Religion In School

Dades

The Big Bite on RTE this morning had a debate on the teaching of religion in schools. They had a couple of atheists (one declared humanist), an ex atheist (re)turned Christian, and another Christian lady that had me shouting at the screen.

Anyone see it?

Oddly enough, it turned into a "lively" debate on why the panelists believe what what they do, rather than a rational debate on what is taught in schools, state funding, "ethos" (;)) etc. The usual suspects such as the holocaust and the Tsunami were brought up, as well as a little bit of evolution v ID.

The Christian lady had me shouting as when asked any question, she would waste time reminding everyone of her relationship with God, and then go on to ask non-questions like well if God didn't make the world, who did? She even got the last word which was to recommend to the non-Christians that they try talking to God. Zero to contribute.

The humanist guy said he preferred not to call himself and atheist because of the negative connotations of the word, which I thought was a wasted opportunity. He was in a great position to change the perception of the word, rather than avoid it IMO.

I missed the beginning but I don't know where they got these people. Pity they didn't recruit a few here.

They also mentioned Darwin Day, which may of interest to some folks here.
http://www.museum.ie/events/details_events.asp?eventid=898&site_id=0

lostexpectation

toiletduck wrote:

"i know people who absolutely reject god, yet are better christians than daily mass goers.

nice to hear, but what exactly does that mean ?
it sorta the issue being discussed in the other thread right now?

robindch

> nice to hear, but what exactly does that mean?

Methinks it's the altruism trick again. I mean, for how many people in this country is the word "christian" synonymous with "decent person"? Probably what he was trying to say was "i know people who absolutely reject god, yet are better people than daily mass goers", which while hardly rocket-science, is something which does run somewhat counter to the thrust of much of the church's endlessly-piped pious propaganda.

BTW, I was going to make the same comment on this posting earlier, but there's only so many times you can say the same thing before you typecast yourself, ethos*-enabled or not

(*) retching sounds.

toiletduck

robindch wrote:

> nice to hear, but what exactly does that mean?

Methinks it's the altruism trick again. I mean, for how many people in this country is the word "christian" synonymous with "decent person"? Probably what he was trying to say was "i know people who absolutely reject god, yet are better people than daily mass goers", which while hardly rocket-science, is something which does run somewhat counter to the thrust of much of the church's endlessly-piped pious propaganda.

yep, thats what he meant!

MrJoeSoap

I was looking through my younger brothers (in 2nd year atm) religion book, and it has roughly a paragraph on Atheism, not sure how mch on Agnosticism. Can't get around to scanning it in right now because its late and the book is in his room , but I will when the chance arises.

Considering most major world religions get a massive chunk of the book, I reckon it would be fair to have more than a paragraph on Atheism and Agnosticism. Hopefully the little "insights" I give my brother into religion will lead him in the right direction, although I don't want to be too forceful!

Religion was a compulsary subject for me throughout second-level education, even through sixth year iirc. My schools website even blatantly mentions:

Class groups are offered prayer experiences, which help to develop their relationship with God. Classes take part in Eucharistic Celebrations, Prayer Services, and Meditation thus making prayer a part of the ordinary life of the school.

... as well as ...

The Chaplaincy team at X Community College provide a full retreat programme for the students in the College. The retreats provide the students with an opportunity to examine their lives in relation to the issues they face each day and where God fits into their daily lives. Senior retreats are conducted away from the school and are tailored to the needs of the students.

Eglinton

Well I hope they don't teach rubbish like this in Irish schools

http://www.bibleheadquarters.org/JesusandMohammed.html


For those of you that want a laugh, the rest of that site is worth a look. There's even a section on the evils of Harry Potter. haha

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

The humanist guy said he preferred not to call himself and atheist because of the negative connotations of the word, which I thought was a wasted opportunity. He was in a great position to change the perception of the word, rather than avoid it IMO.

Negative connotations of the word Atheist? What a moron ... :rolleyes:

Dades

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Considering most major world religions get a massive chunk of the book, I reckon it would be fair to have more than a paragraph on Atheism and Agnosticism.

Okay, maybe more than a paragraph, but not much more. They're only definitions, really. It might be too much to hope that they print the "top ten reasons not to believe in god".

Something like Humanism would be more worthy of space, as its a non secular belief system of sorts. Any mention of that?

"The retreats provide the students with an opportunity to examine their lives in relation to the issues they face each day and where God fits into their daily lives."

Ironic, considering they've probably printed a school timetable stating exactly where God is fitted into their everyday lives.

DeValera

I have religion once a week compulsory, but not as an exam. We have a hopeless, unqualified Music teacher for it. Its a bit of a free for all:D !!! We are only taught christianity (the religion that makes sex a sin and a holy act out of drinking alcohol) saying youre an athiest and that you dont want to learn this one-sided view. Requests to take an unbiased oudside look at a multitude of religions is always turned down.:mad:

Dades

DeValera wrote:

Requests to take an unbiased oudside look at a multitude of religions is always turned down.:mad:

Hi DeValera,
Do you go to a Catholic/Christian ran school?
Though something tells me even if they don't change the program, you'll get over your indoctrination.

