Should religion be taught in schools?

Chuck Stone

dvpower wrote: »

So we're all agreed then - pushing religious or atheist views is bad - both inside and outside the school system.

I hate the way theists try to drag atheists down to their level with that 'atheism is just as bad because it's a belief too and bla bla bla..'

Pushing religion is bad because it's total rubbish and screws around with children's heads.

Children don't believe in all that bollocks before they are indcotrinated by theists who in many ways threaten them into believeing in their stupid tales.

orourkeda

Sweatynutsack wrote: »

Religion is the very issue that has the world the way it is today !!
So no, if people/children want to learn about religion they should do it of their own accord imo

No it isn't. Stupidity is.

LighterGuy

Niles wrote: »

Is it really bad for a church run school to teach its own religion though? I mean, it's doing what it says on the tin, is it not? If I didn't want my child to be taught Catholicism then I wouldn't send them to a Catholic school - simples.

Thats a good point. We have catholic schools. We have Irish schools. Its up to the parent to enroll their child as they see fit.

dvpower

AnneElizabeth wrote: »

Maybe you should learn your facts.

Meh. One guy's cult is the next guy's one true religion.

Chuck Stone

LighterGuy wrote: »

Thats a good point. We have catholic schools. We have Irish schools. Its up to the parent to enroll their child as they see fit.

No it's not.

Parents often don't have a choice when it comes to religious schools.

Also parents are prohibited from sending their children to a private primary school AFAIK. In that way it's up to the state.

dvpower

Niles wrote: »

Is it really bad for a church run school to teach its own religion though? I mean, it's doing what it says on the tin, is it not? If I didn't want my child to be taught Catholicism then I wouldn't send them to a Catholic school - simples.

How is it simples? - where would you send them? 90something percent of our state funded primary system are catholic - its far from simples.

LighterGuy

I think a solution to this can easily be put into place. Its either totally abolish any religion thought in schools (beyond history) and have more alternative after school religious classes available outside the school (3rd party and at choice of the parent) ... or....

Well, parents enrol their kids into schools as it is. Is it really that hard to ask if they want their child to be thought religion? if so, which religion?
I mean secondary school classes break up through out the day. Some students study woodwork, others metal work. etc.

Would it really be hard to have different religious classes?
I remember in secondary school we had 2 relgion classes a week. But scratch that, have even one?
Lets say last class of the day on a monday. 3.15 class. Muslim believers goto the muslin class. Catholic to catholic... etc etc. Non relgious students take an extra class of math or whatever or go home.

Of course this would never come about :rolleyes: .... "too much for the pay roll" :rolleyes:

partyatmygaff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I hate the way theists try to drag atheists down to their level

What's their level supposed to mean?

Pushing religion is bad because it's total rubbish and screws around with children's heads.

Your opinion. Unfortunately, you're not an expert in education and do not decide what children should and should not learn.

Children don't believe in all that bollocks

I believed as a child and still believe now. I don't know who's talking unsubstantiated angry rubbish in this little exchange but it certainly isn't me.

before they are indcotrinated by theists who in many ways threaten them into believeing in their stupid tales.

What a loaded statement. I don't suppose you have any evidence of people being threatened to believe?


As an aside, calm down. You're coming across as raving.

dvpower

LighterGuy wrote: »

you being sarcastic?

Not at all. I'm all for freedom from and freedom of religion. Right now, the state provides, for most practical purposes, only a catholic system especially at primary level, so we don't have full freedom from religion.

dvpower

LighterGuy wrote: »

I think a solution to this can easily be put into place.

Me too - its called Sunday School.

Niles

dvpower wrote: »

How is it simples? - where would you send them? 90something percent of our state funded primary system are catholic - its far from simples.

Fair point, in some areas there may not be a high level of choice. But shouldn't that give cause for the State to set up more non-denominational schools, rather than blame Catholic/Church of Ireland schools for teaching religion, when, after all, they were set up by those respective churches? In any event I can personally think of cases where local denominational (both Catholic and Church of Ireland) schools took measures to accommodate students of a different faith - so it was not a case of parents having their kids "pushed" to learn a religion against their will.

