kids do.
Some kids dont want to learn about science. Some kids do.

I'm sure if you left it up to the kids they'd like to learn about Call Of Duty in school so I'm not entirely sure what this part of your post has to do with anything?

I think Kidchameleon is trying to say that it's ok to pretend that religious stories are true if the kids like them.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's quite simple to my way of thinking. During the War of Independence people were given a stark choice - continue to rebel and advocate for an Irish republic or obey the RCC strictures to desist otherwise face excommunication. We have an Irish republic ergo people ignored the RCC's stance in favour of following a unifying political ideology.

But surely the choice wasn’t that stark. The RCC didn’t excommunicate anyone for advocating a republic. Plus, there were plenty of sympathetic clergy; we know that many of the rebels were practicing Catholics. Don’t we even have the striking image of Vinnie Byrne’s description of one of the assassinations that he carried out, where they all met up after Mass to shoot a British Army officer?

So I’m not sure the evidence is there to suggest people ignored the RCC’s authority. Certainly, in the new State, they accepted the RCC’s authority in health care, education and social policy generally.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

I think Kidchameleon is trying to say that it's ok to pretend that religious stories are true if the kids like them.

Kids like Disney too....:D

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But surely the choice wasn’t that stark. The RCC didn’t excommunicate anyone for advocating a republic. Plus, there were plenty of sympathetic clergy; we know that many of the rebels were practicing Catholics. Don’t we even have the striking image of Vinnie Byrne’s description of one of the assassinations that he carried out, where they all met up after Mass to shoot a British Army officer?

So I’m not sure the evidence is there to suggest people ignored the RCC’s authority. Certainly, in the new State, they accepted the RCC’s authority in health care, education and social policy generally.

Meanwhile, one of Irish-Americans' most senior lobbyists in Washington has launched a coast-to-coast campaign against Pius IX's beatification. Father Sean McManus, a Catholic priest and leading figure in the Irish National Caucus, has called on Irish-Americans to put pressure on bishops and cardinals in the United States to persuade the Vatican to reverse its decision.

Under pressure from Britain's then Prime Minister, William Gladstone, Pius IX excommunicated the Fenians from the Catholic Church on 12 January, 1870. At the time the Fenians were en-gaged in acts of violence in both Ireland and Britain. In devoutly Catholic Ireland, the excommunication order effectively killed off any popular support for the revolutionary republican organisation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/jul/02/catholicism.religion

17 December 1920: The Roman Catholic Bishop of Kilmore, Patrick Finnegan, stated that "Any war...To be just and lawful must be backed by a well-grounded hope of success...What hope of success have you against the mighty forces of the British Empire? None, none whatever...and if it unlawful as it is, every life taken in pursuance of it is murder"...

24 January 1921: The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, Thomas Gilmartin, issued a letter saying that IRA volunteers who took part in ambushes "have broken the truce of God, they have incurred the guilt of murder"

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



Seems to be a pretty stark choice to me.

Northclare

Ah sure it might all balance out after a few year's.

Some kids like mythology,more like science.

There needs to be a happy medium.

But in our secondary school,we loved religion absolutely loved it

Our art teacher was our religion teacher,so she used to give us out sheets of paper to express ourselves.

I spent a lot of time drawing Slaine from 2000 AD

I got an A +in Art

Bannasidhe

Northclare wrote: »

Ah sure it might all balance out after a few year's.

Some kids like mythology,more like science.

There needs to be a happy medium.

But in our secondary school,we loved religion absolutely loved it

Our art teacher was our religion teacher,so she used to give us out sheets of paper to express ourselves.

I spent a lot of time drawing Slaine from 2000 AD

I got an A +in Art

We had no religious studies in my secondary school - I got a first class degree in Fine Art from Slade.....:D

Penn

Northclare wrote: »

Ah sure it might all balance out after a few year's.

Some kids like mythology,more like science.

There needs to be a happy medium.

No, there doesn't. Again, it's not about what children want to learn, it's about what needs to be taught more. And an understanding of science is far more important than an understanding of mythology, particularly when only one area of "mythology" (eg. Catholicism) is being taught as fact (not myth) and all other areas of mythology are being taught as stories and make-believe, or simply ignored (eg. other religions). I learnt more in school about the minotaur than about Muhammad.

Northclare

Penn wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

Ah sure it might all balance out after a few year's.

Some kids like mythology,more like science.

There needs to be a happy medium.

No, there doesn't. Again, it's not about what children want to learn, it's about what needs to be taught more. And an understanding of science is far more important than an understanding of mythology, particularly when only one area of "mythology" (eg. Catholicism) is being taught as fact (not myth) and all other areas of mythology are being taught as stories and make-believe, or simply ignored (eg. other religions). I learnt more in school about the minotaur than about Muhammad.

