Secularist Education Advocating Banning Religion?

J C

gaynorvader wrote: »

Because that is the exact same as telling them the Bible is a lie, just the other side of the coin.

Debating the veracity of the Bible would take another mega-thread ... and I don't think anybody has the time for that.
The bottom line here is that there are Christian schools serving the needs of the Christian school community. It would seem that there are two choices as our society becomes more multicultural ... set up alternative types of school thereby enlarging parental choice ... and/or the existing Christian-run schools could become more inclusive of different beliefs and none.
The third way ... that expects Christian leaders to simply hand over the keys of Christian schools to a group of people who will lock them out of these school the very next day ... and are making no secret of this intention ... wouldn't seem to be a runner to me ... but I could be wrong.

J C

swampgas wrote: »

For many people, including myself, this forum is one of the few places where I can vent a little about religion. I can discuss religion, its craziness, its persistence, the weird Irish version of it, and so on, in a way that is not possible elsewhere. Of course we're going to sound anti-religious - some of us think religion is wrong, plain and simple. But that's on this forum.

However, outside of this forum many of us also have family and friends, spouses and partners even, who are religious. I don't try to convince my mother that she is wrong, nor does she try to convince me that I am wrong. She goes to mass, I don't, and we are both willing to accept the other one's choice in the matter. When she dies she will have a Catholic funeral, which I will be happy to arrange, should I pop my clogs first she will respect my wishes to have a non-religious funeral. At a meal she will say grace quietly to herself, and not expect us all to join in. If she stays with me I'll happily drive her to mass, but I won't actually go in.

To my mind a secular system is just an extension of that, where we manage to rub along side by side, everyone making some concessions, everyone agreeing to maintain a neutral shared space, and nobody insisting that their particular beliefs be enforced on anyone else.

I can see that the A & A meets a legitimate need for Atheists/Secularists to let off steam and relax with like-minded people ... and I have no problem with this ... indeed, I sometime laugh along with ye guys, when I read some of the quite witty observations that ye make about religion.

However, the comments made and the implacable opposition to any concession in relation to religion in schools is no laughing matter.

I think it is a mistake at a number of levels ... and I think ye guys may drive many people back into the arms of Roman Catholocism, because of the strident anti-religious way that many of ye express yourselves.
People may well ask if this is how ye are behaving before any schools have actually been transferred to secularists ... how much more strident will your anti-religion position be, if and when ye do control schools?

Approvingly citing examples of Christians being 'booted out' of schools and casting child protection aspersions upon Roman Catholic priests legitimately visiting schools under their authority, certainly doesn't help the case for secularists being given any additional authority over schools.
Ye are 'shooting yourselves in the foot' ... on this one!!!

Finally, could I respectfully suggest that ye need to start positively defining yourselves by the positive aspects of Secularism ... rather than merely 'knocking the stuffing' out of religion ... fun and all as that may be for you.

Take a look over in the Christianity Forum ... do ye see numerous threads laughing at Atheism???
You don't ... most of the threads are all about debating various aspects of Christianity (warts and all).

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

Why should we do either?
Christian Children should be told that the Bible is the truth.

How much of the bible have you read?

clairefontaine

Religion is based on faith.

To teach faith as fact is intellectual abuse.

Children need to discern between fact and opinion.

So instead of saying "god created the universe" you say, "some religions believe in god, and that he created the universe." But there is no evidence, no witnesses, so pure speculation at present. Lets move on.

Brian Shanahan

clairefontaine wrote: »

They are doing themselves a disservice. I'm neither atheist or religious. Ultimately, I don't think it matters that much whether there is a od or there isn't. Or many gods, or goddesses or whatever is on the deistic smorgasbord these days. I just don't care.

So what happened when my son was in JI is I inadvertently undermined his teachers credibility. He'd ask questions about God yadda yadda yadda, I found them tedious and tiresome, and just tell him, no one knows for sure, and it really doesn't matter that much. What matters is how we treat each other.

And then the questions about the baby Jesus. Jesus Christ. More stupid questions. I ocouldnt back up the curriculum at home, because I had no respect for what they are teaching. And the rubber stamps at Ash Wednesday are offensive. So is dressing up little girls as brides, my main objection to first holy communion, and the statues of Jesus, which is basically the fetishisation of a public execution. It's entirely offensive.

I see JC has actually thanked this post. Honestly that is proof positive that he is not reading replies to his "point".

By the way, a very cogent, germane and worthwhile point Clairefontaine.

J C

clairefontaine wrote: »

Religion is based on faith.

To teach faith as fact is intellectual abuse.

Children need to discern between fact and opinion.

So instead of saying "god created the universe" you say, "some religions believe in god, and that he created the universe." But there is no evidence, no witnesses, so pure speculation at present. Lets move on.

Ah but there is evidence for this, plenty of it ... but that is a totally separate thread !!!!

I also agree that some aspects of religion is indeed faith (rather than fact) ... and religious people don't claim these aspects to be anything else but faith.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I see JC has actually thanked this post. Honestly that is proof positive that he is not reading replies to his "point".