BTW, church sponsored schools generally receive a lower level of subvention than non-denominational ones, sometimes even to their own detriment; my secondary school (a CBS) had less finance available per pupil than the Vocational school nearby, this was down to an archaic system which assumed that the Brothers were putting their wages back in, only there were no Brothers teaching at that stage! My point here is that Church-run schools do not receive the same level of State funding that non-Church ones do.

Basically, the state does not provide a Catholic education system. It may give funding to Catholic schools, just as it does to Church of Ireland ones, and non-denominational ones, the latter receiving more funds than the first two as outlined above.

Chuck Stone

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What's their level supposed to mean?

Believeing in magical gods and men who can turn water into wine and come back from the dead and be born by virgins, you know, the usual rubbish, that level.

Problem?

Your opinion. Unfortunately, you're not an expert in education and do not decide what children should and should not learn.

Are you an expert in education? If you think children should be inoctrinated with superstitious nonense then I'd claim you're anything but an expert.

I believed as a child and still believe now. I don't know who's talking unsubstantiated angry rubbish in this little exchange but it certainly isn't me.

That's all you have - 'belief'. I don't care what superstitious nonsense you believe in just don't infect any kid I care for with it. Keep that **** to yourself imo.

Btw I believed as a child too - just like I believed in santa. The thing is - I grew up and found out that it was just adults telling children silly stories.

What a loaded statement. I don't suppose you have any evidence of people being threatened to believe?

Oh just that they will go to hell and suffer eternal punishment or be struck by lightening if they question the existence of god or be shunned by their family for not believeing - you know the usual abusive shit. Try looking in the bible - it's full of it.

As an aside, calm down. You're coming across as raving.

I'm quite calm tyvm.

Seeing as you're giving me advice let me give you some. Why don't you live your life without having all that nonsense affecting you?

Duggy747

Should 1 religion be taught in a school, no.

Should religion in general be taught in school, yes. There's so many different offsprings of religion that I think it's important for children to know how the world operates in regards to people's beliefs. Plus why such religions might appeal to certain people.

Let kid's grow up to make up their own minds, not be fed what's traditional for the country they live in.

Chuck Stone

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I believed as a child and still believe now. I don't know who's talking unsubstantiated angry rubbish in this little exchange but it certainly isn't me.

Do you think you would have believed it if you hadn't been indoctrinated by the people around you?

Seriously, wake up man.
Come towards the enlightenment - you can do it - I believe in you.

flutterflye

Seriously, how hard can it be for the church, or whatever religious institution, to set up after school, or weekend classes for those who wish to learn how to be a good *insert religion here*?

Why is religion in schools?

I just don't get it.

Fair enough if everyone in the country had the same belief systems, and all wished it to be part of the schooling system.

But that is far from reality.

I know we still have a catholic majority in the country, but there is an ever growing population of people who are not catholic.

Let the catholic parents teach them catholicism, and let catholic kids go to catholic run classes outside of school, and stop teaching what we believe to be fantasy to our non catholic kids, as if it were fact.

I genuinely do not understand why any catholic would have an issue with it taken out of schools, and taught separately.

Can any catholic explain to me what the problem with this is?

dvpower

Niles wrote: »

Fair point, in some areas there may not be a high level of choice. But shouldn't that give cause for the State to set up more non-denominational schools, rather than blame Catholic/Church of Ireland schools for teaching religion, when, after all, they were set up by those respective churches?

That the churches founded these schools is an historic fact, but all of the funding, including paying salaries to whatever few religious that still teach in them, comes from the taxpayer.
The solution to build more and more schools is simply not feasible. Even if we could, do we really want a society where catholic kids are separated from protestant kids are separated from Muslim kids are separated from non religious kids. That sounds like a pretty ****ty system tbh.

