Why is religion still a school subject?

Jacks Smirking Revenge

I apologize if this has been a thread before, but as someone currently going through secondary school, I have to get something off my chest.

I personally think its fucking ridiculous that its still being thought as a Junior/Leaving Cert subject. My insanely religious teacher didn't help last year either. With the "God is real and if you don't believe that you're going to Hell!" mentality that she had.

I wouldn't have problem with it if it wasn't compulsory in most Irish schools!

Sarky

Well, when 98% of the schools are run by the Roman Catholic Church, you're going to have problems like this. It's why a lot of people campaign against it. You should join in.

tvnutz

I teach Religion, yet I am not religious. What I actually I believe, I am not really sure. I tell the students this, I never force beliefs on them, I tell them faith is something they will choose, and that may change as they got older and it may change on their life experiences. The parents at parent teacher meetings were very positive towards this. Your teacher sounds like an idiot, I hate RE teachers like that.

I personally believe it is important to learn about something that has such a massive impact on this planet,whether that impact be positive or negative. Regardless of whether you have any interest in religion from a belief point of view, it is a subject that has absorbed people's interest from the beginning of time. It has been one of the greatest contributors to civilisation, culture, ethics, politics ,morals, art, war, literature, music, justice and injustice, humanity and inhumanity, social structure, , education, the domination and subjugation of people, the list is endless. And that is before you even start on each different religion and their belief systems.

With my Senior classes it is all very relaxed, no work piled on them,they find a lot of it interesting. Had great discussions on Abortion and Euthanasia with the recent cases. Other ethical and moral issues such as the Death Penalty, using torture, issues of war and peace, my 6th years are loving Cults I am doing at the moment. My 1st years found Islam interesting because they knew nothing about it, doing Human Nature with 2nd years, Lord of the Flies discussion etc.

I don't practice, I have many problems with the Church and organised Religion, yet many teens have questions, some have suffered loss and seek to explain it, etc etc, so many things going through a teen's mind, they way I teach it and how I think it should be taught, I think it is important. As for saying i takes up classes for other subjects, many students would actually say it is a good class to take a break from the stresses of an exam year and that they enjoy discussing these different topics. I can see exactly where you are coming from, but I disagree. This is also coming from the guy who's main subject is History and I much prefer it, teaching RE can be a handful, but I think it has its importance.

Sarky

Sounds like you've been treading a dangerous path tvnutz. Does the school board have a priest on it? Does he know you're letting kids think for themselves? I hope not. It sounds like you're doing a fair job at making religion interesting instead of the indoctrination the church tends to like. In my day, RE teachers like that just didn't exist.

Chemical Burn

tylercheribini

Having Catholicism rammed down my throat through the education system during my formative years has made me hate it more than ever. This all to the backdrop of what seemed like weekly to monthly church abuse scandals in the media. The attempted brainwashing failed as it did with the vast majority of my friends of the same schools who are intelligent, free thinking people. I agree, it is a complete waste of school time and resources, which im sure could be put to better use as we see our school literary and maths skills standards in general dropping.

I didn't have religion in secondary, thankfully

tylercheribini

i went to a christian brothers school so it was ramped up a notch then.triple religion some years and detention for anyone who skipped class mass

jobeenfitz

They should provide religious books in schools for anyone who is interested, during free classes or in their own time. These books should be kept in the fiction section.

Chemical Burn

tylercheribini wrote: »

i went to a christian brothers school so it was ramped up a notch then.triple religion some years and detention for anyone who skipped class mass

We did 1 hour of religion per day in Primary school and NO science .. EVER.

We had 3 hours of religion in secondary school and 5 hours of science and 5 hours of maths ... shows you the priorities

Fattes

Because we live in a backward banana republic that requires old age pensioners to vote so nobody touches the religious issues. Instead of teaching our children languages and science, we teach them fairytales.

tvnutz

Sarky wrote: »

Sounds like you've been treading a dangerous path tvnutz. Does the school board have a priest on it? Does he know you're letting kids think for themselves? I hope not. It sounds like you're doing a fair job at making religion interesting instead of the indoctrination the church tends to like. In my day, RE teachers like that just didn't exist.