By the way, a very cogent, germane and worthwhile point Clairefontaine.

I did read her post.

I was thanking Claire for expressing her honestly held opinions. I can see where somebody who is a non-believer could have issues with their child pestering them about the existence of God ... and I thought she handled it very well from her perspective.

Brian Shanahan

gaynorvader wrote: »

That is what Secularism is supposed to be. That is what secularism is. That is the secularist ideal. You have twisted it by identifying it with genocidal dictators who happened to be secularists.

I'm going to bash this one on the head. There were no secularist genocidal dictators. What we had instead was:
1) Hitler, who was a practising catholic all his life, and privileged both catholicism and protestantism.
2) Stalin, who was variously an anti-theist atheist and a Georgian orthodox believer, who at various times actively suppressed religion or gave de facto state religion status to orthodoxy.
3) Pol Pot, who was a buddhist, also brought up with christian thinking.
4) Suharto, a sunni muslim who brutally suppressed other religions.
5) Pinochet, a catholic who privileged the catholic church (except those pesky pro-democracy lefty liberation theologists).
et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

You'll not find a single dictator who was a true secularist (i.e. favoured no religion over any other, and didn't discriminate based on beliefs). The closest was Saddam Hussein, who viciously persecuted sh'ia muslims and kurds partly for their religious beliefs.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'm going to bash this one on the head. There were no secularist genocidal dictators. What we had instead was:
1) Hitler, who was a practising catholic all his life, and privileged both catholicism and protestantism.
2) Stalin, who was variously an anti-theist atheist and a Georgian orthodox believer, who at various times actively suppressed religion or gave de facto state religion status to orthodoxy.
3) Pol Pot, who was a buddhist, also brought up with christian thinking.
4) Suharto, a sunni muslim who brutally suppressed other religions.
5) Pinochet, a catholic who privileged the catholic church (except those pesky pro-democracy lefty liberation theologists).
et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

You'll not find a single dictator who was a true secularist (i.e. favoured no religion over any other, and didn't discriminate based on beliefs). The closest was Saddam Hussein, who viciously persecuted sh'ia muslims and kurds partly for their religious beliefs.

Hitler set up the 'Reich Church' some kind of mishmash between occultism and christianity.
... but the kernel of your point remains that most of these guys 'traded' under the 'secular' banner ... and pursued various anti-religious policies whilst doing so.

... I also don't think it is fair to level the evils that these people did at the doors of secularism either ... like I have previously said, moderate secularism has a lot going for it ... and a noble history of tolerance and equity.
... but we should also never become so complacent as to believe that virulently anti-religious secularism can never rear its ugly head again either.

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

Debating the veracity of the Bible would take another mega-thread ... and I don't think anybody has the time for that.
The bottom line here is that there are Christian schools serving the needs of the Christian school community. It would seem that there are two choices as our society becomes more multicultural ... set up alternative types of school thereby enlarging parental choice ... and/or the existing Christian-run schools could become more inclusive of different beliefs and none.
The third way ... that expects Christian leaders to simply hand over the keys of Christian schools to a group of people who will lock them out of these school the very next day ... and are making no secret of this intention ... wouldn't seem to be a runner to me ... but I could be wrong.

There is definitely a division of opinion on whether the Bible is true. So let's take it that nobody knows for the sake of this discussion.

I really think you're just picking the commenters who support your position and ignoring the rest. They're not Christian schools, they're state schools being run by Christians with no respect for people with other beliefs.

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

Robin brought it up earlier ... he said that a Creationist was 'booted out' of a school in Scotland when he was 'outed' ... and apparently the head and vice-head (who aren't creationists) have been removed from their posts as well.
It is a pertinent example of banning religion ... and religious people from secular school.

No, banning creationism isn't a religious issue, no more than banning falangist slogan t-shirts would be. Creationism is obviously wrong, it goes against all evidence (e.g. actual observed evolution, for example the banana, or the thoroughbred racehorse, or the peppered moth, or the London Underground mosquito). Creationism is banned as it is a fabulist position.

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

What experience are you referring to?

Your preposterous claim that 'christians do not do this.' i.e. tell members of their denomination that non-christians or members of other denominations are going to hell


BTW before you start, the 'no true scotsman' argument is not an adequate rebuttal. You can't shift the definition of christianity to suit your own particular beliefs and yours alone, then claim that anyone who would say such a thing isn't a christian by your definition. According to your other posts, anyone who ticks the right box in the census is a christian.

SpaceTime

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'm going to bash this one on the head. There were no secularist genocidal dictators. What we had instead was:
1) Hitler, who was a practising catholic all his life, and privileged both catholicism and protestantism.
2) Stalin, who was variously an anti-theist atheist and a Georgian orthodox believer, who at various times actively suppressed religion or gave de facto state religion status to orthodoxy.
3) Pol Pot, who was a buddhist, also brought up with christian thinking.
4) Suharto, a sunni muslim who brutally suppressed other religions.
5) Pinochet, a catholic who privileged the catholic church (except those pesky pro-democracy lefty liberation theologists).
et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

You'll not find a single dictator who was a true secularist (i.e. favoured no religion over any other, and didn't discriminate based on beliefs). The closest was Saddam Hussein, who viciously persecuted sh'ia muslims and kurds partly for their religious beliefs.

