Religion

Roddball

Why is religion still a compulsory subject in this day and age surely we can be taught things like computer science or things that actually benefit us in the future

shruikan2553

You'll probably find this would go down better in the "other" forum.

antiskeptic

Roddball wrote: »

Why is religion still a compulsory subject in this day and age surely we can be taught things like computer science or things that actually benefit us in the future

The argument would be that ' religion' benefits now, in the future and in eternity. Hard for anything else to compete with that (unless of course you're being taught something that denies eternity. Which would, of course, be a religion itself)



Isn't computer science already taught?

Manach

antiskeptic wrote: »

Isn't computer science already taught?

Well I've always combined that with religion. During coding I've had on occasion to call down various saints (starting with St. Jude), invoke the name of God during team meetings and in a nod to ecunenicanism having a voodoo doll of the PM.

Benny_Cake

shruikan2553 wrote: »

You'll probably find this would go down better in the "other" forum.

Mod: No reason it shouldn't be here, provided that it doesn't descend into an atheist / Christian slagging match. Goes without saying that existence of God discussion should be confined to the megathread.

Turtwig

Because Computer Science, indeed science graduates in general, have the second lowest employment rate in the state. The Catholic Church is crying out for priests to fill positions.

More serious answer because religion is a huge part of human identity. Religion should be taught, as long as its not indoctrination in a public school e.g Islam/Christianity/Judaism/Jediism is fact then it's fine. Children need to be educated about various cultures and beliefs.

Mrs OBumble

Agree with the above.

But also because the Irish government has still not picked up the tab anything like for the full cost of paying for education in this country. Until they (ie we, the taxpayer) does that, then the church, as a part-funder, has a say in the curriculum.

Tea 1000

No one seems to have a problem with the compulsary teaching of english literature in schools, and the last time I used that was in the LC exams! Same with Irish!

smacl

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Agree with the above.

But also because the Irish government has still not picked up the tab anything like for the full cost of paying for education in this country. Until they (ie we, the taxpayer) does that, then the church, as a part-funder, has a say in the curriculum.

Any figures to back this up? While I realise the church act as patrons for many schools, and own some of the property involved, I wasn't aware that they made any significant contribution to the running costs beyond that, when compared say to the taxpayer. That aside, for a state provided education, do you think it is reasonable to allow an external body to dictate the curriculum on the basis of financial contribution?

Benny_Cake

smacl wrote: »

Any figures to back this up? While I realise the church act as patrons for many schools, and own some of the property involved, I wasn't aware that they made any significant contribution to the running costs beyond that, when compared say to the taxpayer. That aside, for a state provided education, do you think it is reasonable to allow an external body to dictate the curriculum on the basis of financial contribution?

According to this, funding for primary schools overwhelmingly comes from the state.

This recent article in the Examiner makes a solid argument for taking faith formation out of schools and doing it in the home and the parish:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/its-time-to-give-faith-teaching-back-to-families-and-the-church-266324.html

Manach

Benny_Cake wrote: »

According to this, funding for primary schools overwhelmingly comes from the state.

This recent article in the Examiner makes a solid argument for taking faith formation out of schools and doing it in the home and the parish:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/its-time-to-give-faith-teaching-back-to-families-and-the-church-266324.html

Remind me again were the state gets the money from, yes the taxpayer.
Remind me again were the state gets its power from, yes the constitution.
It is the former whose contributions have build the school system to one of the best in the world and it is in the latter that allows the same parents to educate their children in a manner consistent with their own beliefs. The alternative school structure is one influenced by a bureaucratic state model from the Bismarckian 19thC, which emphases the production of industrial workers instead of providing at least a pretence of a community solidarity model which the Catholic ethos supports and which many Catholic parents have no desire to move from despite the rhetoric utterances of Mr. Quinn and his change for change sake agenda.

