Quinn: Schools spend too much time on religion and Irish

philologos · 14-12-2012 10:32AM

Ush1 wrote: »

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

I have answered it. Sorry if you don't like my answer but any science teacher worth their salt will be able to distinguish between things that concern the natural universe and things which don't.

Whether or not you believe in miracles depends on whether or not you believe in God. I've made it crystal that I agree that if there is no God, miracles are absurd.

The underlying question is do you believe that God exists, yes and no. That's not something for science class. That's where RE comes in.

Much in the same way as I wouldn't advocate ramming Christianity into the science curriculum I wouldn't support ramming atheism in their either.

Let science class be science class.

philologos · 14-12-2012 10:34AM

Your original objection as for why religion class shouldn't be taught doesn't seem to be holding up at this point Ush1. Do you have any other reasons?

Ush1 · 14-12-2012 10:38AM

philologos wrote: »

I have answered it. Sorry if you don't like my answer but any science teacher worth their salt will be able to distinguish between things that concern the natural universe and things which don't.

Whether or not you believe in miracles depends on whether or not you believe in God. I've made it crystal that I agree that if there is no God, miracles are absurd.

The underlying question is do you believe that God exists, yes and no. That's not something for science class. That's where RE comes in.

Much in the same way as I wouldn't advocate ramming Christianity into the science curriculum I wouldn't support ramming atheism in their either.

Let science class be science class.

So when the student asks in the science class you'll do what exactly?? Tell them to go to RE?? Curl your lips inward and make a shrug gesture?

Ush1 · 14-12-2012 10:40AM

philologos wrote: »

Your original objection as for why religion class shouldn't be taught doesn't seem to be holding up at this point Ush1. Do you have any other reasons?

How is it not holding up exactly?

philologos · 14-12-2012 10:47AM

Ush1 wrote: »

So when the student asks in the science class you'll do what exactly?? Tell them to go to RE?? Curl your lips inward and make a shrug gesture?

Science deals with the natural universe and what is commonly observed in it. Supernatural considerations are beyond its remit. This doesn't mean that there is a contradiction.

No atheist bias should be allowed in the science class much in the same way Christian bias shouldn't be allowed. The answer I gave is the most sufficient probably.

Biggins · 14-12-2012 10:48AM

The effect of mixing schools and religion...

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priest-on-the-naughty-list-as-parents-see-red-on-santa-gaffe-3325727.html

A PRIEST might find himself on Santa's naughty list this Christmas after bold comments he made to pupils in a local national school.

Fr Martin Hegarty caused a real festive season stir when he suggested that Father Christmas did not exist.

Fr Hegarty, who retired as parish priest of the Kerry seaside parish of Ballybunion last year, made the remarks when visiting fourth, fifth and sixth class children in Scoil Mhuire Gan Smal in Lixnaw.

The double-standard irony!

It’s ironic because Hegarty told the class not to believe in one mystical figure while not mentioning that they should not believe also in a possible other one. An invisible man that was centuries old, still supposedly also alive, having previously died after being nailed to a cross! A mystical invisible man that remarkably also is able to tell if kids have been naughty or nice too!

Ush1 · 14-12-2012 10:54AM

philologos wrote: »

Science deals with the natural universe and what is commonly observed in it. Supernatural considerations are beyond its remit. This doesn't mean that there is a contradiction.

No atheist bias should be allowed in the science class much in the same way Christian bias shouldn't be allowed. The answer I gave is the most sufficient probably.

You gave no answer to be honest, you're simply squirming.

So what's the logical conclusion here? You essentially can't teach anything because anything is possible right? Can a man fly? Can my head turn into an xmas pudding? If a religion says it, it's possible. Brilliant.

Science, by physics, has laws of the universe. A man walking on water would violate those laws so would not be possible. I'm not sure what you mean by science has no opinion on the supernatural? It's got no opinion on pink unicorns cause there's f*ck all evidence of them.

Your beliefs don't seem to be holding up at this point philologos. Do you have any others?

philologos · 14-12-2012 11:07AM

Ush1 wrote: »

You gave no answer to be honest, you're simply squirming.

So what's the logical conclusion here? You essentially can't teach anything because anything is possible right? Can a man fly? Can my head turn into an xmas pudding? If a religion says it, it's possible. Brilliant.

Science, by physics, has laws of the universe. A man walking on water would violate those laws so would not be possible. I'm not sure what you mean by science has no opinion on the supernatural? It's got no opinion on pink unicorns cause there's f*ck all evidence of them.

Your beliefs don't seem to be holding up at this point philologos. Do you have any others?

Your atheist bias isn't appropriate to teach in science class. Neither is a Christian one. I'm not going to go around and around in circles when I've already explained fully what my position is in respect to science class.

If God created the world. It's entirely possible that miracles could occur. If God did not create the world, then miracles are absurd. If you're going to teach an atheist bias in the classroom there needs to be universally accepted justification for it.

You don't even seem to be half interested in listening. So what's the point?

No matter how desperate you are to reach this conclusion. Science doesn't rule out the existence of a creator (which by the by is entirely reasonable and logical to hold to despite your protestations and others that unicorns and Santa, Superman and so on are rivals).

