Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Religion as a leaving cert exam???

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,587 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Truley wrote: »
    I didn't mean English as in reading and writing I mean English in the sense of the leaving cert subject where kids learn off an essay about King Lear and regurgitate it on the day. I don't think the secondary school syllabus teaches basic life functions, it certainly didn't when I went there anyway.
    I'm in agreement about Shakespeare being somewhat redundant, but English as a subject in general is much more than that. It's more important that people can differentiate "their" and "they're" on a job application, than know what myths other people believe (if it's not your religion - it's a myth!)

    When I say basic life functions I refer to maths and the basic problem solving techniques it provides. Addition, subtraction, etc. etc. :)


  • #33
    Truley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭Truley


    Dades wrote: »
    I'm in agreement about Shakespeare being somewhat redundant, but English as a subject in general is much more than that. It's more important that people can differentiate "their" and "they're" on a job application, than know what myths other people believe (if it's not your religion - it's a myth!)

    When I say basic life functions I refer to maths and the basic problem solving techniques it provides. Addition, subtraction, etc. etc. :)

    I'm not trying to say maths or english aren't legitimate subjects don't think I'm disagreeing with you on their importance. What I'm saying is religious studies is still a beneficial subject that done well can equip children/ adolescents with extremely important life and social skills. Most people here's experience with RE comes from the Catholic education system which is largly considered a tag on 'doss' subject. When I went to school it wasn't called religion but 'core cirruculum' and was basically a study of world cultures/religions. It was a far more structured and formal subject than what I imagine is done in Catholic schools. And yes, I found what I learned from it extremely beneficial in later life, and to me it has helped me in my line of work and study more than theroms and 'peig' ever did. I'm speaking from my own experience and my friends that went to the same school. Maybe it does make me naive, that's your opinion.


  • #34
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Truley wrote: »
    And yes, I found what I learned from it extremely beneficial in later life,

    Such as what exactly?
    Truley wrote: »
    and to me it has helped me in my line of work and study more than theroms and 'peig' ever did.

    Only about 20% of what I did in school has proven to be beneficial to me in my line of work, and even that 20% only gave a relatively short introduction into what I do now.

    Whats 'peig', btw?
    Truley wrote: »
    I'm speaking from my own experience and my friends that went to the same school. Maybe it does make me naive, that's your opinion.

    None of your friends did and kind of science, business or arts subject then? No chemists, physicists, mathematicians, accountants, business managers, IT specialists, foreign language translators, landscape architects, farmers or (non religion class) teachers amongst your friends then?


  • #35
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,587 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Truley wrote: »
    And yes, I found what I learned from it extremely beneficial in later life, and to me it has helped me in my line of work and study more than theroms and 'peig' ever did.
    What was taught to you in your "core curriculum" that you, as a person, would not have embraced on your own terms in life?


  • #36
    Truley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭Truley


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Such as what exactly?

    By the time I was 12 and myself and my Project school friends went to the local convent school is was clear that we had a better understanding and tolerance for different religions and cultures than the girls that had come from the local catholic school, many of the teachers pointed this out. Most of the girls in my class knew nothing of other religions (including their own). I could have tore our 'religion' teacher apart with my knowledge of Christianity and the bible. By twelve I had a pretty indepth knoweldge (and experience) of mormanism, seikhism, buddahism and islam. As a result I didn't suscribe so easily to the hype and fear that surrounded other religions (such as the islam bashing that took place post 9/11.) On top of that learning about other religions gave me a perspective on the daftness of it all, so I felt that I had the freedom to reject religious practices. Most girls in my class wouldn't have been religious, but would still thought the idea of athiesm unthinkable, because all they knew or understood was the religious instruction they got from home.
    Only about 20% of what I did in school has proven to be beneficial to me in my line of work, and even that 20% only gave a relatively short introduction into what I do now.

    Whats 'peig', btw?

    Exactly, so why not study something that could potentially be very benefical in your adult life? Or at least something that could open your mind and be incredibly interesting.

    Peig is an Irish novel students spend two years studying in second level. It's supposed to teach us Irish :P
    None of your friends did and kind of science, business or arts subject then? No chemists, physicists, mathematicians, accountants, business managers, IT specialists, foreign language translators, landscape architects, farmers or (non religion class) teachers amongst your friends then?

