Quinn: Schools spend too much time on religion and Irish

hyperborean · 13-12-2012 05:58PM

There should be no religious education in primary school, nothing, not even a sniff. Its the wrong place for it.
Do it at home if must

Religious education as part of the ciriculum in second level is fine, not even as a subject, obviously theology and the likes can be chosen if thats your bag but to foist it on any growing human is nothing short of abuse!

Same again, do it at home if must

Irish is just a language.... teach like any other, but make it a choice.

philologos · 13-12-2012 06:02PM

Ush1 wrote: »

So Jesus breaking the laws of physics and biology and whatever other discipline of science is something that silence is "silent on".

What sort of apologist rubbish is that?

So you could with a straight face teach your physics students that a man can walk on water? I honestly don't know where to start....

It depends on what you assume prior to this. If God created the world I have no issue with believing that He can influence creation. Indeed I've no reason to assume that God would be bound by the natural laws He created.

If you assume that God doesn't exist then the idea of miracles is absurd.

I haven't heard even a half good argument to deny consideration of the existence of God yet and I would oppose ramming atheist bias into the education system.

Ush1 · 13-12-2012 06:06PM

philologos wrote: »

It depends on what you assume prior to this. If God created the world I have no issue with believing that He can influence creation. Indeed I've no reason to assume that God would be bound by the natural laws He created.

If you assume that God doesn't exist then the idea of miracles is absurd.

I haven't heard even a half good argument to deny consideration of the existence of God yet and I would oppose ramming atheist bias into the education system.

lol, great at avoiding the question I see.

So you would answer yes? You would tell those students that a man can take a stroll on water? That's what every science teacher should be teaching as the curriculum would be the same everywhere yes?

I'm not even bothered to be honest. I'll just say for someone who says critical thinking brought them to religion, the mental gymnastics you display are something to behold.

MadsL · 13-12-2012 06:12PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Hardly current then is it? What class is that topic covered in?

Are you trying to say that I am only arguing for the applicability of Religious Studies to an understanding of current events? Because I am not.

Explain to me if it is better to study race relations in France in the 80s with an understanding of Islam or just a label "Muslim" without any really understanding of the practices behind it?

Moral systems are certainly not religions.

Most moral systems have a religious basis in history and are adapted and restated. The internet rule of "Don't be a dick" is a restatement of "Do unto others" for instance.

Hang on, are you teaching right or wrong? Or seer stones and Xenu?

Simply. Neither.
You seem to still be struggling with the concept of teaching someone about something. I can teach CPR without having to stop someone's heart.

Chicken or the egg? You're not legally obliged to take your children to mass.

You are not legally obliged to attend Religious Studies classes. My daughter was neither baptised nor confirmed and withdrawn from all Religion Instruction (confirmation prep) classes at primary school. Now that she is in Secondary school and learning about religions she takes full part. I'm delighted to say she got a 98% in her last test.

The made up beliefs of religion are as complex and as irrelevent as you want to be. Psychology is universally applicable. Trying to remember what all the kosher rules are is not.

Studying dietary laws and having an understanding of various dietary codes is pretty handy as a human being. Sharing food with someone is a basic human experience, and a universal one. It is nice to be polite and remember to ask my Jewish and Muslim friends if they are strict about pork or remember when my Hari Krishna friend comes over to prepare something veggie. You make knowing about dietary laws seem like a bad thing.

Why would Knowledge of a subject be A Bad Thing?

philologos · 13-12-2012 06:14PM

Ush1 wrote: »

lol, great at avoiding the question I see.

So you would answer yes? You would tell those students that a man can take a stroll on water? That's what every science teacher should be teaching as the curriculum would be the same everywhere yes?

I'm not even bothered to be honest. I'll just say for someone who says critical thinking brought them to religion, the mental gymnastics you display are something to behold.

It's getting to the core issue. The reality is that science doesn't lead to atheism. The question behind miracles ultimately leads us to do you think there can be a Creator?

I agree if God doesn't exist miracles are ridiculous.

