Should Religion be a mandatory subject?

Chuchoter

No. Especially not at the expense of an sphe class. A philosophy/ethics class like France might work, but I can't see many Irish teens paying an ounce of attention to it

ldxo15wus6fpgm

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

If you want them to reply to you, you should not refer to them as nutcases. There will always be different opinions here; don't insult other posters for having different views to yours.

Ah I'm only messing :P

Lawliet

HQvhs wrote: »

Then the issue isn't really "should religion be abandoned in school?", it's more "how can we improve the subject of religion?"

No, to clarify I'm talking about replacing religion with an ethics class, where religion would be one of the things studied but it would not be the focus.

HQvhs

Lawliet wrote: »

No, to clarify I'm talking about replacing religion with an ethics class, where religion would be one of the things studied but it would not be the focus.

Sorry, that's what I was getting at. But "Ethics" would be a misnomer. Ethics is the study of moral values and views - basically how one should behave morally in the world. That doesn't encompass the study of different religions and their ethos and culture, nor does it cover interesting topics like the end of the world, crusades, etc.

Lawliet

HQvhs wrote: »

Sorry, that's what I was getting at. But "Ethics" would be a misnomer. Ethics is the study of moral values and views - basically how one should behave morally in the world. That doesn't encompass the study of different religions and their ethos and culture, nor does it cover interesting topics like the end of the world, crusades, etc.

A lot of people derive their moral views from their religion, and culture has a major impact on peoples values. Trying to educate people about ethics without taking these factors into account would be like trying ignoring an elephant in the room.

And again religion would not be the focus, the ethical implications of religion would be. Plus this class would enable students to discuss things like ethical treatment of animals, stem cell research etc.

Gaeilge-go-deo

Exam subject no, non-exam ya.
Teenagers, in my class anyway, didn't give a **** about all the morals and stuff we learned about other religions. But I still think religion is important but not as an exam subject. We had to buy books for it as well for like €30.. :eek: that we didnt even use ....

btw.. less subjects the better

HQvhs

Lawliet wrote: »

A lot of people derive their moral views from their religion, and culture has a major impact on peoples values. Trying to educate people about ethics without taking these factors into account would be like trying ignoring an elephant in the room.

And again religion would not be the focus, the ethical implications of religion would be. Plus this class would enable students to discuss things like ethical treatment of animals, stem cell research etc.

I don't think we need a class focused solely on ethics, but also one that educates people about what other people believe in and how different faiths work. Recognising the similarities and differences, and removing the mysteriousness surrounding different religions would help foster understanding which would be valuable.

funkyjebus

you mean should it be shoved down our kids throats?

HQvhs

funkyjebus wrote: »

you mean should it be shoved down our kids throats?

Ah now. You know perfectly well that's not what is meant. I mean that everyone should have a basic knowledge of each of the major religions - what they believe, the history, their traditions, the culture etc.
Like it or not, religion exists and the majority of the world's population practises a faith. A lot of problems arise from poor understanding of religion (look at the present Islamophobia) or overzealous religiousness whilst demonising other faiths (fundamentalists Islamists and Christianists), or just from a corrupt hierarchy (the Catholic church). You can't just bury your head in the sand while protesting that just because you don't believe (as many don't, myself included), you can pretend it doesn't exist and remain ignorant of it.
I think the vast majority of us don't want to ram any beliefs down anyone's throats (especially children), but at the same time I think it is necessary for each of us to be aware of other religions as they play such a big role in the world.

funkyjebus

HQvhs wrote: »

Ah now. You know perfectly well that's not what is meant. I mean that everyone should have a basic knowledge of each of the major religions - what they believe, the history, their traditions, the culture etc.
Like it or not, religion exists and the majority of the world's population practises a faith. A lot of problems arise from poor understanding of religion (look at the present Islamophobia) or overzealous religiousness whilst demonising other faiths (fundamentalists Islamists and Christianists), or just from a corrupt hierarchy (the Catholic church). You can't just bury your head in the sand while protesting that just because you don't believe (as many don't, myself included), you can pretend it doesn't exist and remain ignorant of it.
I think the vast majority of us don't want to ram any beliefs down anyone's throats (especially children), but at the same time I think it is necessary for each of us to be aware of other religions as they play such a big role in the world.

i do know thats not what is meant by the op. but if it is mandatory, that is the inevitability of what will happen. i was shoved down my throat and i never wanted it. it is necessary for us to be aware of other religions and beliefs, but that is not the way they teach relgion in this country. you have no choise in beliefs, unless you teach yourself.