    Huh :confused: When I say beneficial I don't necessarily mean qualification wise. School can be about personal development as well as academic scoring. All of my friends from primary school have agreed that the religious education we got has been eye opening and beneficial.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Truley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭Truley


    Dades wrote: »
    What was taught to you in your "core curriculum" that you, as a person, would not have embraced on your own terms in life?

    But I could have embraced maths in my later life too, I was still made study it in school. I don't know what my life would have been like if I hadn't been taught core curriculum, at the time I learned alot from it and enjoyed it. I found it helped me cope better with the pushy catholic ethos of my secondary school.


  • #38
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,140 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    I went to a CBS back in the day when there were still a few brothers left, so obviously religion class was seen as a big deal by the school (but not by the pupils).

    I remember in third class, there was a section in the religion book about the origin of the universe. The book presented a page with 3 columns: The Genesis story, The Steady State Theory, and the Big Bang. These were presented to us as each competing on the same level in terms of possibility (but obviously even with the latter 2, god was mooted at the creator). When I questioned the (lay) teacher about the validity of this, the teacher replied "No one knows what happened, so it could be any of the three." I asked her which one she thought was most likely, she hinted towards Adam and Eve and all that, without being too committal, and was then saved by the bell. Any respect for religious education in schools that might have lingered in me vaporised after that.

    Later, in 6th year, we had a Christan Brother teaching religion. I remember one class where he went through the "miracles" of Jesus, and offered rational explanations taking into account the culture of the time for each one of them that didn't rely on hocus pocus. If anyone else in the class was actually listening to him, and parents got wind of it, I'd say he would have been done for heresy. I got some of my respect for religious education (in the broad sense) back after that.


  • #39
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,587 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Truley wrote: »
    But I could have embraced maths in my later life too, I was still made study it in school.
    Considering you need to pass basic maths to get into university, that's hardly ideal!
    Truley wrote: »
    I don't know what my life would have been like if I hadn't been taught core curriculum, at the time I learned alot from it and enjoyed it. I found it helped me cope better with the pushy catholic ethos of my secondary school.
    I think we've lost track of the original disagreement here.

    Most here would agree that a class that teaches from the Big Book of World Religions is a useful one. You are only being taken up on the suggestion that learning about world religions is at least as important as maths and English.

    That there are areas in both of the latter curriculums (curricula?) that are tedious and unnecessary is unquestioned, but to suggest that a fluffy "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing" subject better prepares you for Real Life is, imo, naive.

    I also think that kids' parents will be the true teachers of ethics, or bigotry, as the case may be.


  • #40
    Truley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭Truley


    Dades wrote: »
    Considering you need to pass basic maths to get into university, that's hardly ideal!

    I think we've lost track of the original disagreement here.

    Most here would agree that a class that teaches from the Big Book of World Religions is a useful one. You are only being taken up on the suggestion that learning about world religions is at least as important as maths and English.

    That there are areas in both of the latter curriculums (curricula?) that are tedious and unnecessary is unquestioned, but to suggest that a fluffy "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing" subject better prepares you for Real Life is, imo, naive.

    Fine that's your opinion I'm not trying to change it. I said that in my experience religious education has taught and helped me to the same extent any of the 'real' academic subjects have. Even more so in the case of Irish, French and Maths. I'm not saying it's the case for everyone. I'm drawing from my own positive experiences of school, with the idea that it could be considered as a model for future children's education.
    I also think that kids' parents will be the true teachers of ethics, or bigotry, as the case may be.

    I don't agree, children learn very quickly that what they are taught at home does not always correspond with how things are in the real world.


  • #41
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Truley wrote: »
    By the time I was 12 and myself and my Project school friends went to the local convent school is was clear that we had a better understanding and tolerance for different religions and cultures than the girls that had come from the local catholic school, many of the teachers pointed this out. Most of the girls in my class knew nothing of other religions (including their own). I could have tore our 'religion' teacher apart with my knowledge of Christianity and the bible. By twelve I had a pretty indepth knoweldge (and experience) of mormanism, seikhism, buddahism and islam. As a result I didn't suscribe so easily to the hype and fear that surrounded other religions (such as the islam bashing that took place post 9/11.) On top of that learning about other religions gave me a perspective on the daftness of it all, so I felt that I had the freedom to reject religious practices. Most girls in my class wouldn't have been religious, but would still thought the idea of athiesm unthinkable, because all they knew or understood was the religious instruction they got from home.

