Quinn: Schools spend too much time on religion and Irish

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

He's a reasonable person with Christian beliefs. No need for that.

Yes, and I believe a maniac.

MadsL wrote: »

You are getting obsessed with this 'timescale'.

Am I?

MadsL wrote: »

A study of the worlds religions is relevant either for a study of history or for current affairs. I never said anything one way or another about a current affairs class.

"be included in the study of Current Affairs" - I honestly can't follow what you're on about at this stage.

MadsL wrote: »

If you truly believe that you clearly were not paying attention in JC History. The Catholic/Protestant divide is a huge part of the history of Ireland.

No I did pay attention, you obviously didn't pay attention where I said history class is the place for it.

MadsL wrote: »

Demonstrated? In a beaker?

Again, am I typing in Russian or something?

MadsL wrote: »

You see, part of the reason I think RE should be taught in schools is to counteract this childish mocking. I have no issues with you being and atheist, and profess no faith myself. But your silliness is, frankly, immature.

yawn, more deflection.

MadsL wrote: »

I think you just made an argument not to teach History. Tell me more.

Strawman.

MadsL wrote: »

Learning about things man made up. Let's see that rules out teaching about Soviet Communism, Slavery and the Civil War and The Civil Rights Movement.
I guess we should only teach "empirical truths' to our kids and see how they get on in the real world, where y'know, people are always, always entirely rational.

History of events =/= things made up by man i.e. fairytales. More strawmen.

MadsL wrote: »

Do I have to spell that out?

Pointing out where you contradicted yourself.

MadsL wrote: »

Oh please, now you are just trying to find something to have someone offended by. We don't teach the whole of History, the content of cirrucula is always someone's decision.

Oh I'm not offended, it'll be the scientologists who you will leave out of your curriculum who will be, and leaving a poor defenseless child into the world without a notion of his thetan levels.

MadsL wrote: »

You are offended? I'm amazed.
Scientology is a business, it is founded by a science-fiction writer with a clear plan to make money from a self-help scheme. He calls it 'science' - perhaps you would like to include it in your science classes? Save giving offence to scientists, like.

Same as other religions bladdy blah, I'll leave you to argue that with a scientologist and see how they react.

MadsL wrote: »

So you are not disputing that no-one is forced to attend Catholic schools, and that people do in fact attend Mass.

Again, are you arguing with yourself?

MadsL wrote: »

From your contributions to this thread so far, and mocking tone, that is quite clear. Yet you want to impose that view on every schoolchild, what is it that you are afraid will happen if they study the major world religions?

I'm afraid of them wasting their time, see the OP.:)

MadsL wrote: »

They are. It is called Social, Personal and Health Education and on the syllabus.

Excellent, spend more time on it.

MadsL wrote: »

You are quite dismissive of Knowledge, aren't you. More of "my opinions are my opinions" type of guy, "don't try and confuse me with facts" is it?.

Dismissive of bullsh*t yes.

MadsL wrote: »

Shakespeare for instance, sure where is the modern relevance in that :rolleyes:

Well there is many arguments to remove it from the curriculum.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080818090236AAkSNOz

http://www.debate.org/debates/should-shakespeare-be-taught-in-school/1/

"All art is quite useless" - Oscar Wilde.

MadsL

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Let's not mock shall we? - no-one on this thread was arguing for "mastering the miracles of Jesus". I happen to agree with you on the importance of "maths, science, and foreign languages" but also understand that an understanding of how the world works in terms of the major faiths is bloody useful for anyone whose career or travel puts them in contact with people of different backgrounds. Increasingly that is all of us.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

Let's not mock shall we? - no-one on this thread was arguing for "mastering the miracles of Jesus". I happen to agree with you on the importance of "maths, science, and foreign languages" but also understand that an understanding of how the world works in terms of the major faiths is bloody useful for anyone whose career or travel puts them in contact with people of different backgrounds. Increasingly that is all of us.

Yes, we get that, how is it gonna manifest itself is the question in any purposeful way that would benefit over time spent on universally applicable subjects?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes, and I believe a maniac.