Don't forget Franco who actually ran a rather nasty corporatist church-state dictatorship in Spain until 1972!

Because the Spanish don't want to open old wounds the horrors of that particular horror of European history still aren't fully appreciated.
Including many, many people who disappeared hundreds of thousands of forced adoptions (kidnapped at birth), loads of people forced to live in exile etc etc etc

Some estimates put his death toll at about 1/2 million people! After the civil war...

smacl

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No, banning creationism isn't a religious issue, no more than banning falangist slogan t-shirts would be.

You're not really comparing like with like there. Your comparison should be either between teaching creationism versus teaching falangism, or banning creationist t-shirts and banning falangist t-shirts.

Teaching creationism is clearly a religious issue, and IMHO should be limited to those that want it taught to their children as part of their religious education. My feeling is that religious instruction should be offered either as an optional part of the curriculum and/or as an extra curricular activity, such that those that didn't want to learn it could take an alternative subject, such as an extra science subject say at 2nd level.

I don't actually have an issue with a member of clergy being on staff where you have a significant demand for religious education among the student body. Having gone to Newpark myself in the 70s and 80s, it was a non-denominational school, but we had CoI and RC priests on the staff. Didn't make the blindest bit of difference to the atheists like myself studying there. The only caveat would be that if they were taking home a state paid teachers salary that they could also teach other subjects.

Like many others here, I draw the line at forcing children to take religious instruction in a church they're not part of, from an ideological standpoint, but also for the amount of academic time lost. Fine for those that want it, but not for the rest of us.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Highly insulting, emotive stuff Mr P.

Just because you believe that you are descended from pondkind over millions of years ... and I believe that I am descended from people specially created by an omnipotent God, doesn't mean we can't be friends ... and respect each others beliefs.
We both can cite evidence for the validity of our beliefs and your use of loaded words like 'infect' is bordering on religious hatred.
Equally, unfounded name calling and schoolyard bully comments about my fellow Creationists don't become you, quite frankly.

Let's treat each other with respect ... and less of the sectarian abuse please.
Your emotive deeply prejudicial anti-religious outburst, which hasn't been challenged by anybody on the forum denies all of the 'lofty talk' about 'secularists' defending the rights of religious minorities ... when you clearly hate them instead!!!

No. I don't have to respect a persons belief. I can, perhaps, respect a person's right to hold a particular belief, sometimes grudgingly, but I am in no way required or obligated to respect the actual belief or its contents.

Just so you know I am not picking on you, here are a number of other belief I don't respect:

1. Islam
2. Catholicism
3. Actually, any religion really
4. Flat Earth
5. MMR / Autism link
6. Astrology

Creationism is utter rubbish. It is anti-scientific and and anti-intellectual, I personally believe it to be harmful to humanity and I think it is, quite frankly, disgusting and abhorrent to be teaching it to children in a school without the parents knowledge and permission.


If you want to teach it to your own children, then knock yourself out. I pity your children and wish that they were not exposed to your idiotic beliefs, but I accept that it is your right to tell your poor defenceless children whatever you choose to, and it is your right to teach them whatever you want. It is your right, but do not try to tell me I have to like it or respect your views.

J C wrote: »

I don't believe in conspiracies ... but it is a fact that people can act in consort to achieve objectives.

And let's be quite clear here, I do hate religion, as I have said in the past, but that does not mean that everyone in this forum hates religion, nor does it mean that everyone that claims to be secular hates religion. This is yet another example of you building something to argue against because your arguments are weak and can't actually stand up to any position other than a false one that you create yourself.

You have, time and time again, failed (presumably intentionally) to grasp the very, very simple concept of what is being suggested here. No one, not even me, is asking for the eradication of religion from our lives. No one, not even me, is suggesting that priest, vicars, imams or pastors be banned from schools. No one, not even me, is suggest that teaching about religion should be removed completely form schools. Yet, this is what you continue to argue against. A position that no one is actually espousing.

What is being said here is quite simple. In order for a society to show equality to all religions its underpinnings should be secular. That is secular, not atheist. Secularism is not a religion. By embracing a secular ideal the state is not favouring atheism or irreligion, it is treating all faiths, and lack of faith equally.

If the school were secular there would be no faith formation, but there would be teaching about faith. There would be no "this is the one true religion, here are some other ones, which are wrong, but we have to mention them" which I what I, along with many others, were taught.

Children should be taught about all religions and given the tools and skills to evaluate them, like they should be taught to evaluate everything else they are taught and told, and be allowed, in the school environment, to come to their own conclusions. Of course, supplementary to this, parents, some at least, will be pushing (and I don't necessarily mean this in a bad way) and reinforcing their own beliefs which they are, of course, perfectly entitled to do.