    I'm a little confused here. You are describing your experiences up to 12 years of age? We are talking about religion on the leaving cert, for 13-18 year olds. If you were already well versed in religions by the age of twelve, then that has little to do with what was tought in LC religion class.
    Truley wrote: »
    Exactly, so why not study something that could potentially be very benefical in your adult life?

    Hey, if I was allowed to spend more time on sciences and abandon the classes that I saw as useless (English, Irish and French (useless because of how or what they actually taught) and religion).
    Truley wrote: »
    Or at least something that could open your mind and be incredibly interesting.

    Interesting to you maybe, I figured out real early that all religions boil down to the same things - the two Ps, pride and power. The idea of learning about how other cultures deal with their fear of death and human centric narcissism just seems like an uneccesary distraction when you are trying to pass an exam in order to into university (should you need to get into university) and get a career.
    Like I said before, teach kids how to think, how to discuss new issues they encounter, is all you need to do to create an open minded individual. Hand-holding for religion still gives it a higher place than it deserves, you dont do it for football or videogames, why is religion so special?
    Truley wrote: »
    Peig is an Irish novel students spend two years studying in second level. It's supposed to teach us Irish :P

    Ok, thanks. Dont remember anything I did for Irish in the LC.
    Truley wrote: »
    Huh :confused: When I say beneficial I don't necessarily mean qualification wise. School can be about personal development as well as academic scoring. All of my friends from primary school have agreed that the religious education we got has been eye opening and beneficial.

    More beneficial than the other subjects they did, because that was your claim?
    I dont know, I'm tempted to say the only benefit I can see from it is if someone entered school already a bigot, and needed that corrected. I dont think it should be much of a shock to anyone that other cultures will have different ideas about things, and I dont understand why you need classes every week to learn how to tolerate that other people will have differing ideas to me. I must have been brought up differently.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Truley wrote: »
    Fine that's your opinion I'm not trying to change it.

    I have a feeling that this is your way of compartmentalising other peoples criticisms of you so that you dont have to take them too seriously. You seem to respond with this quite regularly and its quite irritating.
    Truley wrote: »
    I said that in my experience religious education has taught and helped me to the same extent any of the 'real' academic subjects have. Even more so in the case of Irish, French and Maths. I'm not saying it's the case for everyone. I'm drawing from my own positive experiences of school, with the idea that it could be considered as a model for future children's education.

    You said nothing of it being just in your experience and made no allowances for it not being for everyone, you just made a blanket statement that religious studies is a great subject, as, if not more, important than all the others. Read your post again.
    Truley wrote: »
    I don't agree, children learn very quickly that what they are taught at home does not always correspond with how things are in the real world.

    Only if they are given the opportunity at home to appreciate different ideas.


  • #43
    toiletduck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    An exam subject? How awful. It was an enjoyable one in school for me (well most of the time). There was nothing set out in stone on what to be taught.

    Up to JC, it was a mix between an old style Catholic who levelled blame at the jews for killing Jesus to a cool lay teacher who got us to examine the issues around the Columbine school shooting to Gaza's fall from grace :)

    LC was different. Had vehemently anti-abortion teachers (worst class to have after lunch due to the pictures, videos etc), 'evolution is just a theory' types, a teacher who speculated on whether the Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids (seriously), having guests like ex-alcoholics, ex-offenders etc. A real variety!

    To think that has been reduced to "I reckon the Muslims are coming up this year" is kinda sad.


  • #44
    Truley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭Truley


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I'm a little confused here. You are describing your experiences up to 12 years of age? We are talking about religion on the leaving cert, for 13-18 year olds. If you were already well versed in religions by the age of twelve, then that has little to do with what was tought in LC religion class.

