Should religion be taught in schools?

crucamim

Ghost Buster wrote: »

In light of what has emerged about the Irish Catholic Church in recent years and about the Catholic Church globally why wouldnt people be anti Catholic Church?

You seem to be admitting that many people are anti-Catholic. The existence of such people justifies Catholics insisting on controlling the education of their defenceless little children.

RichieC

crucamim wrote: »

You seem to be admitting that many people are anti-Catholic. The existence of such people justifies Catholics insisting on controlling the education of their defenceless little children.

hmm... the stories my dad has about when he was such and under the foot of the Catholic cult. My Nan back then was scared ****less of the priests in his school. And I'm not even talking about being Raped.

Ghost Buster

crucamim wrote: »

You seem to be admitting that many people are anti-Catholic. The existence of such people justifies Catholics insisting on controlling the education of their defenceless little children.

Answer my question.
Why shouldnt people be anti Catholic Church? (which is not the same as being anti catholics).
Before answering cast you mind back to various reports i,.e Ryan. Murphy, ferns etc and have a gander at the international scandals and then stand back and look at The Vaticans attitude to it all.
Im anti racism as well. Does this mean i should be accepting of whites only schools?


So. Will you answer?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

crucamim wrote: »

You seem to be admitting that many people are anti-Catholic. The existence of such people justifies Catholics insisting on controlling the education of their defenceless little children.

Go for it - where's the problem?

crucamim wrote: »

Because Catholics have to pay tax to fund the education of anti-Catholics.

Doesn't answer the question - unless you're suggesting, as i said, lay peple pay tax to the church?

youngmagee

crucamim wrote: »

Why should Catholics pay tax to educate your children if you are not required to pay tax to educate the children of Catholics?

If everyone pays taxes equally then the money raised for education should be spent in a way that insures all children have equal education opportunities. This will not happen if some school who receive state money, educate children what ever way they want and discriminate as they want.

Could I open a school and receive state money if I only thought children how to dig a hole? The children of this school also have to have red hair and have only one eye.

Mickeroo

Ghost Buster wrote: »

So. Will you answer?

Unlikely.

tfitzgerald

Catholic country catholic schools so yes religion should be taught in school. The same old rubbish about the church is being trotted out again what about the untold good the church has done in this country

Ghost Buster

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Catholic country catholic schools so yes religion should be taught in school. The same old rubbish about the church is being trotted out again what about the untold good the church has done in this country

Its not a catholic country. Its a secular country the majority (an ever shrinking one) of the population of which happens to be catholic.
Why do you call it rubbish?. Is it untrue?
Doctors do good but they arent teaching surgery to children.

crucamim

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Answer my question.
Why shouldnt people be anti Catholic Church? (which is not the same as being anti catholics). So. Will you answer?

I am not in the least interested as to why people are anti-Catholic so long as they are not in a position to hurt Catholics. Hence my wanting Catholic schools for Catholics.

crucamim

Mickeroo wrote: »

Unlikely.

I thought that you had said that you were leaving this thread. Why did you not keep that promise?

crucamim

youngmagee wrote: »

If everyone pays taxes equally then the money raised for education should be spent in a way that insures all children have equal education opportunities.

"Equal education opportunites" should include the right for Catholic children to attend school without danger of being bullied by anti-Catholics. Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that you would not bully Catholic pupils or teachers?

Mickeroo

crucamim wrote: »

I thought that you had said that you were leaving this thread. Why did you not keep that promise?

I'm free to do as I choose which I'm sure must be really annoying for you since I'd be in prison if you had your way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

crucamim wrote: »

"Equal education opportunites" should include the right for Catholic children to attend school without danger of being bullied by anti-Catholics. Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that you would not bully Catholic pupils or teachers?

Statistically it's more likely the bullies would be catholic children since most children are raised as catholic. What an incredibley ridiculous accusation to make of anyone you know nothing about. I'm not anti catholic by the way, my whole family are catholic, as I'm sure is the case for a lot of people posting on here, so quit throwing around moronic accusations at people.

later12

While crucacim is clearly talking a load of rubbish, it is undeniably true that Catholic schoolchildren should have the right to their own schools. They should be under no obligation to take non Catholic students.