Benny_Cake

Manach wrote: »

Remind me again were the state gets the money from, yes the taxpayer.
Remind me again were the state gets its power from, yes the constitution.
It is the former whose contributions have build the school system to one of the best in the world and it is in the latter that allows the same parents to educate their children in a manner consistent with their own beliefs. The alternative school structure is one influenced by a bureaucratic state model from the Bismarckian 19thC, which emphases the production of industrial workers instead of providing at least a pretence of a community solidarity model which the Catholic ethos supports and which many Catholic parents have no desire to move from despite the rhetoric utterances of Mr. Quinn and his change for change sake agenda.

I'm not sure if you actually read the article - it pointed to the current system of faith formation in schools as being a failure? Bismarck doesn't enter into it.

Enlightened self-interest should enter into it though given the manifest failure of school-based faith formation in producing practising Catholics. Community based faith formation with the involvement of churches and parents seems like a better alternative to me. Then it will be well away from the hands of the Minister for Education.

Manach

I'd skimmed through it and placed it in context- my takeaway was a need to revitalise the teaching of Reilgion as a means to bolster community values and not as something that needs to removed from the public square.

smacl

Manach wrote: »

I'd skimmed through it and placed it in context- my takeaway was a need to revitalise the teaching of Reilgion as a means to bolster community values and not as something that needs to removed from the public square.

My take was slightly different, which included the following salient points;

- Many Catholic primary teachers are ill equipped to provide religious instruction and not particularly interested in doing so.
- Parents are often pleased that the burden of providing religious instruction is delegated to the schoolroom hence making their lives easier.
- Religious instruction is better given by those trained to provide it, as an activity independent of normal schooling.
- Confirmation of young teenagers which acknowledges and deals with their social needs and concerns has significant advantages over the glitzy ceremonies of younger Catholics. Remarks such as “The height of your heels shows the depth of your religious conviction,” another parent explained to me as we watched the centre aisle turn into a catwalk at the First Communion of one of my children. seem to be echoed all too regularly.

Personally, I enjoyed the article, and thought its conclusions were perfectly reasonable. i.e. that faith teaching belongs in families and church rather than the classroom.

robp

smacl wrote: »

My take was slightly different, which included the following salient points;

- Many Catholic primary teachers are ill equipped to provide religious instruction and not particularly interested in doing so.

Many primary school teachers are ill equipped to teach maths well but this is not a reason to remove it. For the record pastoral staff and local priests often are heavily involved in teaching and its the norm that they help out.

smacl wrote: »

Confirmation of young teenagers which acknowledges and deals with their social needs and concerns has significant advantages over the glitzy ceremonies of younger Catholics. Remarks such as “The height of your heels shows the depth of your religious conviction,” another parent explained to me as we watched the centre aisle turn into a catwalk at the First Communion of one of my children. seem to be echoed all too regularly.

Anecdotal and not real evidence. Also its unclear how doing teaching it outside school would improve this alleged problem.

smacl wrote: »

Personally, I enjoyed the article, and thought its conclusions were perfectly reasonable. i.e. that faith teaching belongs in families and church rather than the classroom.

It is not a rational argument. This view is coming from the same people who claim that teaching religion to kids is child abuse. It is purely based on the notion that religion is not a valid human pursuit.

Rookster

Roddball wrote: »

Why is religion still a compulsory subject in this day and age surely we can be taught things like computer science or things that actually benefit us in the future

Why is Irish compulsory?

robp

Roddball wrote: »

Why is religion still a compulsory subject in this day and age surely we can be taught things like computer science or things that actually benefit us in the future

If you really took this idea to logical conclusion you would scrap a huge swathe of subjects such as history, Irish, art, music, classical studies, Latin, Greek, Hebrew studies, CSPE, most of geography and most of English. Third level would be transformed as well.

The reason we have so many non-vocational subjects is that we are promoting education and not training.

smacl

robp wrote: »

Many primary school teachers are ill equipped to teach maths well but this is not a reason to remove it.