It should not be the job of the schools, or indeed the state, to form a particular faith in a child. They should support the parents in this, but mere by facilitating it in the sense that legislation allows and supports it. They should not be actively, through the school system, instilling a particular belief in the children under their care.

Secular education is not about suppressing the religious or religious belief. It is about giving all faiths, or lack of them, a level playing field and not taking advantage of the fact that young children are highly impressionable and frankly very gullible.

LOL. Really? Is this another of your total BS posts, like your "I don't thank other poster because the only thing I praise is god" or do you no longer believe that almost 100% of the world's (real) scientists and all the scientific journals (the proper ones) are engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the utter, total and complete horsesh1t that is creationism?

MrP

SpaceTime

In general though, I think teaching creationism as an alternative to science is completely unfair on the kids being told this stuff as if it were fact.

It's the equivalent of sending them out into the world thinking that a stork brought them to their parents or they were found under a cabbage.

I spoke to a friend of an grandaunt of mine who had had her kids in the 1960s when she was relatively young and on her first pregnancy nobody had actually told her how the baby was going to come out! She was explaining to us that panic struck her as she realised the day was getting near and she'd no idea how a baby was actually born.

That resulted from conservatism and religious fanaticism in Ireland and in her household in particular at the time.

Biological and scientific facts are facts, and people need to know them.

Creationism is an ancient story that attempts to explain the mysteries of the universe to an audience who had no or at least extremely limited scientific knowledge thousands of years ago.
Evolution happens and the evidence of it is right in front of you if you care to do a bit of analysis.

I mean, it's kind of cute to let kids think that Santa Claus brings presents too, but if you are dogmatically insisting that it actually happens and that reality must be ignored or you're going to be outraged and offended, then I think you're pushing it too far.

Evolution isn't some abstract theory, you can demonstrate it in a petri dish if you like with a few generations of microbes and how they react and adapt to say an antibiotic.

I mean, you could also tell physics students that little pixies fly through the wires with tiny buckets of energy and run around really fast when they get into an electric motor, but you'd be laughed out of town.

If a physics teacher walked into a physics class and started insisting that I should teach that, I'd say their days would be numbered in that particular profession and rightly so.

....

We live in a world that's largely shaped by the Enlightenment of the 17 and 18th centuries which spawned the industrial revolution and ultimately the rapid progress of the 20th century and brought us to a state where the developed world exists as a place with access to incredible technology, telecommunications systems that are absolutely changing the world, transport systems that allow us to get around the globe in hours, access to pretty much all human knowledge through a relatively cheap portable device, the best standard of living and longest life expectancy in human history, medical technology and an understanding of biology that allows us to basically cheat death, repair what would have been horrendous injuries etc etc liberal democracies, an open media, easy and cheap access to a vast array of art, culture and music...

Real science and exploring the world around us without just accepting dogmatic explanations is what has allowed us to do all those amazing things. I mean we've gone from using a horse and cart to the steam train, to ubiquitous high tech cars, A380s from the carrier pigeon to, to the telegraph, to the telephone, to the internet and are on the brink of space tourism and can manipulate our own genomes and that's happened in barely a century and a bit.

That's what the "Age of Reason" brought us and frankly the idea that we should roll back on that in terms of teaching creationism or any other dogmatically based explanations to life as an alternative to provable facts is just ridiculous. It would send us back hundreds of years.

In my opinion, we're here to explore. People naturally ask questions and try to understand their environment, push the boundaries, find out what's over that hill, and the next hill and the one after that, and before you know it you're on fecking Mars. Even toddlers will just keep asking why?, why?, why?... (to the point they get annoying). Answering those questions with dogma is not really answering them and causes issues like The Dark Ages.

It's just a way of telling people to 'shut up and stop asking'

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

Hitler set up the 'Reich Church' some kind of mishmash between occultism and christianity.

Wrong. The German Christian movement was an attempt to rationalise the various protestant denominations under one all-encompassing banner, just like Robert Ley rationalising the trades union into Deutsche Arbeitsfront, or Baldur von Schirach hovering up the various scouts, church childrens groups etc. into the Hitler Jugend.

Aside from a quickly aborted attempt to "de-Judify" the bible the movement did nothing to change protestant chrisitian theology.

What you're thinking of is Alfred Rosenberg, a very minor figure within the Nazi party who briefly gained traction with Hitler, but quickly lost it again, due mainly to the fact that he was too bat**** insane for even Adolf Hitler. His anti-christian paganism never actually gained any traction.

Face it JC, I know more about history than you do, I know more about science than you do, I even know more about christianity than you do. (And I'm simply a curious amateur when it comes to all three of these.) You're not going to beat me in a straight up debate.

Brian Shanahan

smacl wrote: »

Teaching creationism is clearly a religious issue, and IMHO should be limited to those that want it taught to their children as part of their religious education.