Nice demonstration of humanist tolerance. :rolleyes:

No I did pay attention, you obviously didn't pay attention where I said history class is the place for it.

Historians are experts on religions now, well well.

yawn, more deflection.

Not really, you seem to have given yourself the right to mock other peoples beliefs. Feel free to argue with them, no issue there, but all this "sky wizard" stuff is frankly silliness. It is as mature as entering a politics debate at the "nah-nah-na-nah" level.

Strawman.

History of events =/= things made up by man i.e. fairytales. More strawmen.

You asked for nothing to be taught that was made up and spread as truth by man. That would include Communism, Slavery and Racial Segregation.
You see where your confusion about "teaching something" leads you, you still seem to feel that RE is the practice of religion, it isn't anymore than teaching about Stalin is the practice of Communism.

Pointing out where you contradicted yourself.

I fail to see the contradiction. You on the other hand seem to be arguing that a study of religion has a place in history, but not in the present. That seems very contradictory to me.

Oh I'm not offended, it'll be the scientologists who you will leave out of your curriculum who will be, and leaving a poor defenseless child into the world without a notion of his thetan levels.

Same as other religions bladdy blah, I'll leave you to argue that with a scientologist and see how they react.

Let's try this. Strawman. (Am I doing it right?)

Again, are you arguing with yourself?

Forced into arguing with myself - it is what happens when you make an assertion about the Church's position being based on forcing religion in schools and I point out that people freely and of their own will attend Mass and that no-one is forced to do either RE or attend a Catholic School in Ireland.
You didn't like that response and have been dancing around it ever since.

I'm afraid of them wasting their time, see the OP.:)

What else would you remove from the currulum?

Excellent, spend more time on it.

Care to say how much?

Dismissive of bullsh*t yes.

Dismissive of the dating, historically, of the Old and New Testaments, the Vedic texts and the Qu'ran physical texts? You consider those historical facts and the physical existence of those texts to be "bullsh*t". You are quite the scholar aren't you?

Well there is many arguments to remove it from the curriculum.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080818090236AAkSNOz

http://www.debate.org/debates/should-shakespeare-be-taught-in-school/1/

"All art is quite useless" - Oscar Wilde.

"Ush1 doesn't get irony" - MadsL

MadsL

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Religious Education is not the cause of that though, whilst I agree the relative weight is off, I do not believe you can solely lay the blame on studying RE. The actually amount of time spent in school altogether is absurd. 184 days a year is very low - http://norberthaupt.com/2012/04/20/school-days-around-the-world/

Religious education in Irish schools, particularly at primary level, does not focus on "an understanding of how the world works in terms of the major faiths." It centers on preparing children to receive Catholic sacraments, with a strong emphasis on Catholic catechism.

Only in sacrament years. And that is optional for parents.
The curriculum has improved and whilst the JC is far too weighted on the Judeo-Christian side of things, it is improving.

As I have said before, is there stomach for more taxes to take the Church out of schools? If not, then the school is entitled to it's ethos. Mass (no pun intended) withdrawals from Confirmation prep classes would soon end them, yet this doesn't happen.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes, we get that, how is it gonna manifest itself is the question in any purposeful way that would benefit over time spent on universally applicable subjects?

Study of what millions and millions of people believe and practice on a daily basis is "universally applicable" - even you have a 'belief system'.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

You asked for nothing to be taught that was made up and spread as truth by man. That would include Communism, Slavery and Racial Segregation.
You see where your confusion about "teaching something" leads you, you still seem to feel that RE is the practice of religion, it isn't anymore than teaching about Stalin is the practice of Communism.

When I said made up by man, I mean anything the imagination can conjure, i.e. religion, supernatural, ghosts, etc... you don't see the difference between those and the things you listed?

MadsL wrote: »

I fail to see the contradiction. You on the other hand seem to be arguing that a study of religion has a place in history, but not in the present. That seems very contradictory to me.