I think most primary teachers are as well equipped to teach primary level maths as most other primary level subjects. More importantly perhaps, as part of their vocation, they are taught how to teach maths. I'm not so sure if they are taught how to provide religious instruction, and if they are would question whether this time would be better spent improving their abilities to teach other subjects such as maths. As a subject, my opinion would be that maths deserves more attention at all levels, and was delighted to have my youngest taking part in maths week. Given that we're not a religious family, I see no value in providing her with any religious instruction. I see certain value in teaching comparative religion, though it wouldn't rank high on my list of priorities.

Anecdotal and not real evidence. Also its unclear how doing teaching it outside school would improve this alleged problem.

True, but the experience of communions and confirmation being mostly about the money spent and the outfit on the day seems very common indeed. Again, pure speculation, but I'd guess is you asked a group of kids what they got out of the day, the vast majority would point to the moolah.

It is not a rational argument. This view is coming from the same people who claim that teaching religion to kids is child abuse. It is purely based on the notion that religion is not a valid human pursuit.

If we're talking about being rational, attacking an argument by denigrating those making it is a clear ad hominem fallacy. I'm not sure if you actually read the article, but it is quite clear that religion is a worthwhile pursuit, simply not one best taught in the classroom.

Reiver

Rookster wrote: »

Why is Irish compulsory?

I know theres the whole reasoning of it being our national tongue yaketty yakkety seven hundred years and so on.

Personally I think we'd have better grades in it if it weren't compulsory, and attempting to teach it to students as a foreign language rather than assuming that they're already proficient and enabling them to write amazing phrases such as "Cruthaíonn an file íomhanna deasa" and so on.

But look at the Gaelscoils, some of the best students in the country attend there. Coming out proficient in two languages gives them a great start. Learning the second language is always the hardest. I'm delighted to find re-learning Gaeilge much easier after achieving some semblance of knowledge in German!

I did religion for leaving cert, being a proper exam subject, it had to be balanced. If it wasn't just the Catholic-biased subject it is in primary, it'd go a long way to promoting togetherness.

Afterall at the end of the day, religion is still important to a lot of people in the world.

homer911

Isn't Diarmuid Martin on the record recently as saying that teachers not comfortable with providing religous education should not be required to do so?

While I am strongly in favour of Religous Education in schools, it needs to be taught by someone sympathethic to the subject - this doesnt mean that the teacher needs to be an enthusiastic Christian, but it does mean they need to understand what faith is all about, and sympathetically address all faiths, with an emphasis on the faith-ethos of the school.

Don't French schools teach philosophy instead of religion - I think this is a cop-out! Like it or not, large swathes of the earth's population follow a religion and learning creates tolerance and understanding - just look at what is happening in Nigeria at the moment with Boko Haram..

There is a big difference between teaching Religion and teaching faith formation - does the OP mean the latter not the former?

smacl

homer911 wrote: »

Like it or not, large swathes of the earth's population follow a religion and learning creates tolerance and understanding - just look at what is happening in Nigeria at the moment with Boko Haram..

Whoa there. Boko Haram? Some really nasty jihadi religious fundamentalists kidnaps a group of schoolgirls, possibly with the intent of selling them into slavery. An example of the damaging effects of religion on broader society at its most extreme surely? Hardly an example of religious practice leading to tolerance now is it?

homer911

smacl wrote: »

Whoa there. Boko Haram? Some really nasty jihadi religious fundamentalists kidnaps a group of schoolgirls, possibly with the intent of selling them into slavery. An example of the damaging effects of religion on broader society at its most extreme surely? Hardly an example of religious practice leading to tolerance now is it?

You are quite right - its an example of the lack of religious education causing intolerance. I doubt this group even understands their own religion properly

smacl

homer911 wrote: »

You are quite right - its an example of the lack of religious education causing intolerance. I doubt this group even understands their own religion properly

I would have said it is more an example of religiously inspired xenophobia, and is indicative of the type of intolerance displayed by many religions. Given that crimes such as apostasy are punishable by death or imprisonment in many Islamic states, and Saudi has recently declared all atheists to be terrorists, this goes way beyond education right to the core of social attitudes. Many fundamentalist Christian attitudes aren't so different, where the ideal of live and let live seems entirely lost.