All children should have the right to attend whatever kind of school that their parents choose, so long as the basic national curriculum is adhered to. One has to recall that the reason why Catholics own so many schools is because they built them in the first place. They do receive grants - but so do all schools, whether Catholic or not.

I really don't know why there are no atheist schools in the country, or are there?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

crucamim wrote: »

"Equal education opportunites" should include the right for Catholic children to attend school without danger of being bullied by anti-Catholics. Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that you would not bully Catholic pupils or teachers?

The stae has indeed a obligation to protect catholic children. And all other children also. And it does this reasoably well, from what I can see. If the church is not happy with this service, or still feels that it's children are threatened then it is free to withdraw from state interferance and funding. I suggested this ages ago - where is the porblem?

youngmagee

crucamim wrote: »

"Equal education opportunites" should include the right for Catholic children to attend school without danger of being bullied by anti-Catholics. Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that you would not bully Catholic pupils or teachers?

Everyone has the right to be free from bulling but I believe segregation can only make things worse as children need to see that there is nothing wrong with someone believing in a particular religion. if their segregated and thought that their different because of their beliefs, it will definitely lead to bullying in later life.

I'm not sure why why you think that I am anti-catholic. I was born a catholic. I was raised a catholic. My family and friends are catholic and not once in this thread have I denounced any type of faith. I'm just trying to say what I believe to be the most fair solution.


I'm trying to imagine what would happen if you had your way with schools (you can correct me if you think I am wrong). Because such a large amount of schools are catholic owned it would result in a huge amount of children not been able to have an education. You say you don't want anti-catholic sentiment, well then you don't want this. It would even lead to parents pretending to be catholic so their children can get an education. I cant imagine that you would think that, that would be right. I think its really disrespectful to the religion to pretend to believe in so you can something else out of it.

Ghost Buster

crucamim wrote: »

I am not in the least interested as to why people are anti-Catholic so long as they are not in a position to hurt Catholics. Hence my wanting Catholic schools for Catholics.

Dont dodge the question. Answer it.
The institution of Roman Catholicism has been caught out for the corrupt, power hungry perverse institution it is.

So


Why shouldnt people be anti it?

Ghost Buster

youngmagee wrote: »

Everyone has the right to be free from bulling but I believe segregation can only make things worse as children need to see that there is nothing wrong with someone believing in a particular religion. if their segregated and thought that their different because of their beliefs, it will definitely lead to bullying in later life.

I'm not sure why why you think that I am anti-catholic. I was born a catholic. I was raised a catholic. My family and friends are catholic and not once in this thread have I denounced any type of faith. I'm just trying to say what I believe to be the most fair solution.


I'm trying to imagine what would happen if you had your way with schools (you can correct me if you think I am wrong). Because such a large amount of schools are catholic owned it would result in a huge amount of children not been able to have an education. You say you don't want anti-catholic sentiment, well then you don't want this. It would even lead to parents pretending to be catholic so their children can get an education. I cant imagine that you would think that, that would be right. I think its really disrespectful to the religion to pretend to believe in so you can something else out of it.

Already happening

youngmagee

Mickeroo wrote: »

Yea you're dead right, I suppose it was technically mythical, there's even a type thought to be bigger iirc. Hows about one that has any kind of supernatural element to it though?

Sorry I took so long to get back to this. Proving things considered supernatural is a lot harder. It is normally just a missunderstanding of what really happening which is not suprising give that we are only fully understanding them in recent years. The only two examples are Will-o'-the-wisp and the Aurora Borealis. I know this is know of disproving supernatural things but for a long time people didn't believe Will-o'-the-wisp even occurred as it is so uncommon

crucamim

I suspect that many of the people posting on this thread are trying to wind me up. I do not believe that anyone could believe that:-

a) segregated education for Catholic children could be a bad thing;
b) Catholics have no right to keep their defenceless, little children out of the clutches of anti-Catholic teachers;
c) Catholics have no right to refuse to allow their children to share classrooms or playgrounds with the children of anti-Catholics;
d) in a Catholic school, non-Catholics have a right to equality with Catholics;
e) Catholic schools should not be allowed to restrict their intake to the children of practising Catholics;
f) all Catholics should be punished just because some priests misbehaved;
g) all Catholics should be insulted.