Ok then I'll put it to you this way, teaching creationism is as wrong and dangerous as teaching children that gravity is not actually universal, but an artifact of their minds thinking they have to fall down.

A person who's gone through 13 years of a creationist education is going to have awful trouble if they go to medical school, because pretty much everything in modern disease prevention has evolutionary theory as a main underpinning. The student is going to either unlearn creationism very quickly, or get to like seeing NG appear beside their test scores.

I'd allow schools to teach creationism, but I'd ban those schools from having their students sit any national curriculum exam. Because they are not going to teach to any sort of acceptable standard.

nagirrac

The first order of business is teaching kids the difference between philosophical beliefs, religious beliefs, and science. Science is a method of inquiry using very specific methodology and has nothing to do with belief. If an education cannot explain this difference clearly then education has failed, as the child will encounter these questions throughout life, and needs to be able to approach them with reason rather than emotion.

Religion should never encroach on science, period. However, there is nothing "wrong" with for example believing that the universe was created by a higher power and has purpose, and no reason why there should be any conflict between this belief, whether based on religious or philosophical reasoning, and learning science.

Suggestions that people should be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs are simply replacing one wrong with another. What should be emphasized and what educational establishments need to be constantly vigilant about is not muddling religion and science, they are separate subjects.

Banbh

... what educational establishments need to be constantly vigilant about is muddling religion and science, they are separate subjects.

Clearly put Nagirrac. Similarly religion and civics are separate subjects and also religion and sex instruction which are always being muddled.

smacl

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Ok then I'll put it to you this way, teaching creationism is as wrong and dangerous as teaching children that gravity is not actually universal, but an artifact of their minds thinking they have to fall down.

A person who's gone through 13 years of a creationist education is going to have awful trouble if they go to medical school, because pretty much everything in modern disease prevention has evolutionary theory as a main underpinning. The student is going to either unlearn creationism very quickly, or get to like seeing NG appear beside their test scores.

I'd allow schools to teach creationism, but I'd ban those schools from having their students sit any national curriculum exam. Because they are not going to teach to any sort of acceptable standard.

Suits me, as third generation atheists, that's less competition for college places for my kids. Freedom of religious expression extends to teaching your kids all sorts of nonsense that you or I would not countenance. Note that this doesn't extend to a full on creationist education in state funded schools, as that would conflict drastically with the science curriculum. As per my previous post, my position is that religious instruction should be optional and not intrude on other classes. Where the religious instruction conflicts with the core curriculum (or common sense for that matter), the onus is on the family and their clergy to provide explanations why.

My suspicion is that the church is on its last legs in this country, as evidenced by the tiny number of new vocations in recent years. Add to that the various clerical abuse scandals and cover ups, collapse of church attendance figures and the antipathy shown by the younger generation towards an aging clergy, and I don't see this being a problem for generations to come.

gaynorvader

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

{...}

A person who's gone through 13 years of a creationist education is going to have awful trouble if they go to medical school, because pretty much everything in modern disease prevention has evolutionary theory as a main underpinning. The student is going to either unlearn creationism very quickly, or get to like seeing NG appear beside their test scores.

I'd allow schools to teach creationism, but I'd ban those schools from having their students sit any national curriculum exam. Because they are not going to teach to any sort of acceptable standard.

I think that schools should be allowed to teach creationism. But only as an optional subject. Much like Art, History, Geography, Science, Business Studies, Languages, etc are in secondary schools are at the moment. If this stops students getting into med school so be it, it's their choice.

Piliger

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think that schools should be allowed to teach creationism. But only as an optional subject. Much like Art, History, Geography, Science, Business Studies, Languages, etc are in secondary schools are at the moment. If this stops students getting into med school so be it, it's their choice.

This would be an enormous backward step. teaching a subject as a 'subject' gives it credibility and the schools backing. The only context in which anyone should be allowed to discuss and 'teach' creationism is within a religious doctrine class. It should also not be allowed to be taught within a 'religion' class that aims to teach about all religions.

Banbh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iRCD54tWBQ#t=46
This guy would make an excellent science teacher.

smacl

Piliger wrote: »

This would be an enormous backward step. teaching a subject as a 'subject' gives it credibility and the schools backing. The only context in which anyone should be allowed to discuss and 'teach' creationism is within a religious doctrine class. It should also not be allowed to be taught within a 'religion' class that aims to teach about all religions.

That's where I make a distinction between religious instruction and religion. Religion as it is taught now in the junior cycle is supposed to be comparative religion, but tends to focus very heavily on Christian tradition. I think if you allow religious instruction as an optional subject, what's left can be subsumed by history and civics / CSPE.

Galvasean

Just so long as it's not taught as a points subject. The idea of someone using points made up by studying Creationism and applying for a degree in third level science is an unsettling one. I'd imagine many would take it on for 'easy points' as you could write any factually flawed nonsense on an exam and write "ergo, evolution doesn't happen" at the end of it and get top marks.