Okay I'll point out your contradiction. You said what if someone asked why is there a conflict if they're both Christian. You then went on to dismiss Mormonism and said sure that's just a sect of Chrisitanity, ah sure we can't cover them all we've no time!

MadsL wrote: »

Let's try this. Strawman. (Am I doing it right?)

No you definitely aren't.

MadsL wrote: »

Forced into arguing with myself - it is what happens when you make an assertion about the Church's position being based on forcing religion in schools and I point out that people freely and of their own will attend Mass and that no-one is forced to do either RE or attend a Catholic School in Ireland.
You didn't like that response and have been dancing around it ever since.

"No-one was forced to attend a Catholic school, alternative schools have always been available - just not in a convenient manner"

Hoist by your own petard is the phrase, I really like your responses actually.

MadsL wrote: »

What else would you remove from the currulum?

Religion is the obvious candidate. I'd have to check how much of what is covered as it's bound to have changed quite a bit since I was in school. glad you're taking an interest though.

MadsL wrote: »

Care to say how much?

Oh, like, loads. I mean, like, literally millions of time.

MadsL wrote: »

Dismissive of the dating, historically, of the Old and New Testaments, the Vedic texts and the Qu'ran physical texts? You consider those historical facts and the physical existence of those texts to be "bullsh*t". You are quite the scholar aren't you?

Dismissive of bull**** not relevant to the argument.

MadsL wrote: »

"Ush1 doesn't get irony" - MadsL

Ooooo, you didn't like that response did you.:rolleyes:

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

Study of what millions and millions of people believe and practice on a daily basis is "universally applicable" - even you have a 'belief system'.

Not when it's twoddle no.

Tusky

This is hardly surprising -- Irish primary schools spend 10 percent of classroom time on religion, but only 4 percent on science.

That is absolutely criminal. Get rid of Irish in place of Spanish, German or French, and totally abolish religion to beef up Science.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

When I said made up by man, I mean anything the imagination can conjure, i.e. religion, supernatural, ghosts, etc... you don't see the difference between those and the things you listed?

Explain the difference between the Stalags of Stalinist Communism and the Spanish Inquisition? Did it the 'belief system' involved make a difference?

Okay I'll point out your contradiction. You said what if someone asked why is there a conflict if they're both Christian. You then went on to dismiss Mormonism and said sure that's just a sect of Chrisitanity, ah sure we can't cover them all we've no time!

I didn't 'dismiss' anything. Here's a map of the major sects and schools of Islam - would you expect all of these covered in an RE class?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Islam_branches_and_schools.svg

There are 14 million Mormons, and 230 million Orthodox Christians, most RE classes would not cover Orthodoxy in much detail if at all.

My point was not about teaching every aspect of Christianity, it was about the fact that you utterly dismissed the religious aspect of the Troubles. Now we can argue about it's relevance and importance - but you wanted to completely airbrush it out of the picture.

No you definitely aren't.

Ah, I see I am doing it right then.

As for Scientology "`If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be to start his own religion." L. Ron Hubbard seals the deal for me.

We can argue about Scientology, but for the purposes for which you brought it up very much a strawman.

"No-one was forced to attend a Catholic school, alternative schools have always been available - just not in a convenient manner"

Hoist by your own petard is the phrase, I really like your responses actually.

Nope. I'm merely being truthful. Being a dissenter isn't easy, the American Pilgrims had to sail to the New World to practice religion as they saw fit. The fact that it was hard to avoid the Catholic Church's influence in school does mean that it was impossible. Even today the vast majority of parents want children prepped for communion and confirmation. Is there a legal right to withdraw, yes there is. You claiming that all the power of the church is vested in the fact that they are involved with education against people's will is utter nonsense.

Religion is the obvious candidate. I'd have to check how much of what is covered as it's bound to have changed quite a bit since I was in school. glad you're taking an interest though.

I'd say Religious Instruction is the obvious candidate, but you seem to struggle with understanding the definitions of "religion" "religious instruction" and "religious studies" - can I help you further with that. If not, could you stop using them interchangeably as they clearly are not, and never have been the same thing.

