Quinn: Schools spend too much time on religion and Irish

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

Fantastic so you're not going to answer the question. You should be a politician.

I have answered it. Sorry if you don't like my answer but any science teacher worth their salt will be able to distinguish between things that concern the natural universe and things which don't.

Whether or not you believe in miracles depends on whether or not you believe in God. I've made it crystal that I agree that if there is no God, miracles are absurd.

The underlying question is do you believe that God exists, yes and no. That's not something for science class. That's where RE comes in.

Much in the same way as I wouldn't advocate ramming Christianity into the science curriculum I wouldn't support ramming atheism in their either.

Let science class be science class.

philologos

Your original objection as for why religion class shouldn't be taught doesn't seem to be holding up at this point Ush1. Do you have any other reasons?

Ush1

philologos wrote: »

I have answered it. Sorry if you don't like my answer but any science teacher worth their salt will be able to distinguish between things that concern the natural universe and things which don't.

Whether or not you believe in miracles depends on whether or not you believe in God. I've made it crystal that I agree that if there is no God, miracles are absurd.

The underlying question is do you believe that God exists, yes and no. That's not something for science class. That's where RE comes in.

Much in the same way as I wouldn't advocate ramming Christianity into the science curriculum I wouldn't support ramming atheism in their either.

Let science class be science class.

So when the student asks in the science class you'll do what exactly?? Tell them to go to RE?? Curl your lips inward and make a shrug gesture?

Ush1

philologos wrote: »

Your original objection as for why religion class shouldn't be taught doesn't seem to be holding up at this point Ush1. Do you have any other reasons?

How is it not holding up exactly?

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

So when the student asks in the science class you'll do what exactly?? Tell them to go to RE?? Curl your lips inward and make a shrug gesture?

Science deals with the natural universe and what is commonly observed in it. Supernatural considerations are beyond its remit. This doesn't mean that there is a contradiction.

No atheist bias should be allowed in the science class much in the same way Christian bias shouldn't be allowed. The answer I gave is the most sufficient probably.

Biggins

The effect of mixing schools and religion...

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priest-on-the-naughty-list-as-parents-see-red-on-santa-gaffe-3325727.html

A PRIEST might find himself on Santa's naughty list this Christmas after bold comments he made to pupils in a local national school.

Fr Martin Hegarty caused a real festive season stir when he suggested that Father Christmas did not exist.

Fr Hegarty, who retired as parish priest of the Kerry seaside parish of Ballybunion last year, made the remarks when visiting fourth, fifth and sixth class children in Scoil Mhuire Gan Smal in Lixnaw.

The double-standard irony!

It’s ironic because Hegarty told the class not to believe in one mystical figure while not mentioning that they should not believe also in a possible other one. An invisible man that was centuries old, still supposedly also alive, having previously died after being nailed to a cross! A mystical invisible man that remarkably also is able to tell if kids have been naughty or nice too!

Ush1

philologos wrote: »

Science deals with the natural universe and what is commonly observed in it. Supernatural considerations are beyond its remit. This doesn't mean that there is a contradiction.

No atheist bias should be allowed in the science class much in the same way Christian bias shouldn't be allowed. The answer I gave is the most sufficient probably.

You gave no answer to be honest, you're simply squirming.

So what's the logical conclusion here? You essentially can't teach anything because anything is possible right? Can a man fly? Can my head turn into an xmas pudding? If a religion says it, it's possible. Brilliant.

Science, by physics, has laws of the universe. A man walking on water would violate those laws so would not be possible. I'm not sure what you mean by science has no opinion on the supernatural? It's got no opinion on pink unicorns cause there's f*ck all evidence of them.

Your beliefs don't seem to be holding up at this point philologos. Do you have any others?

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

You gave no answer to be honest, you're simply squirming.

So what's the logical conclusion here? You essentially can't teach anything because anything is possible right? Can a man fly? Can my head turn into an xmas pudding? If a religion says it, it's possible. Brilliant.

Science, by physics, has laws of the universe. A man walking on water would violate those laws so would not be possible. I'm not sure what you mean by science has no opinion on the supernatural? It's got no opinion on pink unicorns cause there's f*ck all evidence of them.

Your beliefs don't seem to be holding up at this point philologos. Do you have any others?

Your atheist bias isn't appropriate to teach in science class. Neither is a Christian one. I'm not going to go around and around in circles when I've already explained fully what my position is in respect to science class.