Ush1 · 14-12-2012 11:20AM

philologos wrote: »

Your atheist bias isn't appropriate to teach in science class. Neither is a Christian one. I'm not going to go around and around in circles when I've already explained fully what my position is in respect to science class.

If God created the world. It's entirely possible that miracles could occur. If God did not create the world, then miracles are absurd. If you're going to teach an atheist bias in the classroom there needs to be universally accepted justification for it.

You don't even seem to be half interested in listening. So what's the point?

No matter how desperate you are to reach this conclusion. Science doesn't rule out the existence of a creator (which by the by is entirely reasonable and logical to hold to despite your protestations and others that unicorns and Santa, Superman and so on are rivals).

Who's mentioning a creator? I'm attempting to see your logic.

So can my head spontaneously turn into an xmas pudding is not a question suitable for science class or religion class? Should such a question ever be asked?

philologos · 14-12-2012 11:24AM

Ush1 wrote: »

Who's mentioning a creator? I'm attempting to see your logic.

So can my head spontaneously turn into an xmas pudding is not a question suitable for science class or religion class? Should such a question ever be asked?

I've explained it to you very clearly in a number of posts already. The question or miracles depends on whether or not you believe there to be a Creator or not.

I'm done going in circles with you.

kippy · 14-12-2012 11:53AM

philologos wrote: »

I've explained it to you very clearly in a number of posts already. The question or miracles depends on whether or not you believe there to be a Creator or not.

I'm done going in circles with you.

What is the problem with the parents who wish their child to be taught religious education, teaching it to them themselves or bringing them to church/whatever the church sets up to teach religion?
(I've used the same logic earlier for those people who want their kids to be taught a specific programming language)

Religion is not a subject nor should it ever have been a subject. The ONLY reason it is taught in schools is because the majority of schools were set up and part funded by the catholic church. I suppose there were seen as a form of Sunday school.

philologos · 14-12-2012 11:55AM

kippy wrote: »

What is the problem with the parents who wish their child to be taught religious education, teaching it to them themselves or bringing them to church/whatever the church sets up to teach religion?

Religion is not a subject nor should it ever have been a subject. The ONLY reason it is taught in schools is because the majority of schools were set up and part funded by the catholic church. I suppose there were seen as a form of Sunday school.

It's a subject that is examined by the Irish State at Junior and Leaving Cert level. It's also a subject that is taught at GCSE and A Levels in the UK and I suspect in most other international examinations. Are you sure it isn't a subject?

kippy · 14-12-2012 12:02PM

philologos wrote: »

It's a subject that is examined by the Irish State at Junior and Leaving Cert level. It's also a subject that is taught at GCSE and A Levels in the UK and I suspect in most other international examinations. Are you sure it isn't a subject?

Yep, 100% sure (straight) religion isn't a subject.
It's there as a historic throwback to the setting up of these schools in the first place.
It has absolutely no place in a school as a compulsory subject.
Parents want their kid to get a religious education, teach it to them themselves instead of forcing every other child in the school into a brainwash.

Sure, tell some religions stories, possibly in english or to assist with some morals, but don't take up acres of time on confessions, communions, confirmations in an effort to appease the church.

philologos · 14-12-2012 12:06PM

kippy wrote: »

Yep, 100% sure (straight) religion isn't a subject.
It's there as a historic throwback to the setting up of these schools in the first place.
It has absolutely no place in a school as a compulsory subject.
Parents want their kid to get a religious education, teach it to them themselves instead of forcing every other child in the school into a brainwash.

Sure, tell some religions stories, possibly in english or to assist with some morals, but don't take up acres of time on confessions, communions, confirmations in an effort to appease the church.

Isn't a subject by what definition? Plenty of education departments and universities seem to regard it as a subject.

kippy · 14-12-2012 12:13PM

philologos wrote: »

Isn't a subject by what definition? Plenty of education departments and universities seem to regard it as a subject.

As I said, it's a outdated thank you to whatever religions set up the schools in the first place (surely that bit is obvious)
The reasons it is now examined in the state are also obvious I would have thought? (To give it some level of "importance")

I dont give a damn what universities call it. Universities call some completly off the wall stuff subjects, that doesn't justify their existence.

The church has for decades had a major hold over this country to the countries detriment in my opinion and one of the key ways it has managed this is via setting up schools and having a major say over the curriculum and it's teachings.
This absolute has to stop in state funded schools (of which all are now state funded)
If parents want their kids to have a religions education, bring them to mass, prepare them for the sacraments themselves etc etc.

muckety · 14-12-2012 12:15PM

I think you need to distinguish between religion as an academic subject and religious doctrine, 2 different things. Teaching all children about world religions, their differences (and more importantly, similarities) has a lot of value in my opinion. Teaching religious doctrine would be better done extra-curricular.

kippy · 14-12-2012 12:17PM

muckety wrote: »

I think you need to distinguish between religion as an academic subject and religious doctrine, 2 different things. Teaching all children about world religions, their differences (and more importantly, similarities) has a lot of value in my opinion. Teaching religious doctrine would be better done extra-curricular.