Funsterdelux

Anyway they should be teaching real subjects like more languages, and stuff, coz thats when the mind is like a sponge, so instead of brain washing we should be inspiring.

JustAnother

Wicknight wrote:

Offically no, but it depends on what school you go to. AFAIK schools can teach what ever the feck they like. I was lucky enough to go to a non-denomonational primary school so missed the "joys" of a Catholic education

The secondary school I attended for five years had religion classes - I was suprised to learn a couple of years ago that it was supposedly non-denominational. Granted, it was owned by a family as opposed to a church, but religion was a topic. No, I didn't try to opt out.

Húrin

Funsterdelux wrote:

What is the current status with religion being thaught in both Pri/Sec schools?

Religion, namely Catholicism is fairly pervasive in public schools in Ireland, though that will further decline as Ireland becomes more secular and multicultural.

arctic lemur

Funsterdelux wrote:

well is it compulsory

no actually there is a clause in the white paper (i think in 2000) that allows parents to let their children opt out of RE. I remember that much from college (i Did RE and Philosophy)


Sorry, white paper in education.

Funsterdelux

Ive got it, they should teach it as part of history class, or in the same manner.
No brain washing, generalised incorporating all faiths.

Valmont

lacuna wrote:

I don't think it's for parents to decide for their child whether they should attend religion classes in school. How is the child supposed to decide whether the s/he believes in anything or not if s/he's not exposed to it in the first place? It's not the parent's right to decide that the child is not to believe in anything.

Religion classes are not only Roman Catholic classes in this country. Obviously, it's going to vary from school to school but even in my secondary school which was a Roman Catholic school (formarly run by nuns) we learned about various different religions and had to do projects on them. We were also encouraged to discuss the concept of faith and religion. I'm glad I attended those classes as it gave me the chance to look at different religions and choose which, if any, suited me.

If my parents were to have decided my religion then I'd be a devout Catholic now, which I'm not. It's clear that parents and their children often differ in their views. No parent should assume to decide for their child what they will believe. It is better to let the child be exposed to religion and make their mind up about it.

Just because you attend religion classes, doesn't mean you have to believe.

Right on bro, people seem to have already made up their mind and assumed that religion classes are focused around the catholic faith when it couldn't be further from the truth.

My sibling just completed the junior cert religion course and it basically outlines a number of faiths, their beliefs and practices. It doesn't lean towards any one or the other. The purpose of the course is to educate young people on what religions are out there. Whether they decide to follow is entirely up to them. It is a good option in my opinion.

Valmont

Funsterdelux wrote:

Anyway they should be teaching real subjects like more languages, and stuff, coz thats when the mind is like a sponge, so instead of brain washing we should be inspiring.

In your haste to rebel you have forgotten to verify the nonsense you are spouting. Do you even know what the curriculum is? You are just assuming that the sole purpose of the subject is to recruit more followers into the catholic faith.

The aim of the subject is to educate young people on the cultures, beliefs and practices of different ethnic groups throughout the world. That's it. Let them make their own mind up after that.

Funsterdelux

Valmont wrote:

In your haste to rebel you have forgotten to verify the nonsense you are spouting. Do you even know what the curriculum is? You are just assuming that the sole purpose of the subject is to recruit more followers into the catholic faith.

The aim of the subject is to educate young people on the cultures, beliefs and practices of different ethnic groups throughout the world. That's it. Let them make their own mind up after that.

No, I dont know what the curriculum is, that was the idea of the thread, in your haste to reply you forgot to read the start of the thread, though maybe you didnt. I knew what it was, Im the LAST generation, you see.

Valmont

Funsterdelux wrote:

in your haste to reply you forgot to read the start of the thread, though maybe you didnt

*note to self* *read entire thread before replying*

robindch

If the baleful influence influence of religion is generally receding in Irish schools, the following story suggests the opposite in the USA:

http://www.jewsonfirst.org/06b/indianriver.html

Reports here and here suggest that the details are accurate. Must be awful there.

samb

Valmont wrote:

Right on bro, people seem to have already made up their mind and assumed that religion classes are focused around the catholic faith when it couldn't be further from the truth.

My sibling just completed the junior cert religion course and it basically outlines a number of faiths, their beliefs and practices. It doesn't lean towards any one or the other. The purpose of the course is to educate young people on what religions are out there. Whether they decide to follow is entirely up to them. It is a good option in my opinion.

Have you seen what that JC book says about athiesm. It equates athiesm with materialism (in the scientific or philosophical sense, fine), then in the sense of being materialic, only interested in possesions. It fairly blantantly calls athiest, devoid of depth and morality in my view.
IF you have access to your siblings book could you please find the (very small) passage on athiesm and perhaps share it with us.