Yeah same here actually lol
Isn't that Ironic now
What was your favorite part of the minotaur story.

Have you ever seen Picasso's etching's of the minotuar ?

Very intriguing I must say

Northclare

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

Ah sure it might all balance out after a few year's.

Some kids like mythology,more like science.

There needs to be a happy medium.

But in our secondary school,we loved religion absolutely loved it

Our art teacher was our religion teacher,so she used to give us out sheets of paper to express ourselves.

I spent a lot of time drawing Slaine from 2000 AD

I got an A +in Art

We had no religious studies in my secondary school - I got a first class degree in Fine Art from Slade.....:D

Were you in school near Slade lighthouse.

Didn't the Divel appear in Loftos Hall

ShooterSF

Northclare wrote: »

Ah sure it might all balance out after a few year's.

Some kids like mythology,more like science.

There needs to be a happy medium.

But in our secondary school,we loved religion absolutely loved it

Our art teacher was our religion teacher,so she used to give us out sheets of paper to express ourselves.

I spent a lot of time drawing Slaine from 2000 AD

I got an A +in Art

Firstly I like Mythology but that's not how Christianity is taught in our schools. The best part of mythology is no one expects or demands you believe it. You aren't punished for questioning the "why" of a belief. If it was taught like the religions of the greeks or the romans no one would have a problem, other than the amount of time spent on it.

Secondly, the time spent on it, sure some kids will prefer mythology to science, some will prefer maths to irish (or english) etc. So we have to decide what subjects are more critical than others and devote more time to them. We already do this but overstate religion and Irish's value in my opinion.

Why "science" is somehow seen as non-critical for the ordinary person astonishes me and I guess it's the confusion of what science is. People seem to think that science education is strictly career based and unless you end up in a lab coat it was wasted time. But science is everywhere and useful in your everyday life along with the way of thinking it teaches you too. As such it's as critical as math or english as far as I can see.

Also congrats on your A+ I drew stickmen until my first year teacher in parent teacher meetings straight up asked "I suppose he'll be dropping art after first year anyway, right?"

Bannasidhe

Northclare wrote: »

Were you in school near Slade lighthouse.

Didn't the Divel appear in Loftos Hall

Nope - this place http://www.ucl.ac.uk/slade. At the time you couldn't get a BA in Fine Art in Ireland so had to go to the UK.

There were a few divils around alright but not one of them was in the slightest bit supernatural - just very, very bold people

Northclare

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

Were you in school near Slade lighthouse.

Didn't the Divel appear in Loftos Hall

Nope - this place http://www.ucl.ac.uk/slade. At the time you couldn't get a BA in Fine Art in Ireland so had to go to the UK.

There were a few divils around alright but not one of them was in the slightest bit supernatural - just very, very bold people

Yeah when I was a student I was a divel myself, up to all sorts of divelment...

It always took some sweet angel to quiten me down,but the divel insiden maea,kept telling me I was bold.

Ah shure I'm ok now,still a bit of a divel though

Dades

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its a tad militant to suggest forcing some kids to learn about relegion at home.

Congratulations. You introduced the word "militant" in relation to a situation that nobody had suggested. Now it's there in the thread - waiting for someone else to pick it up and run with it.

Religions should be taught about in school. Focused religion should be done outside of school hours, like soccer, tennis, chess or anything else that isn't part of every child's curriculum. It can done in schools, churches, homes wherever.

We actually agree, Kidchameleon. Don't find things to disagree with that aren't there.

Northclare

Better do a runner Dades and Robin are on my tail,sorry lads no no no no ahhhhh

Gone~~~~~~~~»

Mark Hamill

Penn wrote: »

I think most people would agree that religion classes should be replaced with something else, perhaps teaching about all religions as concepts rather than truth, and also combining the class with ethics etc.

I would agree with teaching about religions, but I wouldn't like to see ethics classes combined with religious classes. they have nothing to do with each other.

Dades

Northclare wrote: »

Better do a runner Dades and Robin are on my tail,sorry lads no no no no ahhhhh

Eh?

Penn

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I would agree with teaching about religions, but I wouldn't like to see ethics classes combined with religious classes. they have nothing to do with each other.

Really? I think teaching children that ethics don't come from religion but that all religions should be ethical would go a long way to reducing religious intolerance. As would learning about religious practices of different religions and why people from one religion do A while people of another religion do B, all encompassed under ethical practices to respect other peoples rights and that just because they do A, doesn't mean you can't do B etc.