Ye the board has a priest I believe, but its a community school, so its not overly religious. I hated it when I was in school, Catholic dogma shoved down your throat, I wouldn't teach it if it was the same way it used to be. The curriculum has its faults but it has changed since I was in school to cover a lot more broader topics, world religions, morality and ethics, science and religion, atheism,agnosticism,humanism etc. It is still very Christian leaning but since it is non-exam in my school I can play around it with a lot. Like with 3rd years I do more citizenship style topics,like in the UK, such as Child labour, child soldiers, genocide etc, which I can tie into the morality section.

TheOldHand

When I think of all the hours of schooling I had and then all the hours spent in religion class. Insane. I left school never once being thought how a mortgage works. It didn't matter to me but I can think of a few hundred thousand of people that it might have helped.

wolfpawnat

Surely religion should be taught like every other subject?

An elective one of course and the students could learn all major world religions on an equal level. The beliefs and customs associated with each ones. Islam, Christianity (it's sub categories), Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. I would have loved to have learnt it like this in school. Faith means a lot to so many people, (not me personally, but to others it does) and since so many kids in schools these days are of so varied backgrounds, I would think education would for the most part breed greater understanding, as opposed to ignorance.

eviltwin

Religion could be covered under the SPHE course freeing more time for the important subjects or more practical things like money management or PE

darjeeling

Teach the controversy! :pac:

But seriously, religion is very important in human history and culture, so I'm all in favour of teaching children about religion. I'm not in favour of telling them that any one religion is true, at least not in a state-funded education system.

My own RE experiences were pretty woeful. We learned lots of superficial trivia about the foods, clothing and architecture of all the world religions, but not very much about the ideas or history. Lacking interest, I dropped the subject at 15, along - I'm almost certain - with everyone else in the school.

Over the years since then I've spent quite a bit of time learning about religions, and have thought from time to time how much better it could have been taught.

Bannasidhe

One of the topics I lecture on to 3rd level students is the Reformation and pretty quickly it became obvious that in order for me to be able to discuss Luther's 95 Theses and what exactly he was objecting to and why this was so bloody important- without going into the theology just a simple Luther said 'this, this and this' while Rome said 'that, that and that' - I would first have to explain to the Catholics things like Transubstantiation, Indulgences, etc etc.
All those years of 'religious education' and they don't understand the basic tenets of their professed religion -never mind anyone else's- so lack the wherewithal to understand what sparked this incredibly important turning point in history.

I do think religion should be taught in schools but at no point should anyone be told that a specific religious belief is the correct one, or that having a religious belief is even required. As others have said, people should be educated about the tenets of the different religions and allowed to make up their own minds.

It would also be most excellent if people were educated about our political system so I don't have to keep explaining it every bloody time there is an election or a referendum...:(

tylercheribini

when i was in secondary school we had our history teacher telling us how the vatican state came about through a deal with the devil(mussolini) and then our religion "teacher" saying it simply wasnt true haha

Kinski

tylercheribini wrote: »

when i was in secondary school we had our history teacher telling us how the vatican state came about through a deal with the devil(mussolini) and then our religion "teacher" saying it simply wasnt true haha

Why else would the pope wear that "I made a deal with the devil and all I got was this stupid city-state" t-shirt?

Eramen

I think people aren't looking at this through the right lens.

The whole public school system is a failure when looking at it from a stand-point of educating the populace, whether in humanities, science, language, practical exercises and personal self-betterment.

It certainly doesn't encourage life-long learning. It chronically turns out people who can barely read, who can't understand, form and express ideas, initiate creative enterprise, keep themselves physically healthy or carry out basic arithmetic.

90% of your public education is forgotten by the time you're 25, if not before, because it's worthless. Education is meant to prepare you for life, initiate you into a culture, bring you to a state of enlightenment where you can associate with other people on many levels, not just socially.

It's time for this state-sponsored intellectual crisis to be scraped. It matters little if religion is left in or taken out, the core program of the way children and adults are instructed remains the same, as does the lack of teaching credentials by a percentage of tutors -> which are the problems.

In most other continents of the world private education especially, or home-schooling is the norm. It's cheap, convenient and successful at its primary aims in most terms. Students and schools can come to agreement about educational goals and outlines, about which direction they want to take, and this is its beauty. For ex. if you are bad at maths, you need only do the basic math curriculum, and this frees time/effort so that you can focus much more of your energy into subjects that you really know will be helpful to you in your life ambitions - and get rewarded for this. It reduces waste. It's an innovation powered mode of teaching where parents, teachers and students are in control, not the government.

