Should religion be taught in schools?

BizzyC

I selected no. I dont think religion as it is done currently should be taught, as they are catholicism lessons, not theology and religion in general.

If religion in schools was more open to teaching a general subject were students learn about multiple religions with a view to improving the understanding and tolerance of other customs I'd be all for it.
Teaching kids how to be specifically catholic, as is the case currently, is not a fair use of the education system though.

flutterflye

Seachmall wrote: »

Do you know by any chance if the school will be teaching Catholicism exclusively or will be doing a comparative of different religions? Or does anyone know the norm?

It's been a while since I was in primary, can't remember which we did

They learn about all religions, but everything other than catholisism is taught in a 'jewish people do this, and believe that' sort of way.
But catholisism is the dominant religion taught, and it is taught in a 'we do this, we believe that, jesus is the son of god and did this...' sort of way.

smash

flutterflye wrote: »

They learn about all religions, but everything other than catholisism is taught in a 'jewish people do this, and believe that' sort of way.
But catholisism is the dominant religion taught, and it is taught in a 'we do this, we believe that, jesus is the son of god and did this...' sort of way.

Catholisism is drilled into kids as if it's fact. I told my son that Jesus isn't real, he's like superman but not as cool. Because he's not going to make up his own mind when it's 1 sided.

philologos

flutterflye wrote: »

They learn about all religions, but everything other than catholisism is taught in a 'jewish people do this, and believe that' sort of way.
But catholisism is the dominant religion taught, and it is taught in a 'we do this, we believe that, jesus is the son of god and did this...' sort of way.

That's a very simple thing to change. All you have to do is say "We as Christians believe X", or "Christians believe X". Many sermons I've heard in church even go along the lines of this. One could do that even in a faith school.

smash

philologos wrote: »

That's a very simple thing to change. All you have to do is say "We as Christians believe X"

Then you're just telling them what to believe. Which is wrong.

Powerhouse

Seachmall wrote: »

This. I did my JC religion paper as a skeptic (not quite an atheist, closer to agnostic) and had no problem with the curriculum. It was objective and factual information as oppose to indoctrinating children. It was one the more interesting classes.

Of course there is the problem of teachers deciding for themselves that one religion more correct than the other but that's a total deviation from what the class is supposed to teach. I had one teacher who did this and I ended up walking out of the class (arguably kicked out of the class), surprisingly the 2 priests in school who taught religion were completely understanding to criticisms raised by students where-as the other teacher was completely ignorant of anything that didn't fit her world view. This is an issue with individual teachers though, not religion as a class.

I agree, though I would always add that teachers have the ability to influence thinking in many other subjects (and to a far greater degree I would suggest) such as English (which is exclusively about interpretation of texts) or History which provides carefully selected 'facts'* (who decides what goes in a History book and what does not - and what are their motives in so choosing) and then enables a teacher to bias them any way he or she wants in their presentation.

This is of course also the scope for, say, a science teacher to ram anti-religious thinking down the throats of children, which if people are being consistent (which they certainly are not) should be discouraged too as it is forcing one view of the world onto impressionable minds. Needless to say most people don't have a problem with beliefs per se being rammed down throats - only the 'wrong' ones! :P

* And what precisely are facts? In the likes of History they are often nothing more than agreed legend or a consensus interpretation and can be turned on their heads over time. Like the yarn that the Normans became 'more Irish than the Irish' - a nice little 'fact' invented by nationalist historians six hundred years later so that they could distance themselves and their breed from the most recent invaders!

philologos

steve06 wrote: »

Then you're just telling them what to believe. Which is wrong.

How is it? I guess if you magically assume that the "we" of necessity includes them. I would equally have no issue with the use of "Christians believe X".

Powerhouse

steve06 wrote: »

I told my son that Jesus isn't real,

Fair play...let him make up his own mind, not like dem bad old catteliks forcing their opinions on him!

smash

Powerhouse wrote: »

Fair play...let him make up his own mind, not like dem bad old catteliks forcing their opinions on him!

How can he when he's being thought myth as fact?

philologos wrote: »

How is it? I guess if you magically assume that the "we" of necessity includes them. I would equally have no issue with the use of "Christians believe X".

Because you're telling someone they're a catholic, so it's what they believe.

AudreyHepburn

steve06 wrote: »

How can he when he's being thought myth as fact?

Well it certainly won't help for you force your own opinion (that god doesn't exist) on him too will it? You're no more allowing him to make up his own mind that the school is.

smash

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well it certainly won't help for you force your own opinion (that god doesn't exist) on him too will it? You're no more allowing him to make up his own mind that the school is.

I'm not forcing my opinion. I've said it once. Whereas in school he hears it every day.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

How is it? I guess if you magically assume that the "we" of necessity includes them.

It wouldn't be a magical assumption, it would be a perfectly valid assumption. Particularly when teaching kids who are easily influenced.