Where we disagree on is whether or not there is a Creator and if it us logically sound to believe in one.

Oh and yes, critical thinking and examination of the claims that Christianity made led me to conclude it was true back then and I still examine things that way to the present.

It's not mental gymnastics to point out that you're making unwarranted assumptions.

philologos · 13-12-2012 06:17PM

hyperborean wrote: »

There should be no religious education in primary school, nothing, not even a sniff. Its the wrong place for it.
Do it at home if must

Religious education as part of the ciriculum in second level is fine, not even as a subject, obviously theology and the likes can be chosen if thats your bag but to foist it on any growing human is nothing short of abuse!

Same again, do it at home if must.

If it is really abuse, why would you applaud it at home? If it was genuinely abuse you'd probably want to call social services?

MadsL · 13-12-2012 06:18PM

Ush1 wrote: »

You would tell those students that a man can take a stroll on water?

Nope. You are still not getting it are you? I would tell those students that the Gospels recount that Jesus performed a number of miracles and that some people believe that at face value, whilst other Christians believe that that is a morality tale told by the disciples to teach something about the nature of faith.

Would you have a problem with such a class?

Here's a quote that may help you. "the different religious traditions, with their complex internal differentiations, have developed to meet the needs of the range of mentalities expressed in the different human cultures."
John Hick

Ush1 · 13-12-2012 06:25PM

MadsL wrote: »

Are you trying to say that I am only arguing for the applicability of Religious Studies to an understanding of current events? Because I am not.

No, I asked what subject it was and said the 1980s is hardly current?

MadsL wrote: »

Explain to me if it is better to study race relations in France in the 80s with an understanding of Islam or just a label "Muslim" without any really understanding of the practices behind it?

It would totally depend on the significance of the fact of them being muslim. I can say for instance in the troubles in N.Ireland that knowing either of the religions involved helps understand anything to do with the effects today, it is simply a flag to show demarcation.

MadsL wrote: »

Most moral systems have a religious basis in history and are adapted and restated. The internet rule of "Don't be a dick" is a restatement of "Do unto others" for instance.

What do you mean by moral systems exactly? It's probably for another thread but humans had morals before religion and morals have changed vastly over time regardless. At the end of the day, teaching "right and wrong" as you say, it's nothing to do with teaching about religion.

MadsL wrote: »

Simply. Neither.
You seem to still be struggling with the concept of teaching someone about something. I can teach CPR without having to stop someone's heart.

I can assure you I'm struggling with how it would manifest and be of any sort of use? So what are you going to teach them exactly? Is Xenu not part of the methodolgy of thinking of Scientologists? Is seer stones not central to the beliefs of Mormans??

MadsL wrote: »

You are not legally obliged to attend Religious Studies classes. My daughter was neither baptised nor confirmed and withdrawn from all Religion Instruction (confirmation prep) classes at primary school. Now that she is in Secondary school and learning about religions she takes full part. I'm delighted to say she got a 98% in her last test.

You're talking about now, the reason the Catholic church has power is because that choice was not always there.

MadsL wrote: »

Studying dietary laws and having an understanding of various dietary codes is pretty handy as a human being. Sharing food with someone is a basic human experience, and a universal one. It is nice to be polite and remember to ask my Jewish and Muslim friends if they are strict about pork or remember when my Hari Krishna friend comes over to prepare something veggie. You make knowing about dietary laws seem like a bad thing.

Why would Knowledge of a subject be A Bad Thing?

Well that's where you and I must differ. I would much rather my child learn some basic concepts of how people think and percieve things around the world that is universally applicable than how some Bronze age text certain people read tells them how to prepare certain foods.

It's a waste of time in my opinion when they chould spend time on more relevant things.

Ush1 · 13-12-2012 06:28PM

philologos wrote: »

It's getting to the core issue. The reality is that science doesn't lead to atheism. The question behind miracles ultimately leads us to do you think there can be a Creator?

I agree if God doesn't exist miracles are ridiculous.