Dades

samb wrote:

Have you seen what that JC book says about athiesm. It equates athiesm with materialism (in the scientific or philosophical sense, fine), then in the sense of being materialic, only interested in possesions. It fairly blantantly calls athiest, devoid of depth and morality in my view.

That would be interesting indeed to see.
And maybe worth a firmly worded letter to the publishers for curiousity.

Valmont

samb wrote:

Have you seen what that JC book says about athiesm. It equates athiesm with materialism (in the scientific or philosophical sense, fine), then in the sense of being materialic, only interested in possesions. It fairly blantantly calls athiest, devoid of depth and morality in my view.
IF you have access to your siblings book could you please find the (very small) passage on athiesm and perhaps share it with us.

In the book my sibling has, there is no mention of athiesm. It is called "all about faith 3". You seem to have read the book, do you not remember the title? The book I read was objective in its approach to all world religions and I think educating schoolchildren in that manner is very beneficial to their overall learning.

scrattletrap

I attended a convent secondary and didn't have to attend religious classes (well because I said I wasn't) I sat out in the hall for the classes. Well until fifth year when I decided to join the class and the teacher knew nothing about religion (my father is a bible catholic but insisted that we understood all religions before making up our own minds) so I got into many debates with her until finally I got sick of her not responding to my questions or acknowledging my responses that I left that class.
My children go to a catholic school and unlike me they were baptised and do the whole "religion" thing in school.....not to save their souls....but to save their hides from the bullies (having gone to a catholic primary school being the only none catholic was tough so didn't want to put that on their heads until they could comfortably decide for themselves) Their father is also catholic, hence the baptisms.

Doomspell

In primary I was forced to do religion and to learn all the prayers in Irish and English. When I finally left and went into secondary I simply said that, 'I don't do Religion'. But that was my mistake seeing as I go to a Convent. Eventually they let it go. But I've seen my classmates books for Religion and they are huge! I had a look at the contents, and there wasn't even a paragraph about 'other' Religions,

Matty

samb

Valmont wrote:

In the book my sibling has, there is no mention of athiesm. It is called "all about faith 3". You seem to have read the book, do you not remember the title? The book I read was objective in its approach to all world religions and I think educating schoolchildren in that manner is very beneficial to their overall learning.

Oh, sorry, its a different Junior Cert religion book...didn't think there would be many. The one I had a look at was called something like 'a religion for living' or something similar. It appeared to be objective superficialy but was not.

No mention of Athiesm?? are you sure it is objective?

Valmont

samb wrote:

No mention of Athiesm?? are you sure it is objective?

Well I suppose that not mentioning athiesm at all discredits its objectivity but I think it may have been mentioned in "all about faith" 1 or 2, but I don't have them anymore so I couldn't be sure.

Julesie

I think regardless of the school the level and variety of material taught depends a lot on the teacher administering it. In my experience (a holy faith school which became a community school) it was 90% Catholicism and 10% a skewed and erroneous anaylsis of the "others".
Tbh for the leaving cert cycle religion became more of a sex education class based on the tenets of the catholic church. The teacher was a sterotypical godfearing country lass whose capacity to lecture on sex education was definitely hindered by let's just say her lack of practical experience.

It certainly wasnt my favourite part of school life, 5 years later and im still bitter.

Flashraziel

There were two religion teachers in my secondary school, a christian brothers school. I graduated 2 years ago. The teacher I had was the more reasonable one. She taught us about other religions but with a slightly biased view. A few classmates and I appointed ourselves as the loyal opposition, which was referred to as the "Athiest Corner". We managed to have some good debates in the class, discussing morals and ethics, hopefully making the rest of the class realise that there is more than one path to follow. We manged to bring up the Science vs. Religion debate and I think I won the "Is prostitution inherently wrong." debate.
The other teacher was, however, a real fiery, enthusiastic Christian. He had no time for unbelievers. His class didnt even seem to make an effort to teach about other religions or if he did it was in a negative way. The man had some mad quotes. "Homosexuality is a disease and AIDS is the cure." "If you don't believe in God you WILL burn for all eternity!" He was a hypocrite too. He told us that alcohol was the begining of the path to Heroin addiction yet was quite fond of the drink himself. Really dislike that man.

I think what I'm trying to say in this post is that no matter what the course says, the teachers beliefs are going to seep in. You may be lucky and have an open-minded teacher but you could also have a one man Spanish inquisiton. It's just a bad Idea.

Dades

Flashraziel, interesting post.

I had a religion teacher a bit like your mad one. Like creationists, or other fundies they just turn into parodies and ultimately have the opposite effect than they are aiming for. Kids are a lot more savvy than some people give them credit for.

That said, they shouldn't be given a stage in the first place.