Yet here we are arguing about religion being taught in schools without a care for the methodology, approach or purpose of the education our kids receive in all modules and subjects. If we try to understand the situation by 'problem identification' we have failed utterly. Most people here have given political statements of why a subject should not be taught in school with regard for educational analysis.

Taking religion out or leaving it in will not correct the fundamental problem, will not change the result.. welcome to AA.

Nodin

Eramen wrote: »

........

In most other continents of the world private education especially, or home-schooling is the norm........

Examples, please.

yohan the great

TheOldHand wrote: »

When I think of all the hours of schooling I had and then all the hours spent in religion class. Insane. I left school never once being thought how a mortgage works. It didn't matter to me but I can think of a few hundred thousand of people that it might have helped.

If you did business you would know what a mortgage is

Vito Corleone

The following is a list of what we did in our religion class. (two 35 minute classes per week)

-Got information sheets about contraceptives and sexual heath etc..
-Talked about if there was a God or not
-Talked about suicide/depression
-Talked about sexuality
-Talked about bullying
-Learned about different cults
-Discussed abortion
-Watched movies
-Organised the school grad
-Did nothing
-Skipped class and went to the pub or study hall

As you can see it wasn't really a religion class, and was actually quite beneficial in some ways and a nice break from proper work. I don't know what the set up is in other schools but I really think that the class should be focused on talking about depression, sex, abortion and other issues that affect young people. The class should also be renamed something more appropriate.

darjeeling

Eramen wrote: »

I think people aren't looking at this through the right lens.

The whole public school system is a failure when looking at it from a stand-point of educating the populace, whether in humanities, science, language, practical exercises and personal self-betterment. [...]

The thread is about whether studying religion has any place in education. I think that's an interesting question, particularly for people who are non-religious or secularly-minded. Your post raises questions about quality of education in relation to choice and flexibility in the school system and curriculum. I see this as a separate issue, and not one where religious belief has any special relevance.

zenno

Jacks smirking revenge I personally think its fucking ridiculous that its still being thought as a Junior/Leaving Cert subject.

Now that's interesting as I thought religion was removed and gone a long time ago from these Cert subjects. It's amazing that the church still has it's devilish hands on education to such extent.

Seriously, what will religion teach anyone...(nothing in this world) You either believe or you don't. Remove it and put a better subject in there to enhance the brain and rewards other than mind-molding a pupils brain into a draconian belief system.

kylith

How long has it been an exam subject? There wasn't a sniff of that when I did my leaving 12 years ago. Even if it had I'd probably just have either written 'Cult' all over the sheet, or Jimmy Carr's "literally never happened".

tylercheribini

Vito Corleone wrote: »

The following is a list of what we did in our religion class. (two 35 minute classes per week)

-Got information sheets about contraceptives and sexual heath etc..
-Talked about if there was a God or not
-Talked about suicide/depression
-Talked about sexuality
-Talked about bullying
-Learned about different cults
-Discussed abortion
-Watched movies
-Organised the school grad
-Did nothing
-Skipped class and went to the pub or study hall

As you can see it wasn't really a religion class, and was actually quite beneficial in some ways and a nice break from proper work. I don't know what the set up is in other schools but I really think that the class should be focused on talking about depression, sex, abortion and other issues that affect young people. The class should also be renamed something more appropriate.

sounds interesting alright. our teacher/class could not have been more dogmatic. straight from the old school except he wasnt even that old,only in his late 40's.was sad really to see someone that brainwashed.nothing could be questioned in his class and everything in the bible was fact. of course this left him open to be wound up to the last by various class members. I have to say I have not laughed as hard before or since that much whilst in that class.pure comedy gold

Eramen

darjeeling wrote: »

The thread is about whether studying religion has any place in education...

If we understand what 'education' means, then yes, we know it must in educational and human terms have a place in most school systems.


Your average political 'atheist' has used this thread to unload their baggage at the door of education, without little understanding of why they are doing this, and this is why this thread fails.

JRant

It should most definitely be scrapped from the curriculum. If schools want to teach it let them but in no way should the state be setting exams and legitimizing it.