If God created the world. It's entirely possible that miracles could occur. If God did not create the world, then miracles are absurd. If you're going to teach an atheist bias in the classroom there needs to be universally accepted justification for it.

You don't even seem to be half interested in listening. So what's the point?

No matter how desperate you are to reach this conclusion. Science doesn't rule out the existence of a creator (which by the by is entirely reasonable and logical to hold to despite your protestations and others that unicorns and Santa, Superman and so on are rivals).

Ush1

philologos wrote: »

Your atheist bias isn't appropriate to teach in science class. Neither is a Christian one. I'm not going to go around and around in circles when I've already explained fully what my position is in respect to science class.

If God created the world. It's entirely possible that miracles could occur. If God did not create the world, then miracles are absurd. If you're going to teach an atheist bias in the classroom there needs to be universally accepted justification for it.

You don't even seem to be half interested in listening. So what's the point?

No matter how desperate you are to reach this conclusion. Science doesn't rule out the existence of a creator (which by the by is entirely reasonable and logical to hold to despite your protestations and others that unicorns and Santa, Superman and so on are rivals).

Who's mentioning a creator? I'm attempting to see your logic.

So can my head spontaneously turn into an xmas pudding is not a question suitable for science class or religion class? Should such a question ever be asked?

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

Who's mentioning a creator? I'm attempting to see your logic.

So can my head spontaneously turn into an xmas pudding is not a question suitable for science class or religion class? Should such a question ever be asked?

I've explained it to you very clearly in a number of posts already. The question or miracles depends on whether or not you believe there to be a Creator or not.

I'm done going in circles with you.

kippy

philologos wrote: »

I've explained it to you very clearly in a number of posts already. The question or miracles depends on whether or not you believe there to be a Creator or not.

I'm done going in circles with you.

What is the problem with the parents who wish their child to be taught religious education, teaching it to them themselves or bringing them to church/whatever the church sets up to teach religion?
(I've used the same logic earlier for those people who want their kids to be taught a specific programming language)



Religion is not a subject nor should it ever have been a subject. The ONLY reason it is taught in schools is because the majority of schools were set up and part funded by the catholic church. I suppose there were seen as a form of Sunday school.

philologos

kippy wrote: »

What is the problem with the parents who wish their child to be taught religious education, teaching it to them themselves or bringing them to church/whatever the church sets up to teach religion?


Religion is not a subject nor should it ever have been a subject. The ONLY reason it is taught in schools is because the majority of schools were set up and part funded by the catholic church. I suppose there were seen as a form of Sunday school.

It's a subject that is examined by the Irish State at Junior and Leaving Cert level. It's also a subject that is taught at GCSE and A Levels in the UK and I suspect in most other international examinations. Are you sure it isn't a subject?

kippy

philologos wrote: »

It's a subject that is examined by the Irish State at Junior and Leaving Cert level. It's also a subject that is taught at GCSE and A Levels in the UK and I suspect in most other international examinations. Are you sure it isn't a subject?

Yep, 100% sure (straight) religion isn't a subject.
It's there as a historic throwback to the setting up of these schools in the first place.
It has absolutely no place in a school as a compulsory subject.
Parents want their kid to get a religious education, teach it to them themselves instead of forcing every other child in the school into a brainwash.

Sure, tell some religions stories, possibly in english or to assist with some morals, but don't take up acres of time on confessions, communions, confirmations in an effort to appease the church.

philologos

kippy wrote: »

Yep, 100% sure (straight) religion isn't a subject.
It's there as a historic throwback to the setting up of these schools in the first place.
It has absolutely no place in a school as a compulsory subject.
Parents want their kid to get a religious education, teach it to them themselves instead of forcing every other child in the school into a brainwash.

Sure, tell some religions stories, possibly in english or to assist with some morals, but don't take up acres of time on confessions, communions, confirmations in an effort to appease the church.

Isn't a subject by what definition? Plenty of education departments and universities seem to regard it as a subject.

kippy

philologos wrote: »

Isn't a subject by what definition? Plenty of education departments and universities seem to regard it as a subject.

As I said, it's a outdated thank you to whatever religions set up the schools in the first place (surely that bit is obvious)
The reasons it is now examined in the state are also obvious I would have thought? (To give it some level of "importance")

I dont give a damn what universities call it. Universities call some completly off the wall stuff subjects, that doesn't justify their existence.