    I describe my primary school experiences because they are more in keeping with what is taught in the current leaving cert curriculum as opposed when I did the leaving and it was Catholic instruction only.
    Interesting to you maybe, I figured out real early that all religions boil down to the same things - the two Ps, pride and power. The idea of learning about how other cultures deal with their fear of death and human centric narcissism just seems like an uneccesary distraction when you are trying to pass an exam in order to into university (should you need to get into university) and get a career.

    If it's a leaving cert exam then it is awarded CAO points like any other subject. And there are an array of fields of study where the study of world religions and their orign are helpful, sociology, politics, theology :P history to name but a few.
    Like I said before, teach kids how to think, how to discuss new issues they encounter, is all you need to do to create an open minded individual. Hand-holding for religion still gives it a higher place than it deserves, you dont do it for football or videogames, why is religion so special?

    It plays a massive role in our world history. It has influenced the way we think and act today, it has influenced our art and literature, our political system, our wars. It's a pressing current issue in the social and political sphere. Football and videogames have an effect too, but not to the same extent organised religion has.

    More beneficial than the other subjects they did, because that was your claim?

    No it wasn't.
    I dont know, I'm tempted to say the only benefit I can see from it is if someone entered school already a bigot, and needed that corrected. I dont think it should be much of a shock to anyone that other cultures will have different ideas about things, and I dont understand why you need classes every week to learn how to tolerate that other people will have differing ideas to me. I must have been brought up differently.

    It's not necessarily a class on tolerance. It's a class on something that exists in the world and has a massive inpact on our day to day lives, that includes children's.
    I have a feeling that this is your way of compartmentalising other peoples criticisms of you so that you dont have to take them too seriously. You seem to respond with this quite regularly and its quite irritating.

    I wasn't saying it to you so relax


  • #45
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,587 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Truley wrote: »
    I don't agree, children learn very quickly that what they are taught at home does not always correspond with how things are in the real world.
    Surely the same must be said about what they are taught in school?

    How things are in the Real World are how they decide to perceive them. I suspect your world view would be no different had you not had the classes you speak of - that is just who you are.


  • #46
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Truley wrote: »
    I'm not trying to say maths or english aren't legitimate subjects don't think I'm disagreeing with you on their importance. What I'm saying is religious studies is still a beneficial subject that done well can equip children/ adolescents with extremely important life and social skills.

    I don't want you to feel like people are ganging up on you or anything Truley, but what important life and social skills exactly? If I meet a Muslim, Jew, Hindu and Catholic sitting at a table I just talk to each of them the exact same way I would talk to a Budhist, Atheist, Protestant and Shintoist at another table, or German, Indian, Norwegian and Irishman at another......I can't see how exactly knowing the ins and outs of their particular beliefs would effect that. In fact I would really hope that if I knew absolutely everything about each of their beliefs it would have absolutely no effect on how I interacted with them.

    Don't get me wrong, I think religion is a fascinating subject. When I was a kid one of my favourite topics was Greek and Roman mythology and it still is. I just can't see how, unless I went into theology or something specifically as a career choice, it would prove useful to know. I certainly can't imagine how it would be even potentially as useful as Maths or English or French or Geography.


  • #47
    Truley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭Truley


    Dades wrote: »
    Surely the same must be said about what they are taught in school?

    How things are in the Real World are how they decide to perceive them. I suspect your world view would be no different had you not had the classes you speak of - that is just who you are.

    I think so too, probably not as early on given my home life and second level education, but you're probably right. And don't get me wrong I'm not under any impression that school (esp the leaving cert) curriculum is supposed to be some kind of colossal mould on your character and world view. I do think however it should be a better reflection on the reality of the adult world.

    For example a catholic kid who goes to a catholic school can still see that the adult world doesn't emulate what they are being told day in day out. They will quickly see their religious education for what it is, a pile of brainwashing cr*p.

    But if we were to go down the secular route like so many people are calling for, I still think it could lead to confusion because it wouldn't be a realistic reflection on the children's backgrounds, their home lives, their society etc That's the impression I get from America anyway, where despite the school system fundamentalism is huge, and there is a constant disharmony because the religious majority feel ostracized.