Where we disagree on is whether or not there is a Creator and if it us logically sound to believe in one.

Oh and yes, critical thinking and examination of the claims that Christianity made led me to conclude it was true back then and I still examine things that way to the present.

It's not mental gymnastics to point out that you're making unwarranted assumptions.

So are you going to answer the question or not??? I can tell you now that if a student asked any science teacher in class could a man walk on water they would say no. Are you going to answer different? That means science and religion are conflicting.

Ush1 · 13-12-2012 06:30PM

MadsL wrote: »

Nope. You are still not getting it are you? I would tell those students that the Gospels recount that Jesus performed a number of miracles and that some people believe that at face value, whilst other Christians believe that that is a morality tale told by the disciples to teach something about the nature of faith.

Would you have a problem with such a class?

Here's a quote that may help you. "the different religious traditions, with their complex internal differentiations, have developed to meet the needs of the range of mentalities expressed in the different human cultures."
John Hick

Getting what? You're arguing one banal issue and the other poster something different.

philologos · 13-12-2012 06:38PM

Ush1 wrote: »

So are you going to answer the question or not??? I can tell you now that if a student asked any science teacher in class could a man walk on water they would say no. Are you going to answer different? That means science and religion are conflicting.

I am answering your question by saying that actually it depends on your presupposition. That's what I think should be clearly mentioned.

Science itself doesn't rule out miracles taking place. It doesn't deal with what is supernatural.

hyperborean · 13-12-2012 07:12PM

philologos wrote: »

If it is really abuse, why would you applaud it at home? If it was genuinely abuse you'd probably want to call social services?

I wouldnt applaud it either way, as for forcing spiritual guidance on any young person especially in school- of course its abuse.

Social services are not trained to deal with it.

For the last 90 years one religious company has been using its monoploy, forcing its mantra onto the minds of young people.

Its time to move on and the best way to equip a human for adulthood is not with fairy stories and myths but with a good mind and good environment.

Education is just that,learn and grow....and as such indoctrination should be a personal thing and not part of any free societies efforts at schooling young people, let them make their own mind up when they have one to use.

MadsL · 13-12-2012 07:12PM

Ush1 wrote: »

No, I asked what subject it was and said the 1980s is hardly current?

It is from the LC History curriculum, as you have pointed out there is no LC Current Affairs subject as such. However I would certainly argue that a basic understanding of say, Islam, be included in the study of Current Affairs. Would you differ?

It would totally depend on the significance of the fact of them being muslim. I can say for instance in the troubles in N.Ireland that knowing either of the religions involved helps understand anything to do with the effects today, it is simply a flag to show demarcation.

How would you explain to someone who asked "but aren't they both Christian?" The roots of the division have religious as well as cultural and historic reasons - why would you ignore one aspect?

What do you mean by moral systems exactly? It's probably for another thread but humans had morals before religion and morals have changed vastly over time regardless. At the end of the day, teaching "right and wrong" as you say, it's nothing to do with teaching about religion.

"Humans had morals before religion" - Did they? What is your source for this? The oldest written law code in existence, the stele of Ur-Nammu, from 2100 BCE is richly decorated with images of gods.

If you think religions have nothing to do with how many people frame "right and wrong" you clearly haven't been paying attention to the world.

I can assure you I'm struggling with how it would manifest and be of any sort of use?

You think learning about how millions of people frame their moral, social and legal decisions is not of use to most people? I don't know how to help you with that. Baffled to be honest.

Just wondering if you feel that Calculus and Pythagorean Theorem should not be taught as they are "not of use to most people". I would suggest you have probably met more people from a different religious tradition/background than times you have used Calculus since leaving school.

So what are you going to teach them exactly?

Definition of TEACH

transitive verb
1 a : to cause to know something

You still seem to be struggling and equating teach with indoctrinate.

Is Xenu not part of the methodolgy of thinking of Scientologists? Is seer stones not central to the beliefs of Mormans??

I'd consider their place in the curriculum, admittedly Scientology has grown a fair bit since I last taught - I'd still describe it as more of a business than a religion tbh.