Brian Shanahan

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think that schools should be allowed to teach creationism. But only as an optional subject. Much like Art, History, Geography, Science, Business Studies, Languages, etc are in secondary schools are at the moment. If this stops students getting into med school so be it, it's their choice.

Maybe we should allow them to teach the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as well.

Because that is the level that creationism is at.

clairefontaine

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Maybe we should allow them to teach the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as well.

Because that is the level that creationism is at.

Yes let's devote an entire proportion of the curriculum to creation myths.

I would also insist on Our Lady being referred to as the "so called Virgin." To just call her the virgin is a blatant placing of myth as assumed truth.

And rigorous excersizes in distinguishing opinion from fact.

gaynorvader

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Maybe we should allow them to teach the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as well.

Because that is the level that creationism is at.

Sure, if there's a demand for it, why not? It's optional, if the child's parent believes it, why shouldn't they be allowed to have it taught. If they don't, what's the harm in a child learning about people's beliefs? I think kids are smart enough to figure it out. It'll in all probability just become an 'easy A'.

Bannasidhe

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Maybe we should allow them to teach the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as well.

Because that is the level that creationism is at.

Ummm - I studied the Protocols in school - primary school - as the school's owner was mad (she really was completely bonkers in a Margaret Rutherford sort of way and I adored her. Her name was Bankie) about Shakespeare so in 5th class we were doing the Merchant of Venice and the Protocols were used to discuss anti-antisemitism.

Banbh

And it never did you any harm...

Bannasidhe

Banbh wrote: »

And it never did you any harm...

None that anyone can provide primary evidence for, which is all that matters. :cool:

Hotblack Desiato

gaynorvader wrote: »

Sure, if there's a demand for it, why not? It's optional, if the child's parent believes it, why shouldn't they be allowed to have it taught. If they don't, what's the harm in a child learning about people's beliefs? I think kids are smart enough to figure it out. It'll in all probability just become an 'easy A'.

Uh oh, 'what's the harm' argument :pac:

Surely you don't believe that it should be taught in any state-funded school as fact?
Teaching about beliefs, however nutty they sound (they're all nutty AFAIC) is one thing but teaching one as fact is a very different thing.

Piliger

ninja900 wrote: »

Uh oh, 'what's the harm' argument :pac:

Surely you don't believe that it should be taught in any state-funded school as fact?
Teaching about beliefs, however nutty they sound (they're all nutty AFAIC) is one thing but teaching one as fact is a very different thing.

Indeed so. A school should not be putting it's stamp of approval on a course such as this.
"Teaching religion" is the the same as "Teaching about religion". "Teaching Creationism" is not the same as Teaching About Creationism".
If a school is to allow such classes, then they should be clearly labelled as to what exactly they are. If the Catholic Church wants to have a class after school that is aimed at Catholics in order to teach (brainwash) their children about Catholicism, then it should be clearly labelled as "Class for Catholics", "Creationism for Catholics", "Creationism for Christian Bible thumpers who also think slavery is fine".

nagirrac

Where are people getting the idea (myth?) that Catholic schools teach creationism, as in a scientific alternative to evolution? Is this what is taught in Irish schools today I would be shocked (I am several decades out of date but it wasn't taught in my day). I am no Catholic apologist, but get your facts right for goodness sake. For all the talk about fact versus myth, there's appears a lot of myth building going on. In all of the major court cases in the US involving creationism versus evolution, Catholic scholars have testified against the creationist side.

If by creationism, people mean a literal belief that the earth and all its forms of life were created by divine intervention less than 10,000 years ago, this is absolutely not the Catholic position nor the position of many of the Christian churches that I am aware of. Yes, it is the position of the fundamentalists but Catholics are not fundamentalists.

If by creationism people mean the belief that our universe was created by a higher power, this is an entirely different matter and a matter that consensus science currently has nothing to say about. The current accepted scientific theory of how our universe began is the big bang theory, and no one, whether scientist, religious or philosopher, knows what (if anything), happened before that time, or even whether there was a "before".

Piliger

nagirrac wrote: »

Where are people getting the idea (myth?) that Catholic schools teach creationism, as in a scientific alternative to evolution?

I agree. I took it as a hypothetical.

Brian Shanahan

gaynorvader wrote: »

Sure, if there's a demand for it, why not? It's optional, if the child's parent believes it, why shouldn't they be allowed to have it taught.

So you're ok with teaching, at state expense, obvious lies detrimental to both the student and society at large? Somehow I doubt if you've actually thought your position through.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ummm - I studied the Protocols in school - primary school - as the school's owner was mad (she really was completely bonkers in a Margaret Rutherford sort of way and I adored her. Her name was Bankie) about Shakespeare so in 5th class we were doing the Merchant of Venice and the Protocols were used to discuss anti-antisemitism.

Well I meant being taught them as if they weren't a badly made forgery used to justify genocide, but the absolute truth. As that's what the creationism discussion was about, teaching that mumbo jumbo as truth.