Because of my suspicion, I will not post again on this thread. The safety of Catholics is not a joking matter.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

crucamim wrote: »

I suspect that many of the people posting on this thread are trying to wind me up. I do not believe that anyone could believe that:-

a) segregated education for Catholic children could be a bad thing;
b) Catholics have no right to keep their defenceless, little children out of the clutches of anti-Catholic teachers;
c) Catholics have no right to refuse to allow their children to share classrooms or playgrounds with the children of anti-Catholics;
d) in a Catholic school, non-Catholics have a right to equality with Catholics;
e) Catholic schools should not be allowed to restrict their intake to the children of practising Catholics;
f) all Catholics should be punished just because some priests misbehaved;
g) all Catholics should be insulted.

Because of my suspicion, I will not post again on this thread. The safety of Catholics is not a joking matter.

Go for it. Said it before, saying it again. If this is the way catholics want to exist in their own world, then go for it. It sounds like you want the state to leave you alone and I for one think you should be. If theer are enough of you, Godspeed. If not, come back and live with the rest of the State and lie by State rules. If you want to take up issues of tax, that's a whole different ball game - we all see our taxes spent on stuff we don't agree with - but we live as a part of the State, we live by the State's rules. All of us.

Chuck Stone

crucamim wrote: »

I am not in the least interested as to why people are anti-Catholic so long as they are not in a position to hurt Catholics. Hence my wanting Catholic schools for Catholics.

crucamim wrote: »

"Equal education opportunites" should include the right for Catholic children to attend school without danger of being bullied by anti-Catholics. Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that you would not bully Catholic pupils or teachers?

Quit with the ant-Catholic persecution complex you've developed.

I think you'll find that most people ITT are not anti-Catholic per se.

I'd hazard a guess that most folk are anti wasting the time of teachers and children in schools by presenting religious nonsense as some kind of rational subject.

nozzferrahhtoo

youngmagee wrote: »

The absence of proof is not the proof of absence.

When did I ever claim it was? You are ignoring all the points I am making and instead attacking one I never made. However if there is absolutely no reason on offer at all to think X is true, then I see no justifiable reason to think teaching X in a school is valid on any level.

It is worth being aware of what you mean when you say what you just did. Given all the other things there is no evidence FOR or AGAINST you are equally arguing that they are all just as valid as the god hypothesis. You may not realise it, but you are actually advocating teaching everything from alien abduction, to unicorns, to alchemy, to wicca to anything else at all.

Thankfully the standards of proof of many people are a lot more rigorous than your own when deciding what to teach our children. My own position is to have such standards adhered to a little more rigorously and have other evidence devoid ideas (like god) taken out too.

crucamim wrote: »

Leave it to Catholics to decide what is taught in Catholic schools. Thank you.

No thanks. I think I will keep pushing for a secular board of education who design and implement a secular national curriculum. Thanks for your advice all the same.

philologos wrote: »

Faith has an overwhelmingly positive role in the majority of peoples lives. This is testified again and again by research and studies that are done into it.

Which studies? It certainly is not testified to in any I have seen. For example the Prayer experiments not only showed that prayer had no positive effect at all, but those who knew they were being prayed for actually did worse. I guess their faith in prayer was far from useful or helpful therefore.

I imagine there is no small amount of bias in your opinion, and likely in any reports or studies you cite (really, cite please) in that they only look at the people who HAVE the faith. Do the studies you cling to (if they exist, as I said: Cite) actually look at the effect of faith on those AROUND the faithful. For example the story last year of the parents who watched their child die of a perfectly treatable form of diabetes, solely because their faith told them that certain medical interventions (using needles into the blood in that case Ithink) were against god? How positive was faith in the lives of children like that?

Eramen wrote: »

So, we have a shortage of scientific skills in the country and you want to pin the problem on 'religion' ?

Not on religion Per Se, but certainly on the decision to have so large a % dedicated to it in the school day. If religion is so important to parents, let them engage in after school or home lessons for it. There is no justifiable reasons to my knowledge for having it on the school curriculum.

Vicxas wrote: »

Honestly Crucamim i cant take your posts seriously because i find it hard to believe that anyone thinks like that....

I think that user is a troll yes and is not serious about half he posts. However do not be fooled into thinking there are no people who think like him. I spent a few days over on the forum here and was banned for being too anti religion and too pro homosexual rights. Trust me, some of the people over there make this troll look tame.

philologos

Here's a link to what I said earlier. There are also other studies done in respect to health, happiness and other areas but this is a start.