Niles wrote: »

In any event I can personally think of cases where local denominational (both Catholic and Church of Ireland) schools took measures to accommodate students of a different faith - so it was not a case of parents having their kids "pushed" to learn a religion against their will.

Most schools are pretty good at this nowadays, but still there is a sense that the minority religions (and none) are not fully part of the school. They have to go elsewhere when religious instruction is being done. In some cases parents are being told that the kids wont be supervised when the catholic kids are getting religious instruction. In other cases, non catholic kids have been refused places in schools based solely on their religion.

This isn't the best system we could have - something like a Sunday school system would be much better where the kids could get religious instruction while the parents were at mass etc...

Niles wrote: »

BTW, church sponsored schools generally receive a lower level of subvention than non-denominational ones, sometimes even their own detriment; my secondary school (a CBS) had less finance available per pupil than the Vocational school nearby, this was down to an archaic system which assumed that the Brothers were putting their wages back in, only their were no Brothers teaching at that stage! My point here is that Church-run schools do not receive the same level of State funding that non-Church ones do.

I don;t think this is the case. I think that the religious mostly give their salaries straight to their orders, but afaik its all fully funded by the state, including salaries to members of religious orders who could bypass the competitive selection process to get their jobs in the first place.

AnneElizabeth

dvpower wrote: »

Meh. One guy's cult is the next guy's one true religion.

How is that possible if these are the definitions. Maybe try accepting when you're wrong and not being so rude.

murphhy

At the end of the day religion teaches children what is right and what is wrong so yes it should be taught in schools...

Chuck Stone

murphhy wrote: »

At the end of the day religion teaches children what is right and what is wrong so yes it should be taught in schools...

Yeah so we can teach kids that slavery, rape, murder and human sacrifice are 'right'.

Good call brah.

James G

murphhy wrote: »

At the end of the day religion teaches children what is right and what is wrong so yes it should be taught in schools...

No... no it doesn't.

moneyman

murphhy wrote: »

At the end of the day religion teaches children what is right and what is wrong so yes it should be taught in schools...

It really, really doesn't. And that's a lame reason as to why it should be taught. I'd have to question the mindset (for lack of a better word) of anyone who genuinely thinks religion teaches what is right or wrong (and which religion? Your one?).

murphhy

James G wrote: »

No... no it doesn't.

Sorry your double negative is confusing me there :P haha

Look i'm not going to get into a debate over this...the thread is a waste of time cos peoples views are too different on the topic

Niles

dvpower wrote: »

That the churches founded these schools is an historic fact, but all of the funding, including paying salaries to whatever few religious that still teach in them, comes from the taxpayer.

Some of the funding yes, but not all of it.

dvpower wrote: »

The solution to build more and more schools is simply not feasible. Even if we could, do we really want a society where catholic kids are separated from protestant kids are separated from Muslim kids are separated from non religious kids. That sounds like a pretty ****ty system tbh.

No, I'm not advocating that.

dvpower wrote: »

Most schools are pretty good at this nowadays, but still there is a sense that the minority religions (and none) are not fully part of the school. They have to go elsewhere when religious instruction is being done. In some cases parents are being told that the kids wont be supervised when the catholic kids are getting religious instruction.

That wasn't the case in my school - those that weren't of the faith simply sat in the class and did their own work, or whatever. They were not expected to participate in the class, but were still under supervision. I don't recall any of them expressing feelings of being left out. Religion wasn't the only subject were this happened - some people didn't do a particular subject for the Leaving but sat in on the class anyway so as to be supervised.

dvpower wrote: »

I don;t think this is the case. I think that the religious mostly give their salaries straight to their orders, but afaik its all fully funded by the state, including salaries to members of religious orders who could bypass the competitive selection process to get their jobs in the first place.

In my school it was the case, and actually led to a teacher being let go due to lack of funds. The school did receive some funding from the state but was receiving less per pupil than the non-denominational schools in the area. This was only in the last decade.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yeah so we can teach kids that slavery, rape, murder and human sacrifice are 'right'.