Oh, like, loads. I mean, like, literally millions of time.

Oh I'm sorry, you thought I was asking a silly question? I wasn't. If this is so important how much time should be spent on it, in your opinion?

Dismissive of bull**** not relevant to the argument.

I believe you started the "Bronze Age" aspect of the argument. Funny how it is not relevant when your "Bronze Age" is shown to include the 7th Century AD (CE). Me pointing out your gross misconceptions is apparently bull**** is it?

Ooooo, you didn't like that response did you.:rolleyes:

I'd argue Shakespeare has relevance, you posted a bunch of links. Tell me. The Bard, in or out?

philologos

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I find this "the Church" concept rather bizarre still. In Ireland there is 5% of the population who are Christians but not Roman Catholics. Many of these people choose to bring their children to non-RC faith schools.

I think that there should be faith schools, but that there should be more secular schools in Ireland.

lazygal

http://education.dublindiocese.ie/2012/02/21/alive-o/

For anyone who's interested, here's a link to a breakdown of what Catholic primary schools in Ireland are teaching children.


Feel free to decide whether its a waste of time and resources or a necessary part of education.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Not when it's twoddle no.

Your belief system is twoddle?

Again you are again utterly incapable of understanding that the study of a thing is not the practice of a thing.

The logical extension of that is that studying Anthropology is the art of making people believe in tribal superstitions.

Please do try and figure this out, I see no point in continuing whilst you are making such a simple error.

MadsL

lazygal wrote: »

http://education.dublindiocese.ie/2012/02/21/alive-o/

For anyone who's interested, here's a link to a breakdown of what Catholic primary schools in Ireland are teaching children.

Feel free to decide whether its a waste of time and resources or a necessary part of education.

It is also optional. Every parent has the right to withdraw their child from Religious Instruction.

Can we stop mixing up this with Religious Studies please.

lazygal

MadsL wrote: »

It is also optional. Every parent has the right to withdraw their child from Religious Instruction.

Can we stop mixing up this with Religious Studies please.

What do you do with a five year old who's not Catholic when there's a prayer before lunch? Parents might have the right to withdraw children, but why should they have to? Do you just put children outside the classroom door, making them separate, but equal?

Im_That_Girl

I agree completely with this. I think we should stop teaching religion & Irish in schools. I think its the responsibility of the parents to teach their children about their religion, not the schools. And Irish has been dying a slow painful death for decades - it's about time we stopped trying to revive it and just let it die for good. I don't know about any of you, but I haven't uttered a word of Irish since I left secondary school 12 years ago. Learning it in school was a lot of effort for nothing!

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

Explain the difference between the Stalags of Stalinist Communism and the Spanish Inquisition? Did it the 'belief system' involved make a difference?

Going round in circles I see. History =/= religion, I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.

MadsL wrote: »

I didn't 'dismiss' anything. Here's a map of the major sects and schools of Islam - would you expect all of these covered in an RE class?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Islam_branches_and_schools.svg

There are 14 million Mormons, and 230 million Orthodox Christians, most RE classes would not cover Orthodoxy in much detail if at all.

No I wouldn't expect them to be covered, what's your point? Are you arguing with yourself again? I'm arguing against having religions taught.

MadsL wrote: »

My point was not about teaching every aspect of Christianity, it was about the fact that you utterly dismissed the religious aspect of the Troubles. Now we can argue about it's relevance and importance - but you wanted to completely airbrush it out of the picture.

The good oul strawmen. I said the religious element has very little to do with it today. Yet again, explaining it briefly in history class would be fine.

MadsL wrote: »

Ah, I see I am doing it right then.

Nope, still no.

MadsL wrote: »

As for Scientology "`If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be to start his own religion." L. Ron Hubbard seals the deal for me.

We can argue about Scientology, but for the purposes for which you brought it up very much a strawman.

So MadsL will decide on what is a religion and what isn't? Interesting....Whack of discrimination off you.