The church has for decades had a major hold over this country to the countries detriment in my opinion and one of the key ways it has managed this is via setting up schools and having a major say over the curriculum and it's teachings.
This absolute has to stop in state funded schools (of which all are now state funded)
If parents want their kids to have a religions education, bring them to mass, prepare them for the sacraments themselves etc etc.

muckety

I think you need to distinguish between religion as an academic subject and religious doctrine, 2 different things. Teaching all children about world religions, their differences (and more importantly, similarities) has a lot of value in my opinion. Teaching religious doctrine would be better done extra-curricular.

kippy

muckety wrote: »

I think you need to distinguish between religion as an academic subject and religious doctrine, 2 different things. Teaching all children about world religions, their differences (and more importantly, similarities) has a lot of value in my opinion. Teaching religious doctrine would be better done extra-curricular.

That's probably a fair point.
That being said religion as an academic subject should be given and extremely low priority in subjects taught.

I'd much rather see the time either spent on a different subject or probably more importantly on giving more assistance to the weaker in the class in the "core" subjects.

Kev_2012

They should teach foreign languages to young children (german, chinese etc.etc.) We are far too monolingual as a nation! I never attended religion classes, but I think it's probably good for young kids to basically teach them the ways of the world and not necessarily religion as we see it! I would have loved to do science from an early age!

Ush1

philologos wrote: »

I've explained it to you very clearly in a number of posts already. The question or miracles depends on whether or not you believe there to be a Creator or not.

I'm done going in circles with you.

So you still see no incompatability? I'm sure you're a nice guy but you're a maniac mate.:)

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

So you still see no incompatability? I'm sure you're a nice guy but you're a maniac mate.:)

No I don't see an incompatibility.

The reason, I believe that God created all things including the scientific laws that you claim preclude miracles taking place. If I didn't I'd be making the same new-atheist assumptions as you.

Except I don't feel the need to be as obnoxious as to claim that you're a manic

kippy

philologos wrote: »

No I don't see an incompatibility.

The reason, I believe that God created all things including the scientific laws that you claim preclude miracles taking place. If I didn't I'd be making the same new-atheist assumptions as you.

Except I don't feel the need to be as obnoxious as to claim that you're a manic

Thats a great believe to have, what more do you need to learn?

Ush1

philologos wrote: »

No I don't see an incompatibility.

The reason, I believe that God created all things including the scientific laws that you claim preclude miracles taking place. If I didn't I'd be making the same new-atheist assumptions as you.

Except I don't feel the need to be as obnoxious as to claim that you're a manic

So how are you going to teach a class science when the students may or may not believe in God?

Also, what about people who believe in miracles but not a creator, why is this creator needed?

Ah sure you're obnoxious in other ways.:)

Playboy

Religion shouldnt be taught in state funded schools full stop unless its a once a week class which talks about Religion in sociological and philosophical context.

Irish should be an optional subject and only taught from second level onwards. If you want your little johnny or mary to speak Irish then teach them at home or send them to an Irish speaking school at your own expense.

One of German, Arabic, Spanish and Chinese should be compulsory from primary school.

Science and Engineering should be invested in heavily and scholarships and grants made available to a wider extent for students to take up these subjects. If Ireland wants to create a non bubble based economy then it needs to sort its education out pronto. Too many people going to university who come out the other side with no practical skills

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

So how are you going to teach a class science when the students may or may not believe in God?

Also, what about people who believe in miracles but not a creator, why is this creator needed?

Ah sure you're obnoxious in other ways.:)

I've answered that question already multiple times now.

kippy: Many things, I plan on being in this creation for a very long time. I don't claim to be omniscient, all I do claim is to follow someone who is.

kippy

philologos wrote: »

I've answered that question already multiple times now.

kippy: Many things, I plan on being in this creation for a very long time. I don't claim to be omniscient, all I do claim is to follow someone who is.

But what more do you need to learn if you believe in what you believe in?
God created everything, end of.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

Yea Permy, but you're up against two pretty big and vocal lobbies that would fight against such changes. One part of the tag team is the church which runs an awful lot of the schools in the country. Luckily they're way down on power these days, but still exercise some. Then the other member of the tag team is the Irish language lobby. They've very vocal when they want to be and given many if not most of the employment opportunities in that language are in education, never mind other aspects of the Irish language industry supporting it's compulsion and well... turkeys aint gonna vote for xmas.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

So you still see no incompatability? I'm sure you're a nice guy but you're a maniac mate.:)

He's a reasonable person with Christian beliefs. No need for that.