Whether the same societies would exhibit similar xenophobic tendencies without religion remains to be seen, and my guess is they quite possibly would, but religion does seem to provide a banner under which violent people rally.

ryan101

homer911 wrote: »

You are quite right - its an example of the lack of religious education causing intolerance. I doubt this group even understands their own religion properly

I suspect this group's leaders care little for Islam, and are merely twisting it and using it as a tool for their own power and control. Like a knife, science, history, religion, or anything else, you can use them for good or bad. It's in the hands of the user.

smacl

ryan101 wrote: »

I suspect this group's leaders care little for Islam, and are merely twisting it and using it as a tool for their own power and control.

Quite possibly true, but if you dismiss any evil done by religion as deriving from base human nature rather than the religion, you must similarly do so for any good. How one religious sect interprets their religion from another may vary hugely, and has been the basis of many religious conflicts throughout history.

Like a knife, science, history, religion, or anything else, you can use them for good or bad. It's in the hands of the user.

The same argument is used by the pro-gun lobby in the states with regards to freedom to bear arms. I go with the counter argument, that if guns are leading to death and misery, their availability should be restricted.

ryan101

smacl wrote: »

Quite possibly true, but if you dismiss any evil done by religion as deriving from base human nature rather than the religion, you must similarly do so for any good. How one religious sect interprets their religion from another may vary hugely, and has been the basis of many religious conflicts throughout history.

Religion like science and many other things, can be used for good or bad, it's in the hands of the user.

smacl wrote: »

The same argument is used by the pro-gun lobby in the states with regards to freedom to bear arms. I go with the counter argument, that if guns are leading to death and misery, their availability should be restricted.

I never mentioned guns, guns don't have many good uses, if any at all, we don't have freedom to bear arms in Ireland and I think that is a good thing.
Lots of laws in Ireland are currently restrictive, including using anything to harm others, or in some cases yourself.
You could pass additional restrictive laws , for example to restrict science, but I think that would be counter effective, in the case of science it would be far better to restrict and convict people who are intent on using science to harm others, rather than restrict science itself.

smacl

ryan101 wrote: »

Religion like science and many other things, can be used for good or bad, it's in the hands of the user.

So can knives, and for this reason we don't give them to kids or let people carry them concealed on their person

I never mentioned guns, guns don't have many good uses, if any at all, we don't have freedom to bear arms in Ireland and I think that is a good thing. Lots of laws in Ireland are currently restrictive, including using anything to harm others, or in some cases yourself. You could pass additional restrictive laws , for example to restrict science, but I think that would be counter effective, in the case of science it would be far better to restrict and convict people who are intent on using science to harm others, rather than restrict science itself.

I agree, though the Catholic church might not as can be seen by recent controversy over stem cells. Regardless of whether the weapons of choice are guns, bombs or baseball bats, sectarianism has certainly led to a considerable amount of violent death in this country.

ryan101

smacl wrote: »

So can knives, and for this reason we don't give them to kids or let people carry them concealed on their person

My kids could not eat their dinner very well without knives, nor I make it for them.

smacl wrote: »

I agree, though the Catholic church might not as can be seen by recent controversy over stem cells. Regardless of whether the weapons of choice are guns, bombs or baseball bats, sectarianism has certainly led to a considerable amount of violent death in this country.

They are not against all stem cell research. Catholic teaching is that human life begins at conception, and therefore it is consistent that any experimentation that involves the taking of human life cannot therefore be condoned by them.

Indeed sectarianism has led to a lot of life talking in this country, most of it sparked off by denying equal rights to Catholics and treating them as sub human second class citizens. The IRA decided to retaliate with violence and terrorism, making an even bigger mess.

Using other ideologies for bad, millions upon millions of lives were also taken Cambodia, the USSR and the former Eastern Europe.

lazybones32

Roddball wrote: »

Why is religion still a compulsory subject in this day and age surely we can be taught things like computer science or things that actually benefit us in the future

The RCC is the Patron of most schools in Ireland and according to their ethos, education is preparation for a person to live a full life, not just to get a job. They don't place earning money as being the priority and goal of Life.