I think your example of just referring to Christians in the 3rd person would be better (particularly as it's done with those of other religions).

Powerhouse

steve06 wrote: »

How can he when he's being thought myth as fact?

I'm just enjoying the irony of you drilling your opinion into him while in the same breath talking about letting him make up his own mind!

smash

Powerhouse wrote: »

I'm just enjoying the irony of you drilling your opinion into him while in the same breath talking about letting him make up his own mind!

Read 2 posts up!

Jethropool

Christianity is a proselytising religion, as are many others. Its involvement in education is done not as a benevolent act but as a means of indoctrinating successive generations at a young age. This thread, to me, is essentially a debate about the purpose of primary and secondary schools. If you accept that belief in religion provides a positive design for life, then there is a case to be made for teaching of religious belief in schools.

However, I think that Ireland is now at a stage where it needs to reject the monopoly that the catholic church has traditionally had on religious education. The catholic ethos is not for everyone, in the same way that some kids will be good at right/wrong subjects like sciences and maths and some will be good at more abstract subjects. Some people benefit greatly from the structure that the catholic ethos brings to their lives, others do not. Therefore it should only be optional, particularly in the context that the range of subjects on offer in Ireland is woefully limited.

AudreyHepburn

steve06 wrote: »

I'm not forcing my opinion. I've said it once. Whereas in school he hears it every day.

Don't kid yourself. You've told him unequivoclly God does not exist, you haven't given him any choice but to believe it.

Seachmall

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Don't kid yourself. You've told him unequivoclly God does not exist, you haven't given him any choice but to believe it.

In fairness that is what schools are doing at the moment, on a daily basis.

It should be explained to kids that different people have different beliefs and none are necessarily the correct ones.

They should also learn critical thinking in schools, it's a fundamental skill in a lot of jobs and in life in general and the vast majority of people (all types of people, atheists included) lack it.

smash

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Don't kid yourself. You've told him unequivoclly God does not exist, you haven't given him any choice but to believe it.

No, I just gave him another side to the story. He can believe who he wants now but I'd rather he wasn't told that he'll burn in hell if he doesn't obey a christian god so I told him that he wont.

getz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Don't kid yourself. You've told him unequivoclly God does not exist, you haven't given him any choice but to believe it.

no one has ever been able to prove he does ,best leaving religion in church,and the schools sticking to education.

AudreyHepburn

steve06 wrote: »

No, I just gave him another side to the story. He can believe who he wants now but I'd rather he wasn't told that he'll burn in hell if he doesn't obey a christian god so I told him that he wont.

In fairness I don't ever remember being taught anything like that but fair enough.

It is ironic and a bit silly though to reject christianity being forced on your son when you then turn around and begin doing the same with athiesm. Let him decide for himself.

Powerhouse

Jethropool wrote: »

Christianity is a proselytising religion, as are many others. Its involvement in education is done not as a benevolent act but as a means of indoctrinating successive generations at a young age. This thread, to me, is essentially a debate about the purpose of primary and secondary schools. If you accept that belief in religion provides a positive design for life, then there is a case to be made for teaching of religious belief in schools.

However, I think that Ireland is now at a stage where it needs to reject the monopoly that the catholic church has traditionally had on religious education. The catholic ethos is not for everyone, in the same way that some kids will be good at right/wrong subjects like sciences and maths and some will be good at more abstract subjects. Some people benefit greatly from the structure that the catholic ethos brings to their lives, others do not. Therefore it should only be optional, particularly in the context that the range of subjects on offer in Ireland is woefully limited.

This obsession with Catholicism (whatever happened to Christianity?) shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the second-level religion syllabus, which deals with Islam, Agnosticism, Atheism, Hinduism etc.

"If you accept that belief in religion provides a positive design for life, then there is a case to be made for teaching of religious belief in schools." - I'm not sure something necessarily has to provide a 'positive design' for life (anyway who would decide what is a positive design?) for it to be worth teaching. (Should the worst excesses of some historical characters be hidden from children lest they provide a negative design?)

The reality is that religion influences much of the thinking in the world and if part of the idea of school is to prepare people to participate in society them an understanding of religion and how it influences people would seem relevant - far more relevant arguably than much else that is taught in schools. Learning about Islam, for example, doesn't mean kids have to turn to Mecca every half hour.

AudreyHepburn

Seachmall wrote: »

In fairness that is what schools are doing at the moment, on a daily basis.

It should be explained to kids that different people have different beliefs and none are necessarily the correct ones.

They should also learn critical thinking in schools, it's a fundamental skill in a lot of jobs and in life in general and the vast majority of people (all types of people, atheists included) lack it.

Agree 100% and always have done.