Hotblack Desiato

nagirrac wrote: »

Where are people getting the idea (myth?) that Catholic schools teach creationism, as in a scientific alternative to evolution?

It is what one of the most prolific posters in this thread advocates
And so far he is immune to our logic and/or reason
So who are we to argue?

CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS

nagirrac

ninja900 wrote: »

It is what one of the most prolific posters in this thread advocates

Then he is not speaking on behalf of Catholics, or at least Catholics who attempt to understand what their official teaching is on the subject.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

[...] the Protocols were used to discuss anti-antisemitism [...]

A few year back, quite memorably, Popette started going on about the Protocols, and the deep, natural wisdom contained therein, to a couple of German friends of mine. The silence that followed was deep and natural too.

Peregrinus

nagirrac wrote: »

Then he is not speaking on behalf of Catholics, or at least Catholics who attempt to understand what their official teaching is on the subject.

FTR, the poster concerned is not a Catholic.

smacl

nagirrac wrote: »

Where are people getting the idea (myth?) that Catholic schools teach creationism, as in a scientific alternative to evolution? Is this what is taught in Irish schools today I would be shocked (I am several decades out of date but it wasn't taught in my day).

It isn't. My daughter goes to a Catholic all girls secondary where religion is compulsory up until junior cert. Browsing through the text book, it deals more with (in order of priority) the traditions of Catholicism, other Christian faiths, other Abrahamic faiths, and to a lesser degree Buddhism and Hinduism. As a text on comparative religion, the book is hugely biased in its focus and has glaring omissions, but it is nonetheless a book about religion. It isn't a bible, nor are they taught anything from the bible. The content is about what people believe, and what they do as part of the practice of their beliefs, it doesn't discuss the veracity of those beliefs. Nor does it discuss the history of religion beyond very contemporary stuff like the works of mother Teresa, and is certainly doesn't touch any history that could be seen to tarnish the reputation of the church.

Falls broadly under the category of mostly harmless in my book, and while I'd rather she spent the time doing something more beneficial, I'm not getting too upset by it.

gaynorvader

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So you're ok with teaching, at state expense, obvious lies detrimental to both the student and society at large? Somehow I doubt if you've actually thought your position through.

If they're obvious lies, then surely it's not a problem? I doubt it would actually be detrimental to the student as other biology students would be bound to laugh at them. As for at the state's expense, the people who want creationism taught are members of the state and deserve to be accommodated too. I actually doubt that creationist classes would even become a thing as there would be insufficient demand for them.

Banbh

As for at the state's expense, the people who want creationism taught are members of the state and deserve to be accommodated too.

Surely that can't be the only yardstick? There are people who believe that a postman in New Zealand can forecast the weather in Ireland and that I will meet a tall dark stranger because my birthday is in Virgo or because I was born in the year of the rat. If the state abandons reason and science in favour of superstition we will return to the Dark Ages.

i didn't know that Catholic teaching had changed on creationism. Surely the first question of the cathechism or its modern equivalent is still: 'Who made the world?'

smacl

Banbh wrote: »

If the state abandons reason and science in favour of superstition we will return to the Dark Ages.

For the state to abandon reason and science it would have had to embrace them in the first place. Best way of getting to where you want to go is by starting from where you're at, and moving in the right direction. Dumping religion from our school system should be a matter of logical progression. Mind you, dumping homeopathic remedies from pharmacies should be the same, not to mention septic Meg's column at the back of the RTE guide. No accounting for the loopy beliefs that some people hang on to, but each to their own I guess.

kylith

gaynorvader wrote: »

If they're obvious lies, then surely it's not a problem? I doubt it would actually be detrimental to the student as other biology students would be bound to laugh at them. As for at the state's expense, the people who want creationism taught are members of the state and deserve to be accommodated too. I actually doubt that creationist classes would even become a thing as there would be insufficient demand for them.

Would you be ok with schools teaching that the world is flat? Or that illnesses are caused by bad smells? Or that rain is God crying? They're obvious lies that they'd be laughed at for believing, so that's ok, yeah?

I really cannot believe that anyone in this day and age could argue for the teaching children blatant lies as fact, and try to claim that it's acceptable because peer ridicule will put them right. Do you not think that being set up for peer ridicule would be detrimental to the student?

I do not agree that the state should be obliged to fund the instruction of children in what is blatant nonsense simply because their parents believe it is true. It is detrimental not only to the child, (leaving them unsuitable for many jobs, unsuitable for many college courses and condemning them to ridicule) but to society as a whole. As has been said upthread, the seemingly increasing calls to teach rubbish as fact simply because someone believes it and "we have to respect other people's beliefs" will have us back in the bronze age.

There comes a point where you have to say "You, as an adult, can believe anything you want and you can tell your children anything you want to tell them. But inside the walls of this school we teach fact. Verifiable, tested, facts."

robindch

kylith wrote: »

Or that rain is God crying?