PopePalpatine

It helps when that earned money goes into the Vatican's pocket.

What is it about non-Catholic schools that doesn't prepare someone to live a "full life"?

katydid

Turtwig wrote: »

More serious answer because religion is a huge part of human identity. Religion should be taught, as long as its not indoctrination in a public school e.g Islam/Christianity/Judaism/Jediism is fact then it's fine. Children need to be educated about various cultures and beliefs.

That is the problem in Ireland. The latter is taught, not the former. Which means that in some cases, religious organisations are shirking their pastoral responsibility and expecting the schools to do the work for them.

katydid

robp wrote: »

If you really took this idea to logical conclusion you would scrap a huge swathe of subjects such as history, Irish, art, music, classical studies, Latin, Greek, Hebrew studies, CSPE, most of geography and most of English. Third level would be transformed as well.

The reason we have so many non-vocational subjects is that we are promoting education and not training.

Yes, but teaching denominational religion is not education, it is indoctrination. It's not the role of the state.

katydid

robp wrote: »

Many primary school teachers are ill equipped to teach maths well but this is not a reason to remove it. For the record pastoral staff and local priests often are heavily involved in teaching and its the norm that they help out.



Anecdotal and not real evidence. Also its unclear how doing teaching it outside school would improve this alleged problem.


It is not a rational argument. This view is coming from the same people who claim that teaching religion to kids is child abuse. It is purely based on the notion that religion is not a valid human pursuit.

Who says many primary teachers are not equipped to teach maths?
In the case of Protestant schools, the religious education tends to be of a general Christian nature, mainly biblical - the main teaching is done by clergy and lay people in the context of the parish Sunday School. From my own experience of friends and relatives, in the case of Roman Catholic schools, little or no religious education goes on outside of the school setting, and pastoral staff and clergy leave the vast bulk of denominational instruction to teachers who may or may not believe what they are imparting to the students. For all the parents or the clergy know, the teacher may not believe in God - yet he or she is entrusted with indoctrinating the children in the tenets of the faith.

Of course teaching outside the school would be better, because the people doing the teaching would actually be committed to what they believe, and want to pass it on, not be obliged to do it because they are paid to. Also it would involve the parents more - they would have to get up of their behinds on a Sunday morning and take their children to Sunday school, not expect a teacher they don't even know to take responsibility for what is their responsibility. Surely family involvement and a close parish connection would lead to a better, more rich experience for all concerned?

katydid

smacl wrote: »

, sectarianism has certainly led to a considerable amount of violent death in this country.

Yes, but sectarianism has nothing to do with religion. The religion of people on different sides of a divide is just an excuse for differentiation and conflict. No one in Northern Ireland fought over transubstantiation or the role of the Virgin Mary...

katydid

lazybones32 wrote: »

The RCC is the Patron of most schools in Ireland and according to their ethos, education is preparation for a person to live a full life, not just to get a job. They don't place earning money as being the priority and goal of Life.

That is not a reason to use schools to indoctrinate children in the specifics of the Roman Catholic faith - it is possible to learn about religion, which is an essential part of the human tradition and reality, without indoctrination.

Manach

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It helps when that earned money goes into the Vatican's pocket.

What is it about non-Catholic schools that doesn't prepare someone to live a "full life"?

It could be argued that having a body like the Church acts as a check on entrenched interests: in this case Educationalists. In that thinkers like Posner and Lessig have warned on regulatory capture of watchdog bodies so as to serve the needs of the institutional body and not the purported persons for whom the body was see up to serve (in this case pupils.) .I'd had experience of poor standards from a pure state body, whose staff just serving time and any learning received was purely by accident.

lazybones32

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It helps when that earned money goes into the Vatican's pocket.

What is it about non-Catholic schools that doesn't prepare someone to live a "full life"?

Are you addressing me?