Ush1 wrote: »

So you want to make a current affairs class also? It would entirely depend upon what you mean by basic understanding of Islam. A basic understanding of all the abrahamic religions is easier and could be done in a very short time, no need for a special seperate class.

You are getting obsessed with this 'timescale'. A study of the world's religions is relevant either for a study of history or for current affairs. I never said anything one way or another about a current affairs class.

I'd say yes, they are both christian so it just goes to show the irrelevance of religion.

If you truly believe that you clearly were not paying attention in JC History. The Catholic/Protestant divide is a huge part of the history of Ireland.

The religious elemnt as I said is fairly hollow and would not need a seperate class to be demonstrated.

Demonstrated? In a beaker?

Non human animals even have morals without benefit of sky wizards.

You see, part of the reason I think RE should be taught in schools is to counteract this childish mocking. I have no issues with you being an atheist, and profess no faith myself. But your silliness is, frankly, immature.

I can see you're baffled yes. I don't know how often I can repeat this but the things you listed are universally applicable and are indeed useful in a relevant, true sense.

I think you just made an argument not to teach History. Tell me more.

Learning about everything man can make up, isn't.

Learning about things man made up. Let's see, that rules out teaching about Soviet Communism, Slavery and the Civil War and The Civil Rights Movement.
I guess we should only teach "empirical truths' to our kids and see how they get on in the real world, where y'know, people are always, always entirely rational.

"How would you explain to someone who asked "but aren't they both Christian?" "

Do I have to spell that out?

Consider their place sounds disconcertingly vague, might offend some people I'd reckon unless all were included, see a problem?

Oh please, now you are just trying to find something to have someone offended by. We don't teach the whole of History, the content of cirrucula is always someone's decision.

Also, you're calling certain religions a business, highly offensive I reckon.

You are offended? I'm amazed.
Scientology is a business, it is founded by a science-fiction writer with a clear plan to make money from a self-help scheme. He called it 'science' - perhaps you would like to include it in your science classes? Save giving offence to scientists, like.

That was in reply to a comment you made about the churches power??

"Even when in your own country, for instance, religious value systems prevent abortions from saving the life of the mother?"

So you are not disputing that no-one is forced to attend Catholic schools, and that people do in fact attend Mass.

No idea where you're getting that from, I reserve no particular opinions for particular religions, all a waste of time to me. Strange accusation to make all the same.

From your contributions to this thread so far, and mocking tone, that is quite clear. Yet you want to impose that view on every schoolchild, what is it that you are afraid will happen if they study the major world religions?

Teaching them about anger, insecurity, depression, relationships. You know, that sort of relevant stuff?

They are. It is called Social, Personal and Health Education and on the syllabus.

blah blah blah deflection from the argument.

You are quite dismissive of Knowledge, aren't you. More of "my opinions are my opinions" type of guy, "don't try and confuse me with facts" is it?.

You study texts from any period that can be a waste of time yes.

Shakespeare for instance, sure where is the modern relevance in that :rolleyes:

No, you're boring me. There has been many threads on this before so I'm not arsed rehashing the same things.

OK, bye then so. You seemed so keen, what happened?

jupiter00

Go on, why not ask the families and children and families whether they want to study Irish? Be brave and try it out, people who love and need it continue with it and if we don't want to we don't have to study it? Interesting to see the opinions of students!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

He's a reasonable person with Christian beliefs. No need for that.

Yes, and I believe a maniac.

MadsL wrote: »

You are getting obsessed with this 'timescale'.

Am I?

MadsL wrote: »

A study of the worlds religions is relevant either for a study of history or for current affairs. I never said anything one way or another about a current affairs class.

"be included in the study of Current Affairs" - I honestly can't follow what you're on about at this stage.

MadsL wrote: »

If you truly believe that you clearly were not paying attention in JC History. The Catholic/Protestant divide is a huge part of the history of Ireland.

No I did pay attention, you obviously didn't pay attention where I said history class is the place for it.

MadsL wrote: »

Demonstrated? In a beaker?

Again, am I typing in Russian or something?