Those hours of school time would be much better spent teaching ethics and critical thinking to students.

zenno

Eramen wrote: »

If we understand what 'education' means, then yes, we know it must in educational and human terms have a place in most school systems.


Your average political 'atheist' has used this thread to unload their baggage at the door of education, without little understanding of why they are doing this, and this is why this thread fails.

The thread doesn't fail...it is simply a valid question with regards to real life learning prospects than the oldness of fairy tales, hence, religion/dogma being forced onto pupils.

Education is important obviously, but religion as an exam/test is plain forced brain-washing and should have no place in any Irish educational system. It's time to move forward and leave the old outdated lies and dogma behind.

Nodin

Eramen wrote: »

If we understand what 'education' means, then yes, we know it must in educational and human terms have a place in most school systems.


Your average political 'atheist' has used this thread to unload their baggage at the door of education, without little understanding of why they are doing this, and this is why this thread fails.

You might get back to me re
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83579552&postcount=21

swampgas

Eramen wrote: »

Your average political 'atheist' has used this thread to unload their baggage at the door of education, without little understanding of why they are doing this, and this is why this thread fails.

* snorts coffee through nose *

Wow - so much condescension in one sentence! I guess a poor old average political atheist like me is lucky that you - no doubt an exceptional, far from average and far too cool for politics genius - have decided to stop by and share your brilliant insights with us.

I'm all ears, pray continue :pac:

Eramen

swampgas wrote: »

* snorts coffee through nose *

Wow - so much condescension in one sentence! I guess a poor old average political atheist like me is lucky that you - no doubt an exceptional, far from average and far too cool for politics genius - have decided to stop by and share your brilliant insights with us.

I'm all ears, pray continue :pac:

What I mean is your average atheist who has politicized modern atheism, and who participates in it as part of a cultural movement and thinks it should promote specific political tenets as a movement. I should've been more clear.

Today, most atheists cannot simply practice politics from a point of view of their non-theism [notice I didn't say anti-theism] (and all the other things which they may identify with besides atheism).

Instead they are manipulated, and atheism as a whole is manipulated, by egalitarian-progressives, feminists, globalist think-tanks etc who use atheism to fight their battles, not the individual atheist's battles, to correct so-called 'inequalities' and 'injustices' which these think-tanks and lobbyists see as their interests and as vital for their own causes.

Yet these things are not atheism's cause. Atheism is non-theism, and this only. Atheism is a personal opinion. Atheism is not fighting for every 'poor ol' sods' rights or entitlements that they feel that they should be entitled to.

Yet atheists do think it's part of atheism.. This is the problem. Mr Dawkins and especially Hitchens spoke about their own political views and sought to portray them as 'atheists views' in Q&A's and interviews. But atheists don't seem to realise this. When Hitchens says in interviews that everyone should have equal rights and religion imposed a hierarchy prevented this for example, this is not atheism's view, it's Mr. Hitchen's view. "Religion the fairy-tale" - another opinion, and yet atheists parrot without thinking, is religion more than this? Is the statement correct? It doesn't mean you should accept it without intellectual discrimination.

Just because Dawkins is an egalitarian-progressive saying that he would promote the rights of every 'minority' doesn't make atheism of the same nature. And before somebody says 'But we know that' - no atheists do not now this - because they promote social-egalitarianism as if it where atheism. See the AA forum, look at what they think of themselves and what is means to be atheist.. enough said. They are used by every other lobby in the book except observing that atheism as just a personal choice and conviction.

Yet most atheists lap this drivel up and take it as what they should believe. I've only ever met two atheists that where an exception to this rule. The rest believe what popular celebrity-type atheists speak about from their opinion, without realizing it is an opinion, mistakenly taking it for atheist values themselves..

Remember, this is just an example, and the tip of the iceberg.

Atheist's have become unthinking sheeple. I and my close friends will never refer to ourselves as an atheists. Atheism [tm] is as bad as the thing is says it fights against.

swampgas

Eramen wrote: »

What I mean is your average atheist who has politicized modern atheism, and who participates in it as part of a cultural movement and thinks it should promote specific political tenets as a movement. I should've been more clear.

I'm not sure what an "average atheist" is supposed to be. I don't really think it makes sense to lump all atheists together like that.

Today, most atheists cannot simply practice politics from a point of view of their non-theism [notice I didn't say anti-theism] (and all the other things which they may identify with besides atheism).