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

Faith has an overwhelmingly positive role in the majority of peoples lives. This is testified again and again by research and studies that are done into it.

How the hell can you cary out a study on 'faith'?

You might be able to carry out a study on people who claim to believe in this, that, and the other but you can't carry out a study on 'faith'.

Also, I'm pretty sure you'd get the same result if you carried out those studies on all sorts of 'believers'.. maybe even that one where they think rats are reincarnated dead relatives.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Here's a link to what I said earlier. There are also other studies done in respect to health, happiness and other areas but this is a start.

A you are still alive then. Maybe you can get on with replying to my last post then, or do I have to campaign at you for over a week to get you to take the finger out like I did with the post before that?

This is ONE study, hardly a lot to back up the statement "This is testified again and again" but let us look at the study all the same. Some points of concern:

1) As predicted the "study" focuses only on the people who have the faith, not on those affected by their faith. For example if you did a study only of pedophiles and not their victims you would likely find they would testify to pedophilia being a positive thing in their lives... I am sure it is great fun for them bedding children.... but this misses a huge part of the picture does it not???? As such I do not find the study to be at all controlled. "Control" being an important keyword in statistics and studies.

2) Bias is a concern here. This is not a peer reviewed "study". It is a "study" done by evangelicals to promote their own cause and posted not in any peer reviewed journal but on their own website. Alarm bells, red flags and more go up when you see people operating in this fashion.

3) This is not actually a proper study, but an article. A real study should show the workings, show how statistics were compiled, what the questions actually were, how bias was cut out, how other factors were normalised for and more. None of that is apparent at all in this "study".

4) If you look at page 5 of the "study" citing their results, most of them are correlatative at best. There is nothing there to suggest a causal link at all and as such does not show any support for "faith" being a good thing. The authors of this self masturbatory article really are just latching on to things that are "good" and saying "Because people of faith said these things are good, faith must be good too". For example look at "94% agree it's a duty to care for the environment". Thats great, but what has that got to do with faith whatsoever? The authors are attempting to piggy back faith on the back of other good things, and look good by proxy. Dishonest is not a good enough word for that.

Summary: So not this is not a "study" at all but an article which is based on a questionaire we are not allowed read, results of figures we can not see and interpretation of those figures that we have no way to check the validity of and all posted on the site of the people who did the study and it just happens to support the aims of the people who did the study. I see nothing here therefore that is valid, unbiased or in any way usable.... and what is there is at best correlation and is entirely running away from the concept of causation.

The correlations however which you speak of are ones I would have predicted anyway. For example you and the study claim that "The more time an evangelical Christian spends reading the Bible each week, the more active they are in other areas of their faith. They are more likely to volunteer, to give money, to pray frequently and talk about their faith."

I would have predicted this anyway because it appears that people who study, read a lot, and are generally interested in intellectual pursuits will also be people active in charity and volunteer work. Look for example at the more secular countries of the EU and compare their crime rates, literacy rates, charity per capita rates and so on to more religious countries like the US. How did your "study" normalise for these things? Not at all would be the apparent answer.

How were the people chosen to answer the questions? How did they normalise for that? Did they approach people who were already working with them on things like volunteer work for example. This would skew the figures in the "right" direction if the people conducting the study do the study on the people they meet through such "activism" already.

So no, I see nothing in this "study" that shows faith to be a positive thing, but that people of faith are more than happy to piggy back faith on those that do good things and attempt to make it look good by proxy.

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

How the hell can you cary out a study on 'faith'?

You can carry out studies on the impact that faith has in peoples lives.

nozzferrahhtoo: All they have done is collected figures and reported them. It's shown that there is a correlation between Bible reading and volunteering and this takes place amongst evangelicals at a higher rate than in the general public. A study in America found similar.

Here's another on faith in relation to health.

I don't see what the issue is with accepting that there are many good things which follow from faith. It doesn't affect your position that faith is misguided, but it does challenge any view that Christianity is evil or that Christianity is ultimately bad for the adherent.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo: All they have done is collected figures and reported them. It's shown that there is a correlation between Bible reading and volunteering and this takes place amongst evangelicals at a higher rate than in the general public. A study in America found similar.