MadsL wrote: »

You see, part of the reason I think RE should be taught in schools is to counteract this childish mocking. I have no issues with you being and atheist, and profess no faith myself. But your silliness is, frankly, immature.

yawn, more deflection.

MadsL wrote: »

I think you just made an argument not to teach History. Tell me more.

Strawman.

MadsL wrote: »

Learning about things man made up. Let's see that rules out teaching about Soviet Communism, Slavery and the Civil War and The Civil Rights Movement.
I guess we should only teach "empirical truths' to our kids and see how they get on in the real world, where y'know, people are always, always entirely rational.

History of events =/= things made up by man i.e. fairytales. More strawmen.

MadsL wrote: »

Do I have to spell that out?

Pointing out where you contradicted yourself.

MadsL wrote: »

Oh please, now you are just trying to find something to have someone offended by. We don't teach the whole of History, the content of cirrucula is always someone's decision.

Oh I'm not offended, it'll be the scientologists who you will leave out of your curriculum who will be, and leaving a poor defenseless child into the world without a notion of his thetan levels.

MadsL wrote: »

You are offended? I'm amazed.
Scientology is a business, it is founded by a science-fiction writer with a clear plan to make money from a self-help scheme. He calls it 'science' - perhaps you would like to include it in your science classes? Save giving offence to scientists, like.

Same as other religions bladdy blah, I'll leave you to argue that with a scientologist and see how they react.

MadsL wrote: »

So you are not disputing that no-one is forced to attend Catholic schools, and that people do in fact attend Mass.

Again, are you arguing with yourself?

MadsL wrote: »

From your contributions to this thread so far, and mocking tone, that is quite clear. Yet you want to impose that view on every schoolchild, what is it that you are afraid will happen if they study the major world religions?

I'm afraid of them wasting their time, see the OP.:)

MadsL wrote: »

They are. It is called Social, Personal and Health Education and on the syllabus.

Excellent, spend more time on it.

MadsL wrote: »

You are quite dismissive of Knowledge, aren't you. More of "my opinions are my opinions" type of guy, "don't try and confuse me with facts" is it?.

Dismissive of bullsh*t yes.

MadsL wrote: »

Shakespeare for instance, sure where is the modern relevance in that :rolleyes:

Well there is many arguments to remove it from the curriculum.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080818090236AAkSNOz

http://www.debate.org/debates/should-shakespeare-be-taught-in-school/1/

"All art is quite useless" - Oscar Wilde.

MadsL

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Let's not mock shall we? - no-one on this thread was arguing for "mastering the miracles of Jesus". I happen to agree with you on the importance of "maths, science, and foreign languages" but also understand that an understanding of how the world works in terms of the major faiths is bloody useful for anyone whose career or travel puts them in contact with people of different backgrounds. Increasingly that is all of us.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

Let's not mock shall we? - no-one on this thread was arguing for "mastering the miracles of Jesus". I happen to agree with you on the importance of "maths, science, and foreign languages" but also understand that an understanding of how the world works in terms of the major faiths is bloody useful for anyone whose career or travel puts them in contact with people of different backgrounds. Increasingly that is all of us.

Yes, we get that, how is it gonna manifest itself is the question in any purposeful way that would benefit over time spent on universally applicable subjects?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes, and I believe a maniac.

Nice demonstration of humanist tolerance. :rolleyes:

No I did pay attention, you obviously didn't pay attention where I said history class is the place for it.

Historians are experts on religions now, well well.

yawn, more deflection.

Not really, you seem to have given yourself the right to mock other peoples beliefs. Feel free to argue with them, no issue there, but all this "sky wizard" stuff is frankly silliness. It is as mature as entering a politics debate at the "nah-nah-na-nah" level.

Strawman.

History of events =/= things made up by man i.e. fairytales. More strawmen.

You asked for nothing to be taught that was made up and spread as truth by man. That would include Communism, Slavery and Racial Segregation.
You see where your confusion about "teaching something" leads you, you still seem to feel that RE is the practice of religion, it isn't anymore than teaching about Stalin is the practice of Communism.

Pointing out where you contradicted yourself.

I fail to see the contradiction. You on the other hand seem to be arguing that a study of religion has a place in history, but not in the present. That seems very contradictory to me.

Oh I'm not offended, it'll be the scientologists who you will leave out of your curriculum who will be, and leaving a poor defenseless child into the world without a notion of his thetan levels.