That's a helluva claim.

Instead they are manipulated, and atheism as a whole is manipulated, by egalitarian-progressives, feminists, globalist think-tanks etc who use atheism to fight their battles, not the individual atheist's battles, to correct so-called 'inequalities' and 'injustices' which these think-tanks and lobbyists see as their interests and as vital for their own causes.

That smells of conspiracy theory to me. Can you back any of this up with facts?

Yet these things are not atheism's cause. Atheism is non-theism, and this only. Atheism is a personal opinion. Atheism is not fighting for every 'poor ol' sods' rights or entitlements that they feel that they should be entitled to.

Atheism, IMO, is not a cause. However many political issues have religious components, so it is not unreasonable for atheists engaged with such issues to point out where religion may be part of the problem.

Yet atheists do think it's part of atheism.. This is the problem. Mr Dawkins and especially Hitchens spoke about their own political views and sought to portray them as 'atheists views' in Q&A's and interviews. But atheists don't seem to realise this. When Hitchens says in interviews that everyone should have equal rights and religion imposed a hierarchy prevented this for example, this is not atheism's view, it's Mr. Hitchen's view. "Religion the fairy-tale" - another opinion, and yet atheists parrot without thinking, is religion more than this? Is the statement correct? It doesn't mean you should accept it without intellectual discrimination.

I think most atheists are quite capable of thinking for themselves, in my own experience anyway. I may agree with Hitchens and Dawkins on some issues, I disagree on others. What gives you the impression we are all part of some hive-mind, slavishly aping Hitchens and Dawkins?

Just because Dawkins is an egalitarian-progressive saying that he would promote the rights of every 'minority' doesn't make atheism of the same nature. And before somebody says 'But we know that' - no atheists do not now this - because they promote social-egalitarianism as if it where atheism. See the AA forum, look at what they think of themselves and what is means to be atheist.. enough said. They are used by every other lobby in the book except observing that atheism as just a personal choice and conviction.

Yet most atheists lap this drivel up and take it as what they should believe. I've only ever met two atheists that where an exception to this rule. The rest believe what popular celebrity-type atheists speak about from their opinion, without realizing it is an opinion, mistakenly taking it for atheist values themselves..

Remember, this is just an example, and the tip of the iceberg.

Atheist's have become unthinking sheeple.

I can't be bothered answering that pile of nonsense.

I and my close friends will never refer to ourselves as an atheists. Atheism [tm] is as bad as the thing is says it fights against.

Maybe you and your close friends need to realise that "atheist" simply means someone with a lack of belief in god?

Readyhed

Fattes wrote: »

Because we live in a backward banana republic that requires old age pensioners to vote so nobody touches the religious issues. Instead of teaching our children languages and science, we teach them fairytales.

A rather AGEIST comment.

Religion has been around for thousands of years and so has athieism.

I wonder if there is any evidence to support the notion that a higher proportion of OAPs subcribe to superstitious beliefs than younger folk?

zenno

Readyhed wrote: »

A rather AGEIST comment.

Religion has been around for thousands of years and so has athieism.

I wonder if there is any evidence to support the notion that a higher proportion of OAPs subcribe to superstitious beliefs than younger folk?

The difference with this hypotheses is the fact that religious people try to externally input their frequency beliefs to other people but in relation to atheists they don't force their non belief to others and just like to be left alone in their thinking.

Nodin

Eramen wrote: »

What I mean is your average atheist who has politicized modern atheism, and who ...........against.

You seem to have missed this question.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83579552&postcount=21
I'd appreciate a reply, thanks.

Readyhed

zenno wrote: »

The difference with this hypotheses is the fact that religious people try to externally input their frequency beliefs to other people but in relation to atheists they don't force their non belief to others and just like to be left alone in their thinking.

I wasn't suggesting anything to to the contrary.

I was responding to an assertion that OAPs having the right to vote ("being obliged to " in the words of the poster) was the cause of religion continuing to be taught in schools.

This is a stupid, ageist and incorrect statement. It is insulting to older people.

1. OAPs are not concerned with education when they vote. The issues are Healthcare, pensions propert taxes water charges tec.,

2. Athiests do not suddenly become religious when the reach old age. Nor vica versa.

Our society has been plagued throughout the centuries by an organisation that has promoted these absurd ideologies and promoted the idea that they are our first point of contact with the omnipotent sky god. This gave them power and they abused that power.