Mormonism is a Christian sect, we'd never be done if we went into every detail of Christian sects, there are thousands.

You're talking about now, the reason the Catholic church has power is because that choice was not always there.

No-one was forced to attend a Catholic school, alternative schools have always been available - just not in a convenient manner. And we are discussing the present system.

You seem to wish for a demise of RE for current students as a 'revenge' on the Catholic Church in someway, forgive me if I don't see education as a battleground.

Well that's where you and I must differ. I would much rather my child learn some basic concepts of how people think and percieve things around the world that is universally applicable than how some Bronze age text certain people read tells them how to prepare certain foods.

Such as?

You might also wish to educate yourself as to the age of those texts, whilst the Vedic texts are end of bronze age period along with the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Old Testament) the rest of the Old and New Testaments are much later and the oldest fragments of the Qu'ran reaches into the seventh century AD. Your cartoonish mocking gives away your ignorance as to when the texts were written.

It's a waste of time in my opinion when they chould spend time on more relevant things.

Do you think studying 16th Century texts is a waste of time then?

Ush1 wrote: »

Getting what? You're arguing one banal issue and the other poster something different.

Banal? If we are boring you, do tell.

philologos · 13-12-2012 07:43PM

Ush1: Mormonism was covered in Leaving Cert RE when I sat it in 2008 as a restorationalist Christian-based religion.

Lelantos · 13-12-2012 07:48PM

philologos wrote: »

Ush1: Mormonism was covered in Leaving Cert RE when I sat it in 2008 as a restorationalist Christian-based religion.

Fixed that

MadsL · 13-12-2012 07:51PM

Lelantos wrote: »

Fixed that

Ha ha ha....

...ha

..umm...

*cough*

<embarrassed for you>

smileyj1987 · 13-12-2012 07:52PM

How would people feel about dropping them into a subject choice rather then compulsory subjects .

philologos · 13-12-2012 07:52PM

hyperborean wrote: »

I wouldnt applaud it either way, as for forcing spiritual guidance on any young person especially in school- of course its abuse.

Social services are not trained to deal with it.

For the last 90 years one religious company has been using its monoploy, forcing its mantra onto the minds of young people.

Its time to move on and the best way to equip a human for adulthood is not with fairy stories and myths but with a good mind and good environment.

Education is just that,learn and grow....and as such indoctrination should be a personal thing and not part of any free societies efforts at schooling young people, let them make their own mind up when they have one to use.

If it was really abuse why aren't social workers trained to "deal with it"?

Irrespective would you support the State taking children from Christian parents?

I'm sorry but I don't buy this extreme anti-theist claptrap. It's worse than state sponsored religion and it goes far beyond secularism.

Scanlas The 2nd · 13-12-2012 07:55PM

philologos wrote: »

It depends on what you assume prior to this. If God created the world I have no issue with believing that He can influence creation. Indeed I've no reason to assume that God would be bound by the natural laws He created.

If you assume that God doesn't exist then the idea of miracles is absurd.

I haven't heard even a half good argument to deny consideration of the existence of God yet and I would oppose ramming atheist bias into the education system.

I haven't heard even a half good argument to deny the existence of Superman.

Scanlas The 2nd · 13-12-2012 07:58PM

philologos wrote: »

If it was really abuse why aren't social workers trained to "deal with it"?

Irrespective would you support the State taking children from Christian parents?

I'm sorry but I don't buy this extreme anti-theist claptrap. It's worse than state sponsored religion and it goes far beyond secularism.

How can you actually think it's fair to teach young impressionable children one particular religion as fact? They are too young never mind the bias to one particular religion.

philologos · 13-12-2012 08:02PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I haven't heard even a half good argument to deny the existence of Superman.

Looking to a creator as a possibility is entirely reasonable.

The new-atheist fallacy of comparing a creator God to the FSM or Santa or Superman or whatever the heck you want yourself is flawed. The argument only is ridiculous because of adding spaghetti for example in the case of the FSM.