Good call brah.

I don't recall any of this being advocated when I was in school. Doesn't really fit in with the whole Christian agenda anyway.

Chuck Stone

murphhy wrote: »

Sorry your double negative is confusing me there :P haha

Look i'm not going to get into a debate over this...the thread is a waste of time cos peoples views are too different on the topic

I would argue the opposite. This thread is very important. Poeple will read this thread and it might actually make them think 'wtf? why did all these people tell me these stupid stories?' Do these people who question religion/theists have a point?

I feel blessed that I have a reasonably critical mind which allowed me to dismiss the superstitions of my parents, thank god. sarcasm warning.

partyatmygaff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Believeing in magical gods and men who can turn water into wine and come back from the dead and be born by virgins, you know, the usual rubbish, that level.

Problem?

If this rubbish style of arguing is the best you can offer then please spare me.

Are you an expert in education?

No. I don't claim to know precisely what children should and should not learn either.

If you think children should be inoctrinated with superstitious nonense then I'd claim you're anything but an expert.

I don't know where I actually said any of that but if you want to keep presuming things about people you hardly know then by all means continue.

That's all you have - 'belief'.

What's your problem? Yes I have belief. It's one of many things that I "have" in my life. I don't see why my belief sparks such a caustic response from you.

I don't care what superstitious nonsense you believe in just don't infect any kid I care for with it.

Infect? It's not a disease. Which kids do you "care for" btw? If you're going to be selective about who I "infect" with my beliefs you may as well specify which kids you want to protect.

Keep that **** to yourself imo.

Excuse me? Why should I have to keep anything to myself? I'm at liberty to freely express any belief I have without having to listen to this bile.

Btw I believed as a child too - just like I believed in santa.

Fascinating.

The thing is - I grew up and found out that it was just adults telling children silly stories.

The thing is - I grew up and saw things rather differently.

Oh just that they will go to hell and suffer eternal punishment

I do not recall ever being told in primary school "You're going to hell to suffer eternal punishment".

or be struck by lightening if they question the existence of god or be shunned by their family for not believeing

Never heard that either.

- you know the usual abusive shit. Try looking in the bible - it's full of it.

Not at all.

I'm quite calm tyvm.

So calm that you're launching vicious attacks against me?

Seeing as you're giving me advice let me give you some. Why don't you live your life without having all that nonsense affecting you?

For one reason, I don't think it's nonsense. I know this may come as a shock to you but you're not the definitive authority on what is nonsense and what isn't.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Do you think you would have believed it if you hadn't been indoctrinated by the people around you?

Pretty sure I would yes. I wasn't "indoctrinated" anyway. I went to a Catholic school and attended religion classes and strangely enough i've never been a Catholic nor have any desire to become a Catholic.

Seriously, wake up man.

It's nearly 3AM, methinks i'll be heading off to bed soon.

Come towards the enlightenment - you can do it - I believe in you.

Right back at you.

Niles

Seriously, do we have to use terms like "stupid stories"? I completely respect people's right to believe or disbelieve something, be they Atheist, Christain, Agnostic, Muslim, Mormon or whatever. But dissing someone's beliefs with terms like "stupid" is not on in my opinion. I would never force my beliefs on anyone, I'm not even sure of them myself! If you think about it, if you insist on using terms like "stupid stories" to describe Christianity then effectively you're forcing a belief yourself...

partyatmygaff

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I would argue the opposite. This thread is very important. Poeple will read this thread and it might actually make them think 'wtf? why did all these people tell me these stupid stories?' Do these people who question religion/theists have a point?