    That's why I like the idea of multi-denominational religious education, because it's more all encompassing, less likely to lead to clashes, and a more realistic reflection of the 'real' world where you can't always 'opt out' of religious influence, unfortunately :o
    I don't want you to feel like people are ganging up on you or anything Truley, but what important life and social skills exactly?

    Ok well I found from my own experience it helped me get a better perspective on the religious brainwashing I was subjected to in secondary school (I know that sounds harsh but it was how I see it.) It helped me career wise because I went on to study social policy and then worked with children and their families from different backgrounds, where religion has come up as an issue numerous times. I think it helped me alot on a personal level, and I know other people who have said the same. But most of all I guess I got a broader world view, I don't think there is such a thing as too much knowledge on a subject.


  • #48
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Secular education IS multi-denominational...there is even provision made for particular religious instruction outside school hours if you look at the ET model. Secularism is just a division of state from church & visa versa, it doesn't equate to cutting religion out of schools altogether, even years ago when I was at a secular school in the UK

    9/10yrs of religious education is a bit of over-kill if the idea is to know a bit about world religions isn't it? If the ideal is to learn about culture and world views then I think a humanities class or something would serve much better.


  • #49
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Truley wrote: »
    If it's a leaving cert exam then it is awarded CAO points like any other subject. And there are an array of fields of study where the study of world religions and their orign are helpful, sociology, politics, theology :P history to name but a few.

    Its useful in CAO terms only because someone decided it was a requirement, not because anything contained in it was inherently useful to third level courses (kinda like Irish for the leaving cert being a requirement for almost all courses). One thing I've seen in my third level education is how weak and simple the 2nd level material is compared to what you do in 3rd level. Most courses dont actually require you to have done the material in 2nd level either, you can take catch up classes and pick up the entire material ina few weeks.
    Truley wrote: »
    It plays a massive role in our world history. It has influenced the way we think and act today,

    How does religion influence the way we think and act? Ethics and things like the "golden rule" predate the main religions. Even if they didn't, the fact that most people base their actions on the thought of what a sky faiy will do them is a bad thing, better to get them out of that kind of thinking.
    Truley wrote: »
    it has influenced our art and literature,

    I would wager copious amounts of drugs have influenced art and literature on a par with the level of religion, its far from the only source of inspiration there is.
    Truley wrote: »
    our political system,

    Political democracies are a greek invention, no? Quite different from the patriarchal pseudomonarchies you get ruiling religious cults.
    Truley wrote: »
    our wars.

    Its certainly used an excuse for war, by people who see how easy it is to drive the unwashed masses with promises of greater reward in heaven.
    Truley wrote: »
    It's a pressing current issue in the social and political sphere.

    The economic state of the world is far more pressing at the moment, what with the recession ruining many peoples chances for jobs.
    Truley wrote: »
    Football and videogames have an effect too, but not to the same extent organised religion has.

    Tell that to the millions of people watching the world cup.
    Truley wrote: »
    It's not necessarily a class on tolerance. It's a class on something that exists in the world and has a massive inpact on our day to day lives, that includes children's.

    The good parts of religion (morals etc) predate it (and are better expressed and argued without envoking a contradictory jerk-off sky fairy) and the bad things boil down to the same bad things that cause all bad things - pride and the desire for power. Religious class is entirely unecessary, a simple ethics and debating classes covers all aspects in a way that will let kids better set for encountering issues that arent covered in the relatively short time in class.
    The problem is the hardline christians, who cant think of how to make a fully functioning member of society without a healthy infusion of christian god, have been replaced with hardline deists, who cant think of how to make a fully functioning member of society without a healthy infusion of generic brand sky fairy.
    Truley wrote: »
    I wasn't saying it to you so relax

    So you dont deny its a defense mechanism for you to discount other peoples criticisims?


  • #50
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,587 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Truley wrote: »
    But if we were to go down the secular route like so many people are calling for, I still think it could lead to confusion because it wouldn't be a realistic reflection on the children's backgrounds, their home lives, their society etc That's the impression I get from America anyway, where despite the school system fundamentalism is huge, and there is a constant disharmony because the religious majority feel ostracized.
    Again, I think you're misrepresenting what people are calling for. Most people here agree a generic World Religion class at some point in kids' schooling is a good idea. It's just nowhere near as important as teaching good communication or basic math skills.