HQvhs

funkyjebus wrote: »

i do know thats not what is meant by the op. but if it is mandatory, that is the inevitability of what will happen. i was shoved down my throat and i never wanted it. it is necessary for us to be aware of other religions and beliefs, but that is not the way they teach relgion in this country. you have no choise in beliefs, unless you teach yourself.

I'm not saying I support the way religion is taught at the moment. It definitely needs a change, and I don't think it should be an exam subject. I don't see how if it's mandatory it is inevitable that believing will be forced upon you. It wasn't for me, and it wasn't for a lot of people.
If the problem is that students experience religious beliefs being forced on them in class, the solution isn't necessarily to get rid of the class - that's a bit knee-jerk - the better answer is to change how it is taught. It's more difficult, yes, but more rewarding in the long run.

funkyjebus

HQvhs wrote: »

I'm not saying I support the way religion is taught at the moment. It definitely needs a change, and I don't think it should be an exam subject. I don't see how if it's mandatory it is inevitable that believing will be forced upon you. It wasn't for me, and it wasn't for a lot of people.
If the problem is that students experience religious beliefs being forced on them in class, the solution isn't necessarily to get rid of the class - that's a bit knee-jerk - the better answer is to change how it is taught. It's more difficult, yes, but more rewarding in the long run.

i dont believe in any religion, i never had, realised it was all worthless for me around 12. why would i want to sit through classes when i have a leaving to study for. sure teaching about differnt religions is a great idea, bur there is no need for that at 17/18. teach diversity at a young age, but once you hit secondary that should be that, if you want to do, go for it, if you dont, dont.

if they teach about the different religions of the world, will they also teach that you dont need one. i doubt it, and there is a massive flaw, we would be incorrectly teaching our youth.

HQvhs

funkyjebus wrote: »

i dont believe in any religion, i never had, realised it was all worthless for me around 12. why would i want to sit through classes when i have a leaving to study for. sure teaching about differnt religions is a great idea, bur there is no need for that at 17/18. teach diversity at a young age, but once you hit secondary that should be that, if you want to do, go for it, if you dont, dont.

There is more to education than the LC. 3/4 classes a week is really not much. I think it's even more necessary as you get older anyway. Kids are more accepting of everyone; it's as one gets older you become more fixed and narrow-minded with your views. The amount of casual bigotry that goes on in schools, college and workplace is quite high - but we all accept it, I do anyway. Teaching young children about different religions and that we're all equal is great, but we forget or ignore it as we grow up. Teaching young adults about the world around them to help them broaden their minds is what is necessary. (A bit overdramatic about one class, but I don't see the point in abandoning it)

if they teach about the different religions of the world, will they also teach that you dont need one. i doubt it, and there is a massive flaw, we would be incorrectly teaching our youth.

I'm sure they will teach about atheism. I was. Anyway, why should be force atheism down students' throats? And don't say "well if they want they can go find out for themselves" because if you don't have a religious faith then you can just ignore it, or accept it as false but still respect others' rights to believe in something.

funkyjebus

HQvhs wrote: »

There is more to education than the LC. 3/4 classes a week is really not much. I think it's even more necessary as you get older anyway. Kids are more accepting of everyone; it's as one gets older you become more fixed and narrow-minded with your views. The amount of casual bigotry that goes on in schools, college and workplace is quite high - but we all accept it, I do anyway. Teaching young children about different religions and that we're all equal is great, but we forget or ignore it as we grow up. Teaching young adults about the world around them to help them broaden their minds is what is necessary. (A bit overdramatic about one class, but I don't see the point in abandoning it)