I wouldn't be so sure of that. People are impressed by arguments and civil debates between people where both parties respect the other. No one will be swayed by those whose idea of making a point is warring at 3AM in condescending tones about "superstitions" and "stupid stories". Calling the other party's beliefs shit for example is what i'd consider to be typical of gutter debating.

citizen_p

Tehachapi wrote: »

I went to a catholic school and was taught all the christian bullsh1t, for example - you can't tell children in 1 class "Jesus walked on water" then in the next class teach them the scientific properties of water and expect them to understand it properly. Or that "Jesus turned a small amount of loaves/fishes into enough to feed thousands", then expect them not to be confused when being taught food science. One more example (I could list many more) , is resurrection. You can't teach children that magical resurrection after being dead for 3 days is possible, then expect them to properly understand biology. God putting man on earth, then expecting them to understand genetics, evolution, cells, etc.

science - this is usually thought in secondary school.... where religion class is mainly a doss, In 1st to 3rd year we studied Islam and Buddhism.

I was thought all the religious stuff in primary school, and I didn't even believe it then, (I was known for qustioning everything "if he could walk on water why did he go out on a boat" "how did he wash himself" etc... or the story of the prodical son, when the one arsehole son goes off and spends all his money and returns home only to be forgien and the good lad gets fOck all. I qustioned Tara and Ben too and any other book the teacher would refer to in which the character does somthing stupid instead of the obvious and logical choice)
I did all the Alive O book, communion, confirmation etc... but by the time you go to secondary school and especially by 2nd or 3rd year you are fairly independent in your thouhts on religion...


send your child to a multidenominational school if your so pissed off...

Chuck Stone

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If this rubbish style of arguing is the best you can offer then please spare me.

The opinion of someone who believes in superstitious beings? Should it be respected?

No. I don't claim to know precisely what children should and should not learn either.

They should learn about what is real. They should learn to be critical and questioning. They should learn through reason, observation and science.

What's your problem? Yes I have belief. It's one of many things that I "have" in my life. I don't see why my belief sparks such a caustic response from you.

I've no problem with you believeing whatever the hell you want - gods, fairies, moomins, leprechauns, centaurs, narwhals - whatever.

Just don't think I'm going to stand idly by and let you indoctrinate children in a systematic (schools teaching religion) way with your beliefs.

Infect? It's not a disease. Which kids do you "care for" btw? If you're going to be selective about who I "infect" with my beliefs you may as well specify which kids you want to protect.

It's an analogy. If people around you don't have it then you won't pick it up. It's a cultural 'infection'. Children of atheist people will not think that there is a god.

Excuse me? Why should I have to keep anything to myself? I'm at liberty to freely express any belief I have without having to listen to this bile.

Just as I am to refute it. I like to think you will extend that same liberty to what I have to say.

The thing is - I grew up and saw things rather differently.

You mean you failed to see the nonsense that you were being fed.

I do not recall ever being told in primary school "You're going to hell to suffer eternal punishment".

It's all in the bible if you care to look.

So calm that you're launching vicious attacks against me?

Hey - you called me out - not I you.

For one reason, I don't think it's nonsense.

I do. Logical reasoned thinking will see it for what it is too.

I know this may come as a shock to you but you're not the definitive authority on what is nonsense and what isn't.

Oh you have my 100% agreement there. I most certainly am not. I try to let science and reason inform my views. Those are the authority I look to.

Pretty sure I would yes. I wasn't "indoctrinated" anyway. I went to a Catholic school and attended religion classes and strangely enough i've never been a Catholic nor have any desire to become a Catholic.

Meh. Catholic, Protestant, Christian, Muslim, Satanist, Scientologist Moominist - couldn't care less what one you follow tbh. They're all as irrational as each other.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure of that. People are impressed by arguments and civil debates between people where both parties respect the other.

You don't respect my way of describing your superstition. I think it's total nonsense that you believe in stuff that was made up by some guys. I have the same attitude towards people who believe that alien space fly around the place or that ghosts and vampires exist.

Calling the other party's beliefs shit for example is what i'd consider to be typical of gutter debating.

Come back with some evidence or even a good argument why I should even consider your beliefs should be listened to and then I'll think about treating it with due regard.

flutterflye

Still haven't seen any reasonable argument for why persuasive religious bias should continue to be legally impressed upon over 90% of Ireland's children.