MadsL wrote: »

Nope. I'm merely being truthful. Being a dissenter isn't easy, the American Pilgrims had to sail to the New World to practice religion as they saw fit. The fact that it was hard to avoid the Catholic Church's influence in school does mean that it was impossible. Even today the vast majority of parents want children prepped for communion and confirmation. Is there a legal right to withdraw, yes there is. You claiming that all the power of the church is vested in the fact that they are involved with education against people's will is utter nonsense.

Strawman yet again. The catholic church ran most schools in the country which is a huge part of where it's power and effects in law are still felt today. You're willfully ignorant if anything.

MadsL wrote: »

I'd say Religious Instruction is the obvious candidate, but you seem to struggle with understanding the definitions of "religion" "religious instruction" and "religious studies" - can I help you further with that. If not, could you stop using them interchangeably as they clearly are not, and never have been the same thing.

No struggle here, the struggle is in your mind. I'm sorry you didn't like the answer though.

MadsL wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry, you thought I was asking a silly question? I wasn't. If this is so important how much time should be spent on it, in your opinion?

You're asking many silly questions and hey, I'm answering.

MadsL wrote: »

I believe you started the "Bronze Age" aspect of the argument. Funny how it is not relevant when your "Bronze Age" is shown to include the 7th Century AD (CE). Me pointing out your gross misconceptions is apparently bull**** is it?

When it's largely irrelevant to the central point yes, it's pointless misdirection.

MadsL wrote: »

I'd argue Shakespeare has relevance, you posted a bunch of links. Tell me. The Bard, in or out?

I'd have to check up on the amount of time spent on it. You think the curriculum is perfect though yeah?

Relevance eh? So do you think more time should be spent on it or less time or it's just right?

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

Your belief system is twoddle?

Again you are again utterly incapable of understanding that the study of a thing is not the practice of a thing.

The logical extension of that is that studying Anthropology is the art of making people believe in tribal superstitions.

Please do try and figure this out, I see no point in continuing whilst you are making such a simple error.

What's my belief "system" exactly?

No I do understand the difference of practicing twaddle and studying of it. I don't see any point in continuing either as I don't understand the Russian you speak.

MadsL

lazygal wrote: »

What do you do with a five year old who's not Catholic when there's a prayer before lunch?

Teach them that some people have beliefs, and that is their right. Being polite means you are respectful and quiet when other people do their religious rituals. Tell them they don't have to feel they should have to join in, just stand quietly.

Parents might have the right to withdraw children, but why should they have to?

Because the church pays for the school and there is no truly National primary system. There are private and non-denominational schools available if you feel strongly. You could also lobby your TD to remove the Church's control over primary education.

Do you just put children outside the classroom door, making them separate, but equal?

My daughter just sat and quietly did her homework, no big issue from anyone. In fact, most kids were jealous of her.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

Because the church pays for the school and there is no truly National primary system. There are private and non-denominational schools available if you feel strongly. You could also lobby your TD to remove the Church's control over primary education.

But you said it was quite straight forward to get alternative schools? Interesting the grip the church actually has on schools then isn't it? I wonder in the 50s could you ask that your child be left out of RE class?

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

What's my belief "system" exactly?

Your absolute conviction in the fact (as you see) it that there is no God, Gods, Supreme Being, or Higher Power or "sky wizard" and your mocking dismissal as twaddle those who have a differing view. That is a "belief system". Not a very attractive one when it comes to the mocking bit.

A truly rational approach would be to say, for example; "to date I have found no evidence for such a being's existence. However, I would also point out that I have found no evidence to disprove such a being's existence".

No I do understand the difference of practicing twaddle and studying of it.

It's pretty simply. Here's another example (and my last, feel like I'm spelling it out far too much for such a simple concept)

Psychology is not the study of "what the radio put in my head is saying" which is plainly twaddle but rather the effect on human behaviour when such a thing is believed.

I don't see any point in continuing either as I don't understand the Russian you speak.

Это не гребаный ракетостроение

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

But you said it was quite straight forward to get alternative schools? Interesting the grip the church actually has on schools then isn't it? I wonder in the 50s could you ask that your child be left out of RE class?