Same as other religions bladdy blah, I'll leave you to argue that with a scientologist and see how they react.

Let's try this. Strawman. (Am I doing it right?)

Again, are you arguing with yourself?

Forced into arguing with myself - it is what happens when you make an assertion about the Church's position being based on forcing religion in schools and I point out that people freely and of their own will attend Mass and that no-one is forced to do either RE or attend a Catholic School in Ireland.
You didn't like that response and have been dancing around it ever since.

I'm afraid of them wasting their time, see the OP.:)

What else would you remove from the currulum?

Excellent, spend more time on it.

Care to say how much?

Dismissive of bullsh*t yes.

Dismissive of the dating, historically, of the Old and New Testaments, the Vedic texts and the Qu'ran physical texts? You consider those historical facts and the physical existence of those texts to be "bullsh*t". You are quite the scholar aren't you?

Well there is many arguments to remove it from the curriculum.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080818090236AAkSNOz

http://www.debate.org/debates/should-shakespeare-be-taught-in-school/1/

"All art is quite useless" - Oscar Wilde.

"Ush1 doesn't get irony" - MadsL

MadsL

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Religious Education is not the cause of that though, whilst I agree the relative weight is off, I do not believe you can solely lay the blame on studying RE. The actually amount of time spent in school altogether is absurd. 184 days a year is very low - http://norberthaupt.com/2012/04/20/school-days-around-the-world/

Religious education in Irish schools, particularly at primary level, does not focus on "an understanding of how the world works in terms of the major faiths." It centers on preparing children to receive Catholic sacraments, with a strong emphasis on Catholic catechism.

Only in sacrament years. And that is optional for parents.
The curriculum has improved and whilst the JC is far too weighted on the Judeo-Christian side of things, it is improving.

As I have said before, is there stomach for more taxes to take the Church out of schools? If not, then the school is entitled to it's ethos. Mass (no pun intended) withdrawals from Confirmation prep classes would soon end them, yet this doesn't happen.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes, we get that, how is it gonna manifest itself is the question in any purposeful way that would benefit over time spent on universally applicable subjects?

Study of what millions and millions of people believe and practice on a daily basis is "universally applicable" - even you have a 'belief system'.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

You asked for nothing to be taught that was made up and spread as truth by man. That would include Communism, Slavery and Racial Segregation.
You see where your confusion about "teaching something" leads you, you still seem to feel that RE is the practice of religion, it isn't anymore than teaching about Stalin is the practice of Communism.

When I said made up by man, I mean anything the imagination can conjure, i.e. religion, supernatural, ghosts, etc... you don't see the difference between those and the things you listed?

MadsL wrote: »

I fail to see the contradiction. You on the other hand seem to be arguing that a study of religion has a place in history, but not in the present. That seems very contradictory to me.

Okay I'll point out your contradiction. You said what if someone asked why is there a conflict if they're both Christian. You then went on to dismiss Mormonism and said sure that's just a sect of Chrisitanity, ah sure we can't cover them all we've no time!

MadsL wrote: »

Let's try this. Strawman. (Am I doing it right?)

No you definitely aren't.

MadsL wrote: »

Forced into arguing with myself - it is what happens when you make an assertion about the Church's position being based on forcing religion in schools and I point out that people freely and of their own will attend Mass and that no-one is forced to do either RE or attend a Catholic School in Ireland.
You didn't like that response and have been dancing around it ever since.

"No-one was forced to attend a Catholic school, alternative schools have always been available - just not in a convenient manner"

Hoist by your own petard is the phrase, I really like your responses actually.

MadsL wrote: »

What else would you remove from the currulum?

Religion is the obvious candidate. I'd have to check how much of what is covered as it's bound to have changed quite a bit since I was in school. glad you're taking an interest though.

MadsL wrote: »

Care to say how much?

Oh, like, loads. I mean, like, literally millions of time.

MadsL wrote: »

Dismissive of the dating, historically, of the Old and New Testaments, the Vedic texts and the Qu'ran physical texts? You consider those historical facts and the physical existence of those texts to be "bullsh*t". You are quite the scholar aren't you?

Dismissive of bull**** not relevant to the argument.