PopePalpatine

Manach wrote: »

It could be argued that having a body like the Church acts as a check on entrenched interests: in this case Educationalists. In that thinkers like Posner and Lessig have warned on regulatory capture of watchdog bodies so as to serve the needs of the institutional body and not the purported persons for whom the body was see up to serve (in this case pupils.) .I'd had experience of poor standards from a pure state body, whose staff just serving time and any learning received was purely by accident.

An "educationalist" is defined as someone who specialises in educational theories. What risk do they pose, which the Church must counter?

lazybones32 wrote: »

Are you addressing me?

Yes, I'm addressing you. You implied "Church education über alles", that it prepares someone for a "full life", implying that a secular education is somehow "empty".

I don't think you'll find many supporters of a secular education (outside of someone who treats the works of Ayn Rand as some sort of laissez-faire gospel) who want education to be geared solely towards preparing children for the workplace.

katydid

Manach wrote: »

It could be argued that having a body like the Church acts as a check on entrenched interests: in this case Educationalists. In that thinkers like Posner and Lessig have warned on regulatory capture of watchdog bodies so as to serve the needs of the institutional body and not the purported persons for whom the body was see up to serve (in this case pupils.) .I'd had experience of poor standards from a pure state body, whose staff just serving time and any learning received was purely by accident.

Surely "the Church" is the one with entrenched interests? Nothing wrong with having a check on any public institution, but then it should be a objective check.

Manach

PopePalpatine wrote: »

An "educationalist" is defined as someone who specialises in educational theories. What risk do they pose, which the Church must counter?

The best ad ovate for children's education; the parents of course. But they are not fully engaged players being only partially part of an oversight of a school.
Instead a methodology developed in Germany in the 1860s (Socialism by Williamson) where it is a regulated system to turn out workers, run by state teacher and overseen by the requisite Education Dept. For the former, through no fault of their own, teaching unions press for maximum benefits for their members. For the latter (Book: Governance in Ireland AFAIR),
Depts and semi-states exist for their own benefit and are have little to now accountability both to government or the populace at large. So having at least one advocate as such a large organisation as the Church (which is(an opinion statement) supported still by many Catholic families) along with ant other organisations that can discuss education needs of children, is in my view a positive.

lazybones32

PopePalpatine wrote: »

An "educationalist" is defined as someone who specialises in educational theories. What risk do they pose, which the Church must counter?



Yes, I'm addressing you. You implied "Church education über alles", that it prepares someone for a "full life", implying that a secular education is somehow "empty".

I don't think you'll find many supporters of a secular education (outside of someone who treats the works of Ayn Rand as some sort of laissez-faire gospel) who want education to be geared solely towards preparing children for the workplace.

You may not find such overt support but the currents lead that way. You do realise that Labour have been given control of Education in Ireland? (How exactly does the roots of the Left view people?) And what other subject teaches that a human life is of inestimable value and promotes specific good?

You yourself seem to be denying a reality of human nature: the religious and spiritual aspect. How can a person fully develop unless he or she doesn't 'discover' their own nature and the recesses of their 'heart'? By removing religion, you remove an intrinsic element of humanity - the search for eternal/divine. Just because you don't believe something, doesn't mean others shouldn't be allowed learn about it.

katydid

Manach wrote: »

The best ad ovate for children's education; the parents of course. But they are not fully engaged players being only partially part of an oversight of a school.
Instead a methodology developed in Germany in the 1860s (Socialism by Williamson) where it is a regulated system to turn out workers, run by state teacher and overseen by the requisite Education Dept. For the former, through no fault of their own, teaching unions press for maximum benefits for their members. For the latter (Book: Governance in Ireland AFAIR),
Depts and semi-states exist for their own benefit and are have little to now accountability both to government or the populace at large. So having at least one advocate as such a large organisation as the Church (which is(an opinion statement) supported still by many Catholic families) along with ant other organisations that can discuss education needs of children, is in my view a positive.

So there's no such thing as a totally objective oversight...for certain not any of the religious organisations, Christian, Muslim or Jewish. They have a vested interested in having their ideology promoted in the school system.