I never said it was straightforward. In fact you just quoted me saying "just not in a convenient manner". Have you a goldfish memory?

We are not talking about the 50s, although an early test case in the separation of the US Church and State was taken in 1948.

If you want to randomly pick a date, how about how easy was it to abstain from Religious Instruction in 1852? or 1415 or whatever. Lets try this again *cough* Strawman! (Am I doing it right now?)

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

Your absolute conviction in the fact (as you see) it that there is no God, Gods, Supreme Being, or Higher Power or "sky wizard" and your mocking dismissal as twaddle those who have a differing view. That is a "belief system". Not a very attractive one when it comes to the mocking bit.

Only in a world where religion truly dominates would a single belief not in religion, be defined as a belief system. It's a not so clever pidgeon hole tactic that you often come across.

How exactly does one belief, or indeed lack of belief, encompass a belief "system" exactly?

MadsL wrote: »

A truly rational approach would be to say, for example; "to date I have found no evidence for such a being's existence. However, I would also point out that I have found no evidence to disprove such a being's existence".

Wow, you've blown my mind with this interesting and original stuff.

MadsL wrote: »

It's pretty simply. Here's another example (and my last, feel like I'm spelling it out far too much for such a simple concept)

Psychology is not the study of "what the radio put in my head is saying" which is plainly twaddle but rather the effect on human behaviour when such a thing is believed.

Actually I think you'll find psychology is the study of both so that's an absolutely horrendous apt simile.

byhookorbycrook

There are NO non-denominational primary schools in Ireland. Multi denom/interdenom yes, but no non denoms.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

I never said it was straightforward. In fact you just quoted me saying "just not in a convenient manner". Have you a goldfish memory?

We are not talking about the 50s, although an early test case in the separation of the US Church and State was taken in 1948.

If you want to randomly pick a date, how about how easy was it to abstain from Religious Instruction in 1852? or 1415 or whatever. Lets try this again *cough* Strawman! (Am I doing it right now?)

So it would seem then that a lot of the catholic churches power today was indeed derived from the essentially being forced to send your kids to their schools? Cheers.

byhookorbycrook

Ush1 wrote: »

So it would seem then that a lot of the catholic churches power today was indeed derived from the essentially being forced to send your kids to their schools? Cheers.

The original primary school system set up in 1831 was non-denom. Religion was taught during what was lunchtime-traditionally 12.00 to 12.30 so that those not of that religion could go home at that stage.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Only in a world where religion truly dominates would a single belief not in religion, be defined as a belief system. It's a not so clever pidgeon hole tactic that you often come across.

How exactly does one belief, or indeed lack of belief, encompass a belief "system" exactly?

Let me answer that by asking you, if Religious Studies remains on the timetable, should it cover the fact that some people have no belief in God and that Atheism is a defined belief system?

Wow, you've blown my mind with this interesting and original stuff.

You know, your attitude of mocking a rebuttal of your argument doesn't mean that you win that point. Far from it.

Actually I think you'll find psychology is the study of both so that's an absolutely horrendous apt simile.

So therefore Religious Studies should cover both the practices and effects of Religion, right? If psychology is the study of the "mad" (you would say 'twaddle') then RE/RS should examine the "mad" to get to the effects on society.

LeeHoffmann

I´m a primary school teacher. The percentage of lesson time we´re supposed to dedicate to teaching religion (and by this we mean only ´our´ religion) is incredible. It´s far too much IMO. I would prefer to have much more time available for subjects like maths - Ireland is falling behind with regards to this subject, and children really need to get the basics right in primary school otherwise they´ll never catch up. I also think that we should either teach religion in a broader way - like the way the Educate Together schools do (i.e. they teach about various faith systems including humanism/atheism and explore moral and environmental issues) - or just not teach it at all. I don´t think parent´s laziness in teaching their children about their religion is a good enough reason to justify taking up such a large part of every school day with this. However, as long as the churches own the schools they will continue to influence policy. The government doesn´t have the money to buy the schools off them, so we´re stuck.