I'm sure they will teach about atheism. I was. Anyway, why should be force atheism down students' throats? And don't say "well if they want they can go find out for themselves" because if you don't have a religious faith then you can just ignore it, or accept it as false but still respect others' rights to believe in something.

they should not force atheism down anyones throath, i never said that, but in the instance that they are teaching about sll the religions or the world, they would also teach that its ok to have none. which they dony (in my experience).

when you sit the lc, no there isnt much more to education than it. it will determine the next stage of you life. tolerance is your parents job, not the teachers and is something you should have down before you reach the lc and if you havent, another year of it wont help. there is no way it is more importsnt when tour older, you display your torerence more, but you learned all those traits growing up, all those times you parents told you to say please, thank you, pick up your litter, wipe your arse, these are thought as children as they shaper the people we become. religion is no different.

Lawliet

HQvhs wrote: »

I don't think we need a class focused solely on ethics, but also one that educates people about what other people believe in and how different faiths work. Recognising the similarities and differences, and removing the mysteriousness surrounding different religions would help foster understanding which would be valuable.

Religion the optional exam subject could be still be taught, I'm talking about the replacing mandatory classes -that don't actually discuss other religions but instead talk about abortion, euthanasia, cults etc.- with an ethics class.

WallyGUFC

Not a chance should it be mandatory. We had classes in Senior Cycle but didn't do the test itself. 3 classes a week...I would have much preferred more Maths or something.

Maestoso

I think it should definitely be mandatory.

Religion is outdated and useless? Tell that to the Pope, who has control over all of South America, one third of North America, much of Europe and even some of Asia. There are so many people who are influenced by what religious leaders say. The Pope is not the only one.

People should be educated about religions as early as possible before some contemptible ****er comes along and gives them the impression that there is only one religion and they should be a part of that religion. Religions can be a powerful and entirely legal brainwashing tool. People should be educated about religions, chiefly with the objective to discover that there is more than one and what the doctrines say. Parents frequently tell their children what religion they belong to, before they have any grip on any moralistic or ethical concept.

Religion is far from outdated, far from a mythology and still very powerful. People should be taught about how powerful religions still are.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Maestoso wrote: »

I think it should definitely be mandatory.

Religion is outdated and useless? Tell that to the Pope, who has control over all of South America, one third of North America, much of Europe and even some of Asia. There are so many people who are influenced by what religious leaders say. The Pope is not the only one.

People should be educated about religions as early as possible before some contemptible ****er comes along and gives them the impression that there is only one religion and they should be a part of that religion. Religions can be a powerful and entirely legal brainwashing tool. People should be educated about religions, chiefly with the objective to discover that there is more than one and what the doctrines say. Parents frequently tell their children what religion they belong to, before they have any grip on any moralistic or ethical concept.

Religion is far from outdated, far from a mythology and still very powerful. People should be taught about how powerful religions still are.

Children in primary school are taught that there is more than one religion, and usually the basic principals are taught to them as well.
that contemptible, brainwashing ****er you speak of could very well be a secondary school religion teacher. I know mine was.

Fad

Nah to mandatory, but I dont really think many subject should actually be mandatory.

I do think it should be pushed as an LC subject more though. It's an enjoyable subject*.

*I am an atheist: Distinct lack of xtian bias here.

I'm convinced it's not a subject at all.

I suppose it could link in with History. (Anthropology too, but that's not a school subject obviously)

I don't think we should bother teaching much about it in schools at all though. If we really must, let's make it genuinely multi-cultural, rather than the sort of nominal multi-culturalism that we have right now, which is really just 90% Judeo-Christian.

HxGH

Why should it be mandatory? What an awful idea.

paulcarroll

i would of loved to do relgion but sadly not enough ppl picked it :mad: so i think it should be mandatory