In recent years the people of Ireland have started to wise up. Not because a new breed of young people have appeared with a higher level of intellectual intelligence than their older counterparts but simply because the religious organisations exposed themselves by their disgusting behaviour.

The reason why religion is still taught in our schools is because the parents of our children may be en masse disillusioned with the roman catholic church but the majority of them still believe in some kind of deity.

More importantly the RCC still controls most of the schools in the state.

It is objectionable for someone to question the mental competence of OAPs to vote based on the fact that they all (in the mind of the poster of this comment) believe in organised religion.

If instead of OAPs he had said "women" or "foreign nationals" how do you think he would have been received?

recedite

Eramen wrote: »

Today, most atheists cannot simply practice politics from a point of view of their non-theism [notice I didn't say anti-theism].....

I used to think like that, but look at at this way;
If you don't receive your ultimate guidance and morality from a make believe deity, then your whole world-view changes. There is no reason to uphold traditional prejdudices against gays, uppity women etc..
On the other hand, there is no need to respect "other peoples religious practices" so if I see abhorrent behaviour dressed up as religion, I call it as I see it.
Suddenly there is an imperative to support laws and procedures that actually benefit society, and not to just hold onto any old nonsense because its the old way, divinely inspired.
All of this produces an outlook among atheists which has certain ideas in common, beyond a simple lack of belief in a deity.
In addition, to arrive at that lack of belief requires a certain amount of abstract thinking, otherwise most of us would still be with the default religion we were brought up in.
The end result is, I think, a generally liberal, pro-scientific, always-open-to-improvement, anti-authoritarian world view, where sharing a good joke seems to be one of the highest ideals to aspire to. Yes, it may seem pathetic, but "the meaning of life" is simply to improve and enjoy and continue it. Not to just endure it while waiting for a better one in the hereafter where everything will work perfectly.

Hallyington

I liked doing religion, Learning about Christianity, Jewish people, Pagan people and other things like that was interesting. I see no reason why it needs to be removed, It at least makes you informed about things you don't believe in.

Plus...it's easy as **** to get marks in.

Solair

At one stage I went to a Catholic rugby-playing school. Religion classes were all taught by a rugby-fanatic priest who basically spent the entire time discussing tactics and reminiscing about Irish wins way back.

He spent the rest of the time trying to teach us how to play cricket!

The next religion teacher we had was a former missionary priest and he just used to tell us all about his adventures being attacked by wild animals and giant insects in rural Africa.

Then we'd a guy (not a priest) who just wanted to have a chat about whatever! He'd crack out the cups of tea and everything. Spent most of his time discussing politics, the news etc.

To be honest, I don't think we actually did anything remotely religious at all.

Another religion teacher we had in a different school used to talk about her stress / personal problems and use the class as a counselling session! We were genuinely concerned about her at one stage as she seemed to be a bit depressed. In hindsight, she might have been trying to open up discussion topics. I'm not sure.
....

That being said, it's ridiculous in 2013 we still have religion taught in an indoctrination type way in schools. Comparative religious studies / discussing religion is a totally different thing.

Aquarius34

jobeenfitz wrote: »

They should provide religious books in schools for anyone who is interested, during free classes or in their own time. These books should be kept in the fiction section.

Who is even interested? God want's your money. That's what he want's religious people for. I can't imagine that religious books would be cheap to buy either. Bibles are not even enough these days. The pope is on twitter, so it's all good I suppose.

Aquarius34

Wait the Pope pulled out, but he still has a twitter account, he may pull out of that too! But more onto the topic and the OP. Just sit there point blank and tell the teacher you are not religious and are not going to take part in religious practice. They can't make you do anything you don't want to do. You don't have to kick a few chairs about at all. All you have to do is say NO and smile.

Heisenberg1

I would like to know why is Irish still a compulsory secondary school subject.

Aquarius34

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

I would like to know why is Irish still a compulsory secondary school subject.

What I've been asking myself, is why are we taught so much rubbish in school. Apart from Basic maths, biology, chemistry, English (other langauges) we are taught nonsense. Don't get me started on religion and the CSPE stuff. I could throw a chair at the wall at any moment now. I am been very serious when I say it. Indoctrination is what is built into our society on every level.