That's probably a fair point.
That being said religion as an academic subject should be given and extremely low priority in subjects taught.

I'd much rather see the time either spent on a different subject or probably more importantly on giving more assistance to the weaker in the class in the "core" subjects.

Kev_2012 · 14-12-2012 12:27PM

They should teach foreign languages to young children (german, chinese etc.etc.) We are far too monolingual as a nation! I never attended religion classes, but I think it's probably good for young kids to basically teach them the ways of the world and not necessarily religion as we see it! I would have loved to do science from an early age!

Ush1 · 14-12-2012 12:35PM

philologos wrote: »

I've explained it to you very clearly in a number of posts already. The question or miracles depends on whether or not you believe there to be a Creator or not.

I'm done going in circles with you.

So you still see no incompatability? I'm sure you're a nice guy but you're a maniac mate.:)

philologos · 14-12-2012 01:10PM

Ush1 wrote: »

So you still see no incompatability? I'm sure you're a nice guy but you're a maniac mate.:)

No I don't see an incompatibility.

The reason, I believe that God created all things including the scientific laws that you claim preclude miracles taking place. If I didn't I'd be making the same new-atheist assumptions as you.

Except I don't feel the need to be as obnoxious as to claim that you're a manic

kippy · 14-12-2012 01:11PM

philologos wrote: »

No I don't see an incompatibility.

The reason, I believe that God created all things including the scientific laws that you claim preclude miracles taking place. If I didn't I'd be making the same new-atheist assumptions as you.

Except I don't feel the need to be as obnoxious as to claim that you're a manic

Thats a great believe to have, what more do you need to learn?

Ush1 · 14-12-2012 01:15PM

philologos wrote: »

No I don't see an incompatibility.

The reason, I believe that God created all things including the scientific laws that you claim preclude miracles taking place. If I didn't I'd be making the same new-atheist assumptions as you.

Except I don't feel the need to be as obnoxious as to claim that you're a manic

So how are you going to teach a class science when the students may or may not believe in God?

Also, what about people who believe in miracles but not a creator, why is this creator needed?

Ah sure you're obnoxious in other ways.:)

Playboy · 14-12-2012 01:26PM

Religion shouldnt be taught in state funded schools full stop unless its a once a week class which talks about Religion in sociological and philosophical context.

Irish should be an optional subject and only taught from second level onwards. If you want your little johnny or mary to speak Irish then teach them at home or send them to an Irish speaking school at your own expense.

One of German, Arabic, Spanish and Chinese should be compulsory from primary school.

Science and Engineering should be invested in heavily and scholarships and grants made available to a wider extent for students to take up these subjects. If Ireland wants to create a non bubble based economy then it needs to sort its education out pronto. Too many people going to university who come out the other side with no practical skills

philologos · 14-12-2012 01:27PM

Ush1 wrote: »

So how are you going to teach a class science when the students may or may not believe in God?

Also, what about people who believe in miracles but not a creator, why is this creator needed?

Ah sure you're obnoxious in other ways.:)

I've answered that question already multiple times now.

kippy: Many things, I plan on being in this creation for a very long time. I don't claim to be omniscient, all I do claim is to follow someone who is.

kippy · 14-12-2012 02:03PM

philologos wrote: »

I've answered that question already multiple times now.

kippy: Many things, I plan on being in this creation for a very long time. I don't claim to be omniscient, all I do claim is to follow someone who is.

But what more do you need to learn if you believe in what you believe in?
God created everything, end of.

Permabear · 14-12-2012 02:58PM

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs · 14-12-2012 03:32PM

Yea Permy, but you're up against two pretty big and vocal lobbies that would fight against such changes. One part of the tag team is the church which runs an awful lot of the schools in the country. Luckily they're way down on power these days, but still exercise some. Then the other member of the tag team is the Irish language lobby. They've very vocal when they want to be and given many if not most of the employment opportunities in that language are in education, never mind other aspects of the Irish language industry supporting it's compulsion and well... turkeys aint gonna vote for xmas.

MadsL · 14-12-2012 03:48PM

Ush1 wrote: »

So you still see no incompatability? I'm sure you're a nice guy but you're a maniac mate.:)

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

Ush1 wrote: »

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.

You are getting obsessed with this 'timescale'. A study of the world's religions is relevant either for a study of history or for current affairs. I never said anything one way or another about a current affairs class.

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

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

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

Demonstrated? In a beaker?

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

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

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.

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

Learning about everything man can make up, isn't.

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

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

Do I have to spell that out?

Consider their place sounds disconcertingly vague, might offend some people I'd reckon unless all were included, see a problem?

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

Also, you're calling certain religions a business, highly offensive I reckon.

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

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?"

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

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.

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

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

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

blah blah blah deflection from the argument.

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

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

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

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

OK, bye then so. You seemed so keen, what happened?

jupiter00 · 14-12-2012 04:00PM

Go on, why not ask the families and children and families whether they want to study Irish? Be brave and try it out, people who love and need it continue with it and if we don't want to we don't have to study it? Interesting to see the opinions of students!

Permabear · 14-12-2012 04:04PM

This post has been deleted.

Quinn: Schools spend too much time on religion and Irish

Comments