MadsL wrote: »

"Ush1 doesn't get irony" - MadsL

Ooooo, you didn't like that response did you.:rolleyes:

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

Study of what millions and millions of people believe and practice on a daily basis is "universally applicable" - even you have a 'belief system'.

Not when it's twoddle no.

Tusky

This is hardly surprising -- Irish primary schools spend 10 percent of classroom time on religion, but only 4 percent on science.

That is absolutely criminal. Get rid of Irish in place of Spanish, German or French, and totally abolish religion to beef up Science.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

When I said made up by man, I mean anything the imagination can conjure, i.e. religion, supernatural, ghosts, etc... you don't see the difference between those and the things you listed?

Explain the difference between the Stalags of Stalinist Communism and the Spanish Inquisition? Did it the 'belief system' involved make a difference?

Okay I'll point out your contradiction. You said what if someone asked why is there a conflict if they're both Christian. You then went on to dismiss Mormonism and said sure that's just a sect of Chrisitanity, ah sure we can't cover them all we've no time!

I didn't 'dismiss' anything. Here's a map of the major sects and schools of Islam - would you expect all of these covered in an RE class?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Islam_branches_and_schools.svg

There are 14 million Mormons, and 230 million Orthodox Christians, most RE classes would not cover Orthodoxy in much detail if at all.

My point was not about teaching every aspect of Christianity, it was about the fact that you utterly dismissed the religious aspect of the Troubles. Now we can argue about it's relevance and importance - but you wanted to completely airbrush it out of the picture.

No you definitely aren't.

Ah, I see I am doing it right then.

As for Scientology "`If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be to start his own religion." L. Ron Hubbard seals the deal for me.

We can argue about Scientology, but for the purposes for which you brought it up very much a strawman.

"No-one was forced to attend a Catholic school, alternative schools have always been available - just not in a convenient manner"

Hoist by your own petard is the phrase, I really like your responses actually.

Nope. I'm merely being truthful. Being a dissenter isn't easy, the American Pilgrims had to sail to the New World to practice religion as they saw fit. The fact that it was hard to avoid the Catholic Church's influence in school does mean that it was impossible. Even today the vast majority of parents want children prepped for communion and confirmation. Is there a legal right to withdraw, yes there is. You claiming that all the power of the church is vested in the fact that they are involved with education against people's will is utter nonsense.

Religion is the obvious candidate. I'd have to check how much of what is covered as it's bound to have changed quite a bit since I was in school. glad you're taking an interest though.

I'd say Religious Instruction is the obvious candidate, but you seem to struggle with understanding the definitions of "religion" "religious instruction" and "religious studies" - can I help you further with that. If not, could you stop using them interchangeably as they clearly are not, and never have been the same thing.

Oh, like, loads. I mean, like, literally millions of time.

Oh I'm sorry, you thought I was asking a silly question? I wasn't. If this is so important how much time should be spent on it, in your opinion?

Dismissive of bull**** not relevant to the argument.

I believe you started the "Bronze Age" aspect of the argument. Funny how it is not relevant when your "Bronze Age" is shown to include the 7th Century AD (CE). Me pointing out your gross misconceptions is apparently bull**** is it?

Ooooo, you didn't like that response did you.:rolleyes:

I'd argue Shakespeare has relevance, you posted a bunch of links. Tell me. The Bard, in or out?

philologos

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I find this "the Church" concept rather bizarre still. In Ireland there is 5% of the population who are Christians but not Roman Catholics. Many of these people choose to bring their children to non-RC faith schools.

I think that there should be faith schools, but that there should be more secular schools in Ireland.

lazygal

http://education.dublindiocese.ie/2012/02/21/alive-o/

For anyone who's interested, here's a link to a breakdown of what Catholic primary schools in Ireland are teaching children.


Feel free to decide whether its a waste of time and resources or a necessary part of education.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Not when it's twoddle no.

Your belief system is twoddle?

Again you are again utterly incapable of understanding that the study of a thing is not the practice of a thing.

The logical extension of that is that studying Anthropology is the art of making people believe in tribal superstitions.

Please do try and figure this out, I see no point in continuing whilst you are making such a simple error.

MadsL

lazygal wrote: »

http://education.dublindiocese.ie/2012/02/21/alive-o/

For anyone who's interested, here's a link to a breakdown of what Catholic primary schools in Ireland are teaching children.

Feel free to decide whether its a waste of time and resources or a necessary part of education.