    This is probably my fault for backing you into a corner on one point you made, but in general we all in complete agreement!


  • #51
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Truley wrote: »
    But if we were to go down the secular route like so many people are calling for, I still think it could lead to confusion because it wouldn't be a realistic reflection on the children's backgrounds, their home lives, their society etc That's the impression I get from America anyway, where despite the school system fundamentalism is huge, and there is a constant disharmony because the religious majority feel ostracized.

    There is disharmony because the religious majority want their beliefs taught as fact in science classes. the problem is that these people dont understand that personal opinion is never at the same level as demonstratable evidence and that they think they deserve to be protected from any questioning and criticism. Multi denominational religious education wont solve this problem, because they will they will see the teaching of other religions in religion class as the same as teaching evolution and the scientific method in science and teach their kids to reject it out of hand. Like Dades said, most of a kids beliefs about the real world are influenced by what they are told at home.
    Truley wrote: »
    That's why I like the idea of multi-denominational religious education, because it's more all encompassing, less likely to lead to clashes, and a more realistic reflection of the 'real' world where you can't always 'opt out' of religious influence, unfortunately

    And why isn't a general ethics class better than this? Teach all kids secular ethics (which predate and surpass religious ethics) and debating techniques (which will teach them to give the opposition a chance to speak, and how to recognise and counter bad arguments and logical fallacies) and you dont need to envoke magic as a reason.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Dades wrote: »
    Again, I think you're misrepresenting what people are calling for. Most people here agree a generic World Religion class at some point in kids' schooling is a good idea. It's just nowhere near as important as teaching good communication or basic math skills.

    This is probably my fault for backing you into a corner on one point you made, but in general we all in complete agreement!

    I should restate my point, I think, just to keep things clear for Truley.
    I dont think a world religion class is a particularly great idea. It is certainly a much better idea than the very christian orientated religion class I got, but I dont certainly dont think it is nearly so important as to be examined along side other more useful classes in the LC. I think any good points from world religion class will come from general ethics classes and debating classes (I explained why before)$ and that they will do them better.


  • #53
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,587 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It is certainly a much better idea than the very christian orientated religion class I got, but I dont certainly dont think it is nearly so important as to be examined along side other more useful classes in the LC. I think any good points from world religion class will come from general ethics classes and debating classes (I explained why before)$ and that they will do them better.
    TBH I don't see why it can't be a LC subject - it is, I assume, like most LC subjects not compulsory. Once it's not forced on people it can be picked up by whoever wants to do it, like Classical Studies or Home Ec.

    I also think the whole "World Religion" thing would in fact be best taught under the guise of some sort of Humanities/Ethics/Civics class. It's worth teaching, as well as the stuff you mention above.


  • #54
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Dades wrote: »
    TBH I don't why it can't be a LC subject - it is, I assume, like most LC subjects not compulsory. Once it's not forced on people it can be picked up by whoever wants to do it, like Classical Studies or Home Ec.

    I also think the whole "World Religion" thing would in fact be best taught under the guise of some sort of Humanities/Ethics/Civics class. It's worth teaching, as well as the stuff you mention above.

    I'd agree with this, as long as it isn't compulsory, like you said. Can anyone confirm if it is or isn't compulsory?


  • #55
    Risteard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,698 ✭✭✭Risteard


    We didn't have Religion as an exam subject but we used the books anyway. They're pretty much about world religions.

    I wouldn't mind religion being taught as an exam subject as long as it wasn't biased towards one religion in particular. I'm sure there are lots of people out there that are interested in different religions without actually believing in them.


  • #56
    Truley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭Truley


    Ok let me put what I initially said into perspective. I did my leaving certificate in 2007.

    English: I learned off an essay for every topic that came up and regurgitated it on the day, it didn't teach me much by way of creative writing. Got a B1 higher level, you've read enough of my posts to see that that doesn't say much about the standard of leaving cert English :P

    Maths: An important skill to grasp and one of the few subjects in second level that you can't just fluke as an exam. I got an A2 and it was a requirement to get into my university course. But since then I have never used more than basic primary school arithmetic, in fact I had a look at by brother's exam papers this week and I couldn't even tackle the '(b)' questions. I haven't used leaving cert maths since leaving school

    Irish: Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    French: It's good to learn a language, and it is a requirement for (some) third level courses. However I never persued it beyond leaving cert.