There are array of amazing subjects and interesting stuff out there that we could be learning and would benefit from. It's actually endless to what is out there for us. All of which are there to shape us into adulthood and assist us to where we "really want to go in life". But it's not that way because education is designed to conform people and turn us into worker bees to support the system.

Mark Hamill

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Apart from Basic maths, biology, chemistry, English (other langauges) we are taught nonsense.

To be honest, given how badly we are taught those subjects, they are fairly rubbish too.

Paramite Pie

Hallyington wrote: »

I liked doing religion, Learning about Christianity, Jewish people, Pagan people and other things like that was interesting. I see no reason why it needs to be removed, It at least makes you informed about things you don't believe in.

Plus...it's easy as **** to get marks in.

They should change it so it's less biased towards Christianity with a sprinkle of that other stuff. The history and primary customs of all religions should be taught to stem ignorance but not teaching the actual values themselves.

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

I would like to know why is Irish still a compulsory secondary school subject.

I used to wonder that myself but having traveled a bit I have to say that Irish is part of our country/history and should be kept compulsory. The problem is how Irish is taught... the teaching methods are outdated (or maybe just all the ol' teachers are) and it needs to be made more relevant.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

What I've been asking myself, is why are we taught so much rubbish in school. Apart from Basic maths, biology, chemistry, English (other langauges) we are taught nonsense.

I think Physics is important too. And without History we'd be quite ignorant about alot of our past too. The point of all these subjects is to give a taste for what we'd like to study in College. You neglected to mention Business/Accounting. If they didn't teach it in school chances are a lot less peeps are gonna go for it in college.

Anything that's designed for the masses is always gonna have alot of irrelevant stuff. It's up to each individual to decide what their interested in and have their own personal bull**** filter.

Some people will tell you maths is irrelevant, sure most people don't need algebra and we got calculators but you still think it needs to be taught. Bull**** is relative.;)

Aquarius34

Mark Hamill wrote: »

To be honest, given how badly we are taught those subjects, they are fairly rubbish too.

Oh I agree, but I don't think I can take anymore of this and it's best I leave this topic for one day! I've spent the last 10 years trying erase most of the shiit I learned in school.

Aquarius34

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I think Physics is important too. And without History we'd be quite ignorant about alot of our past too. The point of all these subjects is to give a taste for what we'd like to study in College. You neglected to mention Business/Accounting. If they didn't teach it in school chances are a lot less peeps are gonna go for it in college.

The history been taught to us is an absolute pack of lies. When you start to study history yourself you start to realise the true history.

Anything that's designed for the masses is always gonna have alot of irrelevant stuff. It's up to each individual to decide what their interested in and have their own personal bull**** filter.

I agree but that is what we need to start doing, using our BS detector. I can't tell you how many times I've got infractions on this forum for using my BS detector. We all have it but very few of us exercise it because it's not cool to go against the mass mainstream thinking. You are considered someone who is just been a "rebel", when it clearly isn't the case.

Some people will tell you maths is irrelevant, sure most people don't need algebra and we got calculators but you still think it needs to be taught. Bull**** is relative.;)

Again I agree.

robindch

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I can't tell you how many times I've got infractions on this forum for using my BS detector.

You've been carded and banned in this forum both as 'aquarius34' and at least one former login ('mysterious') for persistent violations of the forum charter. Anyhow, please check this before posting any more. Thanks.

Brian Shanahan

Eramen wrote: »

In most other continents of the world private education especially, or home-schooling is the norm. It's cheap, convenient and successful at its primary aims in most terms. Students and schools can come to agreement about educational goals and outlines, about which direction they want to take, and this is its beauty. For ex. if you are bad at maths, you need only do the basic math curriculum, and this frees time/effort so that you can focus much more of your energy into subjects that you really know will be helpful to you in your life ambitions - and get rewarded for this. It reduces waste. It's an innovation powered mode of teaching where parents, teachers and students are in control, not the government.

Well then why does all data show, consistently, that the countries with the best educational outcomes are the ones where a) education is a public good provided by the state, and b) evey child gets as equal an educational opportunity as is possible. With home schooling we'd at best get a educational millieu similar to that of the Deep South, where every tragedy is blamed on "de ghey liburrls" and at worst we get situations like in Kenya where gay people get the death penalty simply because the government needs scapegoats.