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

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?

King Mob

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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

I agree, but the schools should 1) teach religion, not just watered down Catholism and 2) adhere to international standards. Most people here aren't going to argue for a complete abolition of religious studies in school, despite what you might like to pretend so as to feign your outrage.

Not every kid wants to be a mathematician. But Maths is more important than some other subjects, and so is science.

Bloodwing

In my opinion religion does not have enough value to be taught as a stand alone subject. If I was the man in charge of the school curriculum I would dedicate an hour or two each week to the teaching of world cultures. These teaching would touch on the differences in different cultures and the historical reasons for those differences. It could include discussion on the different major religions in each of these cultures and look at the root cause for a particular culture being predominately a particular religion.

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!

The argument that some kids might want to learn religion and therefore should be allowed learn it is utter rubbish. I can guarantee that there are a lot of children in our schools who would love to spend 10% of the school year learning about how Bruce Wayne became the Batman and went on to save the people of Gotham, but we're not going to add that to the curriculum are we?

We go to school to learn facts and life skills that will get us through our later years. We don't go there to hear fairy stories presented as some sort of factual study. Time in school is limited and we need to be focusing on what will be the most beneficial to the students. An understanding of how the world around us works is a lot more important than mythology.

My primary school science studies consisted of "what have we got on the nature table this week?" Every week it was either conkers, dried up leaves or shells that Mary brought back from her trip to the beach. If we were lucky we'd get 10 mins a month on the one PC that served the entire school. Those 10 mins were spent on minesweeper.

Why didn't my teachers bring us out to the yard and drop a mentos into a bottle of diet coke or show us a pin "floating" in a basin of water or rub a balloon on our heads and show us static electricity? So what if we wouldn't have fully understood the technical explanations, it would have left us intrigued and eager to know more. Instead we got father "x" coming in telling us all about the imaginary man in the sky.

Kidchameleon

I agree with you all. Why are some of you trying to start a fight? I said everything about religion should be thought. The only point I'm disagreeing with is that it should not be given any less weight than other subjects.

books4sale

Religion shouldn't be taught in schools full stop.

If countries in Europe and America want to stay in the game then this messing needs to stop. It's a waste of resources.

In countries such as Korea, religion has no part in the education system, all resources are pumped into science, maths and english. That's not to say that other subjects are left on the shelf, they most certainly aren't.

Religion is a personal thing and shouldn't be on any school curiculum.

It really makes me so angry when I remember my own primary school days in the 80's having the fu*kin catholic faith rammed down our bloody throats by a bully of a teacher, learning off reams of absolute useless brain washing sh*te.

books4sale

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I agree with you all. Why are some of you trying to start a fight? I said everything about religion should be thought. The only point I'm disagreeing with is that it should not be given any less weight than other subjects.

No, it most certainly shouldn't.

The problem with all you religious types are that you are always playing the 'victim card', well those days are long gone.

We're going to take the fight back to you, our numbers are growing and we won't lie down.

F*ck religion!

Gbear

books4sale wrote: »

No, it most certainly shouldn't.

The problem with all you religious types are that you are always playing the 'victim card', well those days are long gone.

We're going to take the fight back to you, our numbers are growing and we won't lie down.

F*ck religion!

Like it or loathe it Religion is an incredibly important part of humanity. You'll be doing children a disservice if you don't educate them about it, even if that education is limited to explaining why large parts of religion are dangerous horse****.

Kidchameleon

books4sale wrote: »

It really makes me so angry when I remember my own primary school days in the 80's having the fu*kin catholic faith rammed down our bloody throats by a bully of a teacher, learning off reams of absolute useless brain washing sh*te.

Yes, having Catholicism specifically shoved down your throat is a load of crap. But to say that religion has no place at all I have to disagree with. It should be a general subject, much like history, with a bit of the old philosophical and humanity thrown in. But certainly not anything to do with any specific creed.

Being atheist and demanding religion NOT be on the curriculum is as bad as being Catholic and demanding religion IS on the curriculum. Even if you feel religion is a bunch of fairy tales, you have to be fair and understand that not everyone feels the same way.

Bloodwing

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I agree with you all. Why are some of you trying to start a fight? I said everything about religion should be thought. The only point I'm disagreeing with is that it should not be given any less weight than other subjects.

You clearly don't agree with us all.

Kidchameleon

books4sale wrote: »

No, it most certainly shouldn't.

The problem with all you religious types are that you are always playing the 'victim card', well those days are long gone.

We're going to take the fight back to you, our numbers are growing and we won't lie down.

F*ck religion!

^^^^ Militant atheism ^^^^

(By the way books4sale, I am not religious)


Ps. What is the harm in kids knowing about the various religions of the world?

Kidchameleon

Neilos wrote: »

You clearly don't agree with us all.

I agree with you all, except for the religion for an hour a week / not at all part.