Jethropool

Powerhouse wrote: »

This obsession with Catholicism (whatever happened to Christianity?) shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the second-level religion syllabus, which deals with Islam, Agnosticism, Atheism, Hinduism etc.

"If you accept that belief in religion provides a positive design for life, then there is a case to be made for teaching of religious belief in schools." - I'm not sure something necessarily has to provide a 'positive design' for life (anyway who would decide what is a positive design?) for it to be worth teaching. (Should the worst excesses of some historical characters be hidden from children lest they provide a negative design?)

The reality is that religion influences much of the thinking in the world and if part of the idea of school is to prepare people to participate in society them an understanding of religion and how it influences people would seem relevant - far more relevant arguably than much else that is taught in schools. Learning about Islam, for example, doesn't mean kids have to turn to Mecca every half hour.

Religious education in Ireland has always had a catholic slant to it.

It's clear that there's a separation between the teaching of religion and indoctrination of it. When I was at secondary school (1985-1990), there was one religion class per week which had very little to do with religion at all. If the syllabus has changed and religions are now being taught as objects of study rather than being indoctrinate, then that's a good thing. I don't think that's the case at primary schools however.

I agree with you that a subject doesn't have to provide a design for living in order to be worthwhile. However, from the point of view of an atheist (such as myself) religion only makes sense (albeit not much sense) if you view it as a tool people use to make their lives better. I can't see religion as a quest for truth because people who believe do so for no good reason that I can see. The religion you believe in just happens to be the one you're brought up with for the most part. The most committed, dedicated Irish catholic would be a committed, dedicated Hindu (for example) had he or she been born in India. It's all just circumstance.

dvpower

Powerhouse wrote: »

The poll in this thread asked the first question only. The other is a red herring in the debate.

No. The OP clarified it later - he meant religious instruction, not just teaching.
(To be fair, its a big thread - you couldn't be expected to read each and every post)

smash

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It is ironic and a bit silly though to reject christianity being forced on your son when you then turn around and begin doing the same with athiesm. Let him decide for himself.

It is not ironic or silly at all. How can anyone possibly decide for themselves when you only have 1 side forcing an opinion on you? He has been thought nothing about other religions in school and hasn't been though about morals. Children are told catholic bible stories like they're fact and I don't agree with it.

If your child was being though Muslim fundamentalist fairy tales as fact would you be happy to let them decide for themselves or would you tell them otherwise?

Powerhouse

steve06 wrote: »

I'm not forcing my opinion. I've said it once. Whereas in school he hears it every day.

So you feel strongly enough about the matter to look at this thread and to comment several times but then tell your son something just once despite believing he is hearing the opposite every day in school?

I am never less than amazed at the standards of behaviour espoused and apparently attained by anonymous internet posters - relative to my experience of the general population anyway - but even within the context of that admirably august milieu your self-restraint is astonishing!

smash

Powerhouse wrote: »

So you feel strongly enough about the matter to look at this thread and to comment several times but then tell your son something just once despite believing he is hearing the opposite every day in school?

I am never less than amazed at the standards of behaviour espoused and apparently attained by anonymous internet posters - relative to my experience of the general population anyway - but even within the context of that admirably august milieu your self-restraint is astonishing!

He asked me a question about it once and I gave him an answer, if he asked again he'd get the same answer. I don't tend to sit with him in the evening schooling him on my beliefs in god.

It's not that hard to understand!

Powerhouse

steve06 wrote: »

He asked me a question about it once and I gave him an answer, if he asked again he'd get the same answer.

Even if he asked a different question?

Seachmall

Powerhouse wrote: »

So you feel strongly enough about the matter to look at this thread and to comment several times but then tell your son something just once despite believing he is hearing the opposite every day in school?

I am never less than amazed at the standards of behaviour espoused and apparently attained by anonymous internet posters - relative to my experience of the general population anyway - but even within the context of that admirably august milieu your self-restraint is astonishing!

You're making a point you can't prove and a personal accusation with no grounds.

Bad form.

Even if he asked a different question?

steve06 wrote:

He asked me a question about it once and I gave him an answer, if he asked again he'd get the same answer.

"AGAIN", implies it's the same question.

Powerhouse

steve06 wrote: »

It is not ironic or silly at all. How can anyone possibly decide for themselves when you only have 1 side forcing an opinion on you? He has been thought nothing about other religions in school and hasn't been though about morals. Children are told catholic bible stories like they're fact and I don't agree with it.

If your child was being though Muslim fundamentalist fairy tales as fact would you be happy to let them decide for themselves or would you tell them otherwise?

But you're doing nothing to combat this - apparently you simply answered a question he asked. If he hadn't asked that very specific question (what serendipity?! - for example, he could have asked you whether you preferred apples or bananas instead) then he'd have gone on in blissful ignorance believe what he was hearing in school as the only version of events.

You need to be far more pro-active if you believe that you are a participant in an indoctrination war.