It could also help to teach children that just because your religion says C is wrong, doesn't mean that people who are outside your religion and do C are bad people, or that you should try and stop them doing C because your religion says it's wrong.

I definitely think religion needs more ethics. But I wouldn't class it as being a combination of an ethics class and a religion class, more of some sort of overall Society Class.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

You're conflating involvement with control and making the fundamental error that Vatican's self-interest and its concomitant need to assimilate people and cultures, was honest, or even useful, to anybody other than the Vatican.Said no pope, ever.

Apologies, only noticing this now. I'm doing none of those things. I’m simply noticing the strong influence of Catholicism on Irish life - including the possibility that we’d be part of the UK if we’d dropped it. The purpose of the Irish State was to create a place where we could revive Irish, promote rural living and practice Catholicism without discrimination. It was all a spectacular failure, but it’s what we did.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/jul/02/catholicism.religion
　
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Irish_War_of_Independence
　
Seems to be a pretty stark choice to me.

You notice that the threat of excommunication had nothing to do with advocating a Republic – it was in respect of the use of violence. You’ll also notice one of the threats you are quoting involves the Bishop’s decision being based on the low chances of a rebellion being successful in securing independence. You could read that as a goad, if you were minded.
In any event, the RCC was certainly not united as an organisation against independence. Plenty of clergy were sympathizers, and we’ve already established what the "republicans" actually did when they achieved power.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I wouldn't like to see ethics classes combined with religious classes. they have nothing to do with each other.

?

Gbear

Penn wrote: »

Really? I think teaching children that ethics don't come from religion but that all religions should be ethical would go a long way to reducing religious intolerance. As would learning about religious practices of different religions and why people from one religion do A while people of another religion do B, all encompassed under ethical practices to respect other peoples rights and that just because they do A, doesn't mean you can't do B etc.

It could also help to teach children that just because your religion says C is wrong, doesn't mean that people who are outside your religion and do C are bad people, or that you should try and stop them doing C because your religion says it's wrong.

I definitely think religion needs more ethics. But I wouldn't class it as being a combination of an ethics class and a religion class, more of some sort of overall Society Class.

Only if you had a really broad subject to encompass it.
It'd probably need to be ethics, civics and religions rolled into one.
Or you could go further and include Philosophy in it.
Basically make it a class about the non-practical elements of living in society (as opposed to budgeting and cooking for example).

So you'd have educating how our (and other people's) government works - democracy, constitutions, voting - that lark.
You'd have a broad discussion about the major world religions. That should absolutely include the dangers of religious extremism and what parts of religion are not compatible with modern secular democracies.

Separate from that but somewhat in the same area, you'd have to look at rights and responsibilities and how you go about living in modern democracies and probably contrasting that with various historical totalitarian regimes.
Underpinning all of that would need to be the instilling of the values of rationality, logic and reason and generally equipping children how to properly appraise the other elements of the course, and indeed every piece of information they're ever going to come into contact with.

It absolutely shouldn't be just another pointless aside that's largely ignored like CSPE was when I did it 10 years ago or so.

So much of education is stuff that you don't actually use. The majority of skills used in real life are picked up on the fly, in college if you're lucky. The details of maths theorems, scientific laws and poetry are all roughly as useless as one another to the vast majority of people.
That kind of education should be reserved for specialisation for older children/college students.
How science works on a more basic level is, on the other hand, a skill that everyone should be taught.

Kidchameleon

Dades wrote: »

If anything, have one hour of world religion/ethics/civics a week, and then use that freed up time to teach science or something useful to that generation of kids.

I disagree with this. Kids should be thought all subjects equally. Two examples of subjects that have traditionally been given less precedence are art and physical education. Many, many kids are now obese because of the lack of PE over the years. PE also teaches teamwork. Art teaches lateral thinking and problem solving. These subjects were thought to be less important in daily life than maths and reading and thus suffered.

Just because YOU are not religious does not mean it should be shoved to one side. Thats life I'm afraid, people are different.

Not every kid wants to be a scientist so give them a choice!

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Just because YOU are not religious does not mean it should be shoved to one side. Thats life I'm afraid, people are different. Not every kid wants to be a scientist so give them a choice!

You perhaps missed the points which posters have made repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere on this forum.

No to effectively-mandatory religious indoctrination and the general propagation of religious rubbish in state schools at the state's expense (in direct violation of the Constitution, I should add).
Yes to teaching people about religion.
Yes to allowing parents to indoctrinate their children, or allowing parents to allow other people to do it, if that's what the parents feel is in the best interests of their kids. At their own expense and in their own time.

Can you understand this?