I'm not sure what "educational needs" religious organisations would discuss...the only "need" they are interested in is the promotion of their particular beliefs. These are needs they should be promoting themselves in the context of their religious organisations, not depending on others to promote for them.

lazybones32

katydid wrote: »

That is not a reason to use schools to indoctrinate children in the specifics of the Roman Catholic faith - it is possible to learn about religion, which is an essential part of the human tradition and reality, without indoctrination.

Which school indoctrinates pupils? Name one...

In the past, I'm sure you would have had a problem naming one that didn't force religion into kids but are you really trying to argue about what schools did +30 years ago. I went to a school run by nuns and we were taught religion (Catholicism specifically) but judging by how few seem to have remained as regulars, I think indoctrination isn't the correct term to be applied to it.

katydid

lazybones32 wrote: »

Which school indoctrinates pupils? Name one...

In the past, I'm sure you would have had a problem naming one that didn't force religion into kids but are you really trying to argue about what schools did +30 years ago. I went to a school run by nuns and we were taught religion (Catholicism specifically) but judging by how few seem to have remained as regulars, I think indoctrination isn't the correct term to be applied to it.

You really don't expect me to name every Roman Catholic school in Ireland? They teach Roman Catholic doctrine...teaching doctrine is what INDOCTRINATION is. Protestant churches tend to focus on general Christian ideas, and leave the specific indoctrination to the parish organisation and the Sunday School system. I don't know the nature of the religious teaching in Muslim or Jewish schools.

The teaching of religious doctrine hasn't changed in thirty years. In the RC schools, for example, teacher still prepare children for the sacraments, instructing them in specific RC doctrine which they may or may not believe in.

lazybones32

katydid wrote: »

You really don't expect me to name every Roman Catholic school in Ireland? They teach Roman Catholic doctrine...teaching doctrine is what INDOCTRINATION is. Protestant churches tend to focus on general Christian ideas, and leave the specific indoctrination to the parish organisation and the Sunday School system. I don't know the nature of the religious teaching in Muslim or Jewish schools.

The teaching of religious doctrine hasn't changed in thirty years. In the RC schools, for example, teacher still prepare children for the sacraments, instructing them in specific RC doctrine which they may or may not believe in.

I asked for only one... Call it whatever you want, teaching religion, indoctrination, brain-washing...why should a Catholic school teach about Buddha or any of the million gods of Hinduism? Why should they teach children that Jesus is God, or maybe he's not..the Prophet is God's messenger...or maybe he's not...maybe the Spirits that voodoo priests conjure are the way, truth and the life. Do you disagree with Christians teaching Christ or just when Roman Catholics do it?

Do the children fail to advance in school if they don't make their communion? Are they bound to make communion or can parents or children ask to refrain? You are trying to make it something it isn't.

katydid

lazybones32 wrote: »

I asked for only one... Call it whatever you want, teaching religion, indoctrination, brain-washing...why should a Catholic school teach about Buddha or any of the million gods of Hinduism? Why should they teach children that Jesus is God, or maybe he's not..the Prophet is God's messenger...or maybe he's not...maybe the Spirits that voodoo priests conjure are the way, truth and the life. Do you disagree with Christians teaching Christ or just when Roman Catholics do it?

Do the children fail to advance in school if they don't make their communion? Are they bound to make communion or can parents or children ask to refrain? You are trying to make it something it isn't.

Ok, one. Críost Rí, in Capwell Road, Cork. First school that comes to mind.

You're absolutely right, why should a Catholic school teach about Buddha? But the question is why there should be a Catholic or Jewish or Muslim school.

Of course Christians should teach Christ. Not in school. In the church - during Sunday school. That's what Christians other than Roman Catholics do; Roman Catholics are happy to allow anyone teach their children, as long as they or their clergy don't have to bother.

PopePalpatine

lazybones32 wrote: »

You may not find such overt support but the currents lead that way. You do realise that Labour have been given control of Education in Ireland? (How exactly does the roots of the Left view people?) And what other subject teaches that a human life is of inestimable value and promotes specific good?