    Business Studies: Learned off a few definitions, hasn't helped me beyond school. Isn't a requirement for third level. Got an A1.

    Physics: See maths

    History: Course is a load of sh*te heavily watered down and incredibly biased. Not a requirement for college.

    Religion: The formal exam subject wasn't an option when I did the leaving. We only did the 'informal Catholicism classes. My brother is taking religion and he and his friends love it, and not because it's a doss subject it's actually meant to be quite tough. He reckons it will benefit him in his chosen career (journalism) more than maths or biology.

    So yes I still stand by my opinion that religion is equally as relevant as any of the other leaving certificate subjects. I'm not saying religion is extra special or 'better' than any other subject, I'm saying that it's no less educational or applicable than the supposedly 'real' subjects. In some cases it is more relevant for people in thier future study and career. Does that clarify what I'm trying to say any better?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So you dont deny its a defense mechanism for you to discount other peoples criticisims?

    Oy vey I'm not here for a petty argument. Get a saucer of milk and chill out will ye :rolleyes:
    Dades wrote: »
    This is probably my fault for backing you into a corner on one point you made, but in general we all in complete agreement!

    All together now! *I'd like to teach, the world to sing...* :pac:


  • #57
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Truley wrote: »
    So yes I still stand by my opinion that religion is equally as relevant as any of the other leaving certificate subjects. I'm not saying religion is extra special or 'better' than any other subject, I'm saying that it's no less educational or applicable than the supposedly 'real' subjects. In some cases it is more relevant for people in thier future study and career. Does that clarify what I'm trying to say any better?

    But now you've just ended up with a moot point, of sorts. Everyone is different, everyone is going to have subjects that will help them better in what they do in later life. Science and maths will help the people who go into science, history and classics the historians and archaologists etc. Just because religion helps you doesn't mean its going to be anything special to anyone else. And it certainly doesn't mean that there can be better ways to teach the fundamental points.
    I suppose the point has now become is religion class (the world religion class described before) something that every school kid should do? Should it be compulsory? I dont think so. Like I said before, ethics classes and debating classes will teach kids how to allow for other ideas, how to fairly discuss them and how rebute bad ones.


  • #58
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,587 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    But now you've just ended up with a moot point, of sorts. Everyone is different, everyone is going to have subjects that will help them better in what they do in later life. Science and maths will help the people who go into science, history and classics the historians and archaologists etc. Just because religion helps you doesn't mean its going to be anything special to anyone else. And it certainly doesn't mean that there can be better ways to teach the fundamental points.
    I agree. In my real life experience, knowledge of world religions was a complete irrelevancy. I have to go onto Boards to even find any kind of discussion on the matter.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I suppose the point has now become is religion class (the world religion class described before) something that every school kid should do? Should it be compulsory? I dont think so. Like I said before, ethics classes and debating classes will teach kids how to allow for other ideas, how to fairly discuss them and how rebute bad ones.
    I think ignoring religion in a course on ethics/humanities or whatever is like ignoring the elephant in the room. Much as I'd love to see religion and superstition fade into myth, it the supposed source of much of the worlds 'morality' for better and frequently worse.

    History class covers the Dark Ages as well as the Renaissance. :pac:


  • #59
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Dades wrote: »
    I agree. In my real life experience, knowledge of world religions was a complete irrelevancy. I have to go onto Boards to even find any kind of discussion on the matter.

    I think ignoring religion in a course on ethics/humanities or whatever is like ignoring the elephant in the room. Much as I'd love to see religion and superstition fade into myth, it the supposed source of much of the worlds 'morality' for better and frequently worse.

    History class covers the Dark Ages as well as the Renaissance. :pac:

    I'm not saying religion should be entirely ignored, it would have a place, for the moment, as exercises in ethics and debating classes. Its just I wouldn't see the need to have a class entirely on the subject of religion at all.


Advertisement