It is also optional. Every parent has the right to withdraw their child from Religious Instruction.

Can we stop mixing up this with Religious Studies please.

lazygal

MadsL wrote: »

It is also optional. Every parent has the right to withdraw their child from Religious Instruction.

Can we stop mixing up this with Religious Studies please.

What do you do with a five year old who's not Catholic when there's a prayer before lunch? Parents might have the right to withdraw children, but why should they have to? Do you just put children outside the classroom door, making them separate, but equal?

Im_That_Girl

I agree completely with this. I think we should stop teaching religion & Irish in schools. I think its the responsibility of the parents to teach their children about their religion, not the schools. And Irish has been dying a slow painful death for decades - it's about time we stopped trying to revive it and just let it die for good. I don't know about any of you, but I haven't uttered a word of Irish since I left secondary school 12 years ago. Learning it in school was a lot of effort for nothing!

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

Explain the difference between the Stalags of Stalinist Communism and the Spanish Inquisition? Did it the 'belief system' involved make a difference?

Going round in circles I see. History =/= religion, I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.

MadsL wrote: »

I didn't 'dismiss' anything. Here's a map of the major sects and schools of Islam - would you expect all of these covered in an RE class?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Islam_branches_and_schools.svg

There are 14 million Mormons, and 230 million Orthodox Christians, most RE classes would not cover Orthodoxy in much detail if at all.

No I wouldn't expect them to be covered, what's your point? Are you arguing with yourself again? I'm arguing against having religions taught.

MadsL wrote: »

My point was not about teaching every aspect of Christianity, it was about the fact that you utterly dismissed the religious aspect of the Troubles. Now we can argue about it's relevance and importance - but you wanted to completely airbrush it out of the picture.

The good oul strawmen. I said the religious element has very little to do with it today. Yet again, explaining it briefly in history class would be fine.

MadsL wrote: »

Ah, I see I am doing it right then.

Nope, still no.

MadsL wrote: »

As for Scientology "`If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be to start his own religion." L. Ron Hubbard seals the deal for me.

We can argue about Scientology, but for the purposes for which you brought it up very much a strawman.

So MadsL will decide on what is a religion and what isn't? Interesting....Whack of discrimination off you.

MadsL wrote: »

Nope. I'm merely being truthful. Being a dissenter isn't easy, the American Pilgrims had to sail to the New World to practice religion as they saw fit. The fact that it was hard to avoid the Catholic Church's influence in school does mean that it was impossible. Even today the vast majority of parents want children prepped for communion and confirmation. Is there a legal right to withdraw, yes there is. You claiming that all the power of the church is vested in the fact that they are involved with education against people's will is utter nonsense.

Strawman yet again. The catholic church ran most schools in the country which is a huge part of where it's power and effects in law are still felt today. You're willfully ignorant if anything.

MadsL wrote: »

I'd say Religious Instruction is the obvious candidate, but you seem to struggle with understanding the definitions of "religion" "religious instruction" and "religious studies" - can I help you further with that. If not, could you stop using them interchangeably as they clearly are not, and never have been the same thing.

No struggle here, the struggle is in your mind. I'm sorry you didn't like the answer though.

MadsL wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry, you thought I was asking a silly question? I wasn't. If this is so important how much time should be spent on it, in your opinion?

You're asking many silly questions and hey, I'm answering.

MadsL wrote: »

I believe you started the "Bronze Age" aspect of the argument. Funny how it is not relevant when your "Bronze Age" is shown to include the 7th Century AD (CE). Me pointing out your gross misconceptions is apparently bull**** is it?

When it's largely irrelevant to the central point yes, it's pointless misdirection.

MadsL wrote: »

I'd argue Shakespeare has relevance, you posted a bunch of links. Tell me. The Bard, in or out?

I'd have to check up on the amount of time spent on it. You think the curriculum is perfect though yeah?

Relevance eh? So do you think more time should be spent on it or less time or it's just right?

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

Your belief system is twoddle?

Again you are again utterly incapable of understanding that the study of a thing is not the practice of a thing.

The logical extension of that is that studying Anthropology is the art of making people believe in tribal superstitions.

Please do try and figure this out, I see no point in continuing whilst you are making such a simple error.

What's my belief "system" exactly?

No I do understand the difference of practicing twaddle and studying of it. I don't see any point in continuing either as I don't understand the Russian you speak.