You yourself seem to be denying a reality of human nature: the religious and spiritual aspect. How can a person fully develop unless he or she doesn't 'discover' their own nature and the recesses of their 'heart'? By removing religion, you remove an intrinsic element of humanity - the search for eternal/divine. Just because you don't believe something, doesn't mean others shouldn't be allowed learn about it.

I realise that the Minister for Education is a Labour TD. I have no idea what you're trying to say with "How exactly does the roots of the Left view people", but it sounds like David Quinn-esque nonsense. I'd trust Ruairi Quinn a damn sight more than Cardinal Sean "Keep Molestation Secret!" Brady to run education in this country.

What other subject could teach that a human life can't have a monetary value, and promotes "specific good"? Well, a sort of "ethics" class could do the trick. Have you ever wondered why countries across Europe where theists are a minority haven't devolved into chaos yet?

Why must a religion be needed to "discover" their own nature and recesses of their "heart"?

Also, just because you believe something, that doesn't mean others must be forced to be indoctrinated into it. I'm fine with a religion class saying, "Christians believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah, Jedi believe that there's something called the Force, Muslims believe that Mohammed is the final prophet of God etc."

lazybones32

katydid wrote: »

Ok, one. Críost Rí, in Capwell Road, Cork. First school that comes to mind.

You're absolutely right, why should a Catholic school teach about Buddha? But the question is why there should be a Catholic or Jewish or Muslim school.

Of course Christians should teach Christ. Not in school. In the church - during Sunday school. That's what Christians other than Roman Catholics do; Roman Catholics are happy to allow anyone teach their children, as long as they or their clergy don't have to bother.

Keep Christ in a box, away from public life until Sunday?
Or is Christ the King, who is at the Centre of every person's life and arguably the most important 'lesson' a person could receive?

I guess you haven't heard of the multiple religious orders who focus on education? Seeing as how we don't care who teaches our kids...

I've met English and Welsh people who had Bible-reading as part of their schoolwork and a lady I know used work as a teacher in England. The different faiths/denominations would be tested publicly in the school auditorium on the aspects and teachings of their faith. No other schoolwork was neglected in the process and all took part.

lazybones32

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I realise that the Minister for Education is a Labour TD. I have no idea what you're trying to say with "How exactly does the roots of the Left view people", but it sounds like David Quinn-esque nonsense. I'd trust Ruairi Quinn a damn sight more than Cardinal Sean "Keep Molestation Secret!" Brady to run education in this country.

What other subject could teach that a human life can't have a monetary value, and promotes "specific good"? Well, a sort of "ethics" class could do the trick. Have you ever wondered why countries across Europe where theists are a minority haven't devolved into chaos yet?

Why must a religion be needed to "discover" their own nature and recesses of their "heart"?

Also, just because you believe something, that doesn't mean others must be forced to be indoctrinated into it. I'm fine with a religion class saying, "Christians believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah, Jedi believe that there's something called the Force, Muslims believe that Mohammed is the final prophet of God etc."

Ah, good man! When you can't answer, resort to 'insults'. Maybe I hit a nerve?

Baseless, relative ethics...yes, we have good reason to promote it. We see it's fruits every weekend among the younger people of Ireland. "Make your own rules and live by them" - the foundation for a healthy Society.

If you do not believe in Soul or Spirit, will you seek to experience, understand or cultivate them?

Again with the indoctrination...do you disagree with children being indoctrinated with Mathematical or Scientific Rules and Laws? What about Grammar? Accounting? Is it so abhorrent that a mostly Christian Culture teaches its offspring Christianity?

ryan101

katydid wrote: »

That is not a reason to use schools to indoctrinate children in the specifics of the Roman Catholic faith - it is possible to learn about religion, which is an essential part of the human tradition and reality, without indoctrination.

So when are you closing the Church of Ireland schools around the country ? By your argument they are not needed and should be handed over to the state as well.

Nick Park

lazybones32 wrote: »

why should a Catholic school teach about Buddha or any of the million gods of Hinduism?

Maybe because that Catholic School receives funding from the taxes paid, among others, by Buddhists and Hindus?