Did it? Cite it too please and we will see if it is any more valid, or better executed.

However no I do not think the "study" finds what you claim it does. Firstly it is not a "study" at all as I pointed out as there are certain standards one has to attain before one can be a genuine study. Simply calling something a "study" does not magically impart credence to it any more than suddenly starting to call yourself "Professor" would.

If you approach a group of volunteers in your church and do a study, of course you will find higher levels of volunteer figures. The result is self selecting. It is a biased article, not a study, posted on the website of a church in order to further the aims of that church and has not been subjected to any of the rigours of peer review AT ALL.

And again even if we were to magically accept the figures and their interpretation, AT MOST the study shows a correlation. It does not show faith has had ANY beneficial effect at all. You are just assuming that due to the correlation. The correlation can in fact be entirely reversed if one wishes. Maybe people who are genuinely good, charitable and helpful people are attracted to certain churches. The faith/church has nothing to do with making them good, they were that way already.... they went to a church... and the church happily, and cynically, sits there claiming it is faith that has the "good" effect.

No, this is no study, and it certainly does not support any of the claims you and the authors want to make off the back of it.

philologos wrote: »

Here's another on faith in relation to health.

Another what? I see nothing. Did you forget a link? Edit: Ah I see you added it in a post edit. Will go read it now. I hope it is better than your first "study" which was not a study at all.

philologos wrote: »

I don't see what the issue is with accepting that there are many good things which follow from faith.

I have a problem with accepting anything that I have been offered literally no reason to accept. No evidence, argument, data or reasons. That is all. Especially if I meanwhile HAVE been shown many bad effects of it, such as the death of the child I mentioned because her parents thought the simple medication she needed was against gods plan.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Here's another on faith in relation to health.

Well again you have provided a simply 4 page article not any kind of peer reviewed study and again it is one of those RED FLAG ones where the people do the study themselves, post it on their own website, and it just happens to fit exactly with their own agendas. Alarm bells once again.

The only useful thing I find in this 4 page "non study article" is the paragraph on causality. They at least realise that nothing they are claiming addresses this issue and that their results... which we do not get to see of course.... show a correlation at best.

I know you studies philosophy and computer science, so I am not unsurprised you appear to have no ability whatsoever to tell between an article and an actual study. I would recommend you start with reading Ben Goldacres "Bad Science" which is a wonderful transition book between the lay man and the trained statitician. A good stepping stone to start with on the road to learning how to read, recognise and interpret real studies.

For example citing the "Benson H, Dusek JA, Sherwood JB, et al. (April 2006). "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer"" is a real study. It shows its figures, its methodology, the sources of interpretation, how they normalised for certain factors, how the control groups worked, and what was ACTUALLY studied and how. The article was peer reviewed and then posted in a Journal. THATS a real study.

Linking to articles supporting the Christian faith, written by people OF the Christian faith, and posted on their own websites designed to further the christian faith... all without showing a single figure or working however is NOT citing studies. It is citing self masturbatory, confirmation bias fueled nonsense.

dpe

crucamim wrote: »

I suspect that many of the people posting on this thread are trying to wind me up. I do not believe that anyone could believe that:-

a) segregated education for Catholic children could be a bad thing;
b) Catholics have no right to keep their defenceless, little children out of the clutches of anti-Catholic teachers;
c) Catholics have no right to refuse to allow their children to share classrooms or playgrounds with the children of anti-Catholics;
d) in a Catholic school, non-Catholics have a right to equality with Catholics;
e) Catholic schools should not be allowed to restrict their intake to the children of practising Catholics;
f) all Catholics should be punished just because some priests misbehaved;
g) all Catholics should be insulted.

Because of my suspicion, I will not post again on this thread. The safety of Catholics is not a joking matter.

You're funny. Have you thought of going on the stage with this act?

Freddie59

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Catholic country catholic schools so yes religion should be taught in school. The same old rubbish about the church is being trotted out again what about the untold good the church has done in this country

Yes indeed. "Eaten bread is soon forgotten", as the saying goes. A huge amount of us would not have received an education (and therefore the ability to debate on fora like this) were it not for the religious.

Yes, the clerical abuse scandal was that - an absolute scandal; to which the state was also a party.

But you cannot ignore what the religious have done for this country (and many others). Ever.

I, for one, am eternally grateful to them.