It doesn't detract from the notion that if there is indeed a creation there is a clear possibility that there is a creator. Moreover it is entirely reasonable that such a creator would both be able to communicate to Creation and that He wouldn't be restricted by the scientific laws He Himself created.

That's a position that remains to be satisfactorily engaged with by the new-atheist.

MadsL · 13-12-2012 08:02PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

How can you actually think it's fair to teach young impressionable children one particular religion as fact? They are too young never mind the bias to one particular religion.

What taxes should we raise to take over the schools from the Catholic Church?

Parents have the right of withdrawal and increasingly, choices in education.

I'd argue for seperation of Church and State in education - and a proper RE syllabus based on Comparative Religion study - but it seems no-one is willing to remove the Church from the education system.

Lelantos · 13-12-2012 08:03PM

MadsL wrote: »

Ha ha ha....

...ha

..umm...

*cough*

<embarrassed for you>

Don't worry, I'll live

13-12-2012 08:06PM

philologos wrote: »

It doesn't detract from the notion that if there is indeed a creation there is a clear possibility that there is a creator. .

That's because you're assuming it is a creation because you think it has a creator because it is a creation... etc.

"new ideas I don't like" are no less valid than yours

philologos · 13-12-2012 08:13PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

How can you actually think it's fair to teach young impressionable children one particular religion as fact? They are too young never mind the bias to one particular religion.

I think that it's inevitable that every parent will impart some values to their children while growing up.

If parents want to raise their children in the Christian faith there is still the decision that the child will have to make for themselves. At 17 I decided to accept Jesus Christ as Lord on looking to the Scripture for myself.

As a Christian and as a follower of Jesus Christ in the event that I get married and have children I will teach them about Scripture and about the God I trust in. If I believe that Jesus is the Saviour of the world and that people need to repent and believe in the Gospel to be saved it would be highly negligent, irresponsible, heartless and downright cruel for me not to. If I believe truly that God's way is best for me and my family why would I live a different way?

You hold to an atheistic worldview so of course how you conduct your life would be different. I don't follow a man alone philosophy. I trust in a sovereign and holy God and I live and speak for Him. In everything I do.

Asking a Christian to live according to an atheist worldview is simply daft.

Ush1 · 14-12-2012 09:50AM

philologos wrote: »

I am answering your question by saying that actually it depends on your presupposition. That's what I think should be clearly mentioned.

Science itself doesn't rule out miracles taking place. It doesn't deal with what is supernatural.

The presupposition is you teaching a physics class in a public school.

Or are you going to tell them because there's a God it's possible for them to fly home?

philologos · 14-12-2012 09:56AM

Ush1 wrote: »

The presupposition is you teaching a physics class in a public school.

Or are you going to tell them because there's a God it's possible for them to fly home?

Whether or not miracles can happen is dependant on whether or not you believe in God. If there is no notion of a Creator, then I agree in full it is ridiculous to claim this. If there is a God however it is precisely reasonable that He would be able to do these things as He's not bound by the scientific laws He created.

I think the most reasonable approach is to simply say that science deals with the natural world not with supernatural considerations. It depends on your presuppositions as to whether or not miracles can happen.

Of course those presuppositions should be debated and discussed, but it is dishonest to say that science by default precludes these things from ever being able to occur because, well it's not true.

Ush1 · 14-12-2012 10:15AM

MadsL wrote: »

It is from the LC History curriculum, as you have pointed out there is no LC Current Affairs subject as such. However I would certainly argue that a basic understanding of say, Islam, be included in the study of Current Affairs. Would you differ?

So you want to make a current affairs class also? It would entirely depend upon what you mean by basic understanding of Islam. A basic understanding of all the abrahamic religions is easier and could be done in a very short time, no need for a special seperate class.

MadsL wrote: »

How would you explain to someone who asked "but aren't they both Christian?" The roots of the division have religious as well as cultural and historic reasons - why would you ignore one aspect?

I'd say yes, they are both christian so it just goes to show the irrelevance of religion.

The religious elemnt as I said is fairly hollow and would not need a seperate class to be demonstrated.

MadsL wrote: »

"Humans had morals before religion" - Did they? What is your source for this? The oldest written law code in existence, the stele of Ur-Nammu, from 2100 BCE is richly decorated with images of gods.

If you think religions have nothing to do with how many people frame "right and wrong" you clearly haven't been paying attention to the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Non human animals even have morals without benefit of sky wizards.

MadsL wrote: »

You think learning about how millions of people frame their moral, social and legal decisions is not of use to most people? I don't know how to help you with that. Baffled to be honest.

Just wondering if you feel that Calculus and Pythagorean Theorem should not be taught as they are "not of use to most people". I would suggest you have probably met more people from a different religious tradition/background than times you have used Calculus since leaving school.

I can see you're baffled yes. I don't know how often I can repeat this but the things you listed are universally applicable and are indeed useful in a relevant, true sense. Learning about everything man can make up, isn't.

MadsL wrote: »

Definition of TEACH

transitive verb
1 a : to cause to know something

You still seem to be struggling and equating teach with indoctrinate.

Know what????

MadsL wrote: »

I'd consider their place in the curriculum, admittedly Scientology has grown a fair bit since I last taught - I'd still describe it as more of a business than a religion tbh.

Mormonism is a Christian sect, we'd never be done if we went into every detail of Christian sects, there are thousands.

"How would you explain to someone who asked "but aren't they both Christian?" "

Consider their place sounds disconcertingly vague, might offend some people I'd reckon unless all were included, see a problem? Also, you're calling certain religions a business, highly offensive I reckon.

lol @ we'd never be done.

MadsL wrote: »

No-one was forced to attend a Catholic school, alternative schools have always been available - just not in a convenient manner. And we are discussing the present system.

That was in reply to a comment you made about the churches power??

"Even when in your own country, for instance, religious value systems prevent abortions from saving the life of the mother?"

MadsL wrote: »

You seem to wish for a demise of RE for current students as a 'revenge' on the Catholic Church in someway, forgive me if I don't see education as a battleground.

No idea where you're getting that from, I reserve no particular opinions for particular religions, all a waste of time to me. Strange accusation to make all the same.

MadsL wrote: »

Such as?

Teaching them about anger, insecurity, depression, relationships. You know, that sort of relevant stuff?

MadsL wrote: »

You might also wish to educate yourself as to the age of those texts, whilst the Vedic texts are end of bronze age period along with the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Old Testament) the rest of the Old and New Testaments are much later and the oldest fragments of the Qu'ran reaches into the seventh century AD. Your cartoonish mocking gives away your ignorance as to when the texts were written.

blah blah blah deflection from the argument.

MadsL wrote: »

Do you think studying 16th Century texts is a waste of time then?

You study texts from any period that can be a waste of time yes.

MadsL wrote: »

Banal? If we are boring you, do tell.

No, you're boring me. There has been many threads on this before so I'm not arsed rehashing the same things.

Ush1 · 14-12-2012 10:19AM

philologos wrote: »

Ush1: Mormonism was covered in Leaving Cert RE when I sat it in 2008 as a restorationalist Christian-based religion.

Great, hope you enjoyed learning about a 15 year old reading from a hat!

Ush1 · 14-12-2012 10:20AM

philologos wrote: »

Whether or not miracles can happen is dependant on whether or not you believe in God. If there is no notion of a Creator, then I agree in full it is ridiculous to claim this. If there is a God however it is precisely reasonable that He would be able to do these things as He's not bound by the scientific laws He created.

I think the most reasonable approach is to simply say that science deals with the natural world not with supernatural considerations. It depends on your presuppositions as to whether or not miracles can happen.

Of course those presuppositions should be debated and discussed, but it is dishonest to say that science by default precludes these things from ever being able to occur because, well it's not true.

Fantastic so you're not going to answer the question. You should be a politician.

Quinn: Schools spend too much time on religion and Irish

Comments