I'm going to raise the tone a bit here with some Aristophanes:

Aristophanes, The Clouds wrote:

SOCRATES: What sort of god is Zeus? Why spout such rubbish?
There’s no such being as Zeus.

STREPSIADES: What do you mean?
Then who brings on the rain? First answer that.

SOCRATES: Why, these women do. I’ll prove that to you
with persuasive evidence. Just tell me—
where have you ever seen the rain come down
without the Clouds being there? If Zeus brings rain,
then he should do so when the sky is clear,
when there are no Clouds in view.

STREPSIADES: By Apollo, you’ve made a good point there—
it helps your argument. I used to think
rain was really Zeus pissing through a sieve.
Tell me who causes thunder? That scares me.

SOCRATES: These Clouds do, as they roll around.

STREPSIADES: But how?
Explain that, you who dares to know it all.

SOCRATES: When they are filled with water to the brim
and then, suspended there with all that rain,
are forced to move, they bump into each other.
They’re so big, they burst with a great boom.

STREPSIADES: But what’s forcing them to move at all?
Doesn’t Zeus do that?

SOCRATES: No—that’s the aerial Vortex.*

STREPSIADES: Vortex? Well, that’s something I didn’t know.
So Zeus is now no more, and Vortex rules
instead of him. But you still have not explained
a thing about those claps of thunder.

SOCRATES: Weren’t you listening to me? I tell you,
when the Clouds are full of water and collide,
they’re so thickly packed they make a noise.

STREPSIADES: Come on now—who’d ever believe that stuff?

SOCRATES: I’ll explain, using you as a test case.
Have you ever gorged yourself on stew
at the Panathenaea and later
had an upset stomach—then suddenly
some violent movement made it rumble?*

STREPSIADES: Yes, by Apollo! It does weird things—
I feel unsettled. That small bit of stew
rumbles around and makes strange noises,
just like thunder. At first it’s quite quiet—
”pappax pappax”—then it starts getting louder—
”papapappax”—and when I take a shit
it really thunders “papapappax”—
just like these Clouds.

SOCRATES: So think about it—
if your small gut can make a fart like that,
why can’t the air, which goes on for ever,
produce tremendous thunder. Then there’s this—
consider how alike these phrases sound,
”thunder clap” and “fart and crap.”

gaynorvader

Banbh wrote: »

Surely that can't be the only yardstick? There are people who believe that a postman in New Zealand can forecast the weather in Ireland and that I will meet a tall dark stranger because my birthday is in Virgo or because I was born in the year of the rat. If the state abandons reason and science in favour of superstition we will return to the Dark Ages.

i didn't know that Catholic teaching had changed on creationism. Surely the first question of the cathechism or its modern equivalent is still: 'Who made the world?'

Bit of hyperbole there, I wasn't advocating the state abandoning reason or science.

kylith wrote: »

Would you be ok with schools teaching that the world is flat? Or that illnesses are caused by bad smells? Or that rain is God crying? They're obvious lies that they'd be laughed at for believing, so that's ok, yeah?

I really cannot believe that anyone in this day and age could argue for the teaching children blatant lies as fact, and try to claim that it's acceptable because peer ridicule will put them right. Do you not think that being set up for peer ridicule would be detrimental to the student?

I do not agree that the state should be obliged to fund the instruction of children in what is blatant nonsense simply because their parents believe it is true. It is detrimental not only to the child, (leaving them unsuitable for many jobs, unsuitable for many college courses and condemning them to ridicule) but to society as a whole. As has been said upthread, the seemingly increasing calls to teach rubbish as fact simply because someone believes it and "we have to respect other people's beliefs" will have us back in the bronze age.

There comes a point where you have to say "You, as an adult, can believe anything you want and you can tell your children anything you want to tell them. But inside the walls of this school we teach fact. Verifiable, tested, facts."

They can teach the faulty science behind creationism if they like. I really don't have an issue, I think children are clever enough to suss out what's wrong with it. If not, they'd probably end up believing whatever anyway. If people wanted to teach that the earth is flat or that illness is caused by bad smells, more power to them. They're idiots, but idiocy shouldn't be illegal. I think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill here though, I really doubt enough people would want a creationist class to make it feasible. Maybe in the states, but I've watched interviews with the children of the parents pushing for it and they already believe creationism is true, even in schools where only the theory of evolution is taught.

kylith

gaynorvader wrote: »

They can teach the faulty science behind creationism if they like. I really don't have an issue, I think children are clever enough to suss out what's wrong with it.

If they're smart enough to work out that it's wrong then why teach it and waste their time instead of teaching something useful? The only time they wouldn't know that it's nonsense is when they're too young to know any better, in which case why waste time teaching nonsense that you'll only have to waste more time unteaching in a couple of years?

gaynorvader wrote: »

If not, they'd probably end up believing whatever anyway. If people wanted to teach that the earth is flat or that illness is caused by bad smells, more power to them. They're idiots, but idiocy shouldn't be illegal.

We should never, never, as a society, send children to school to learn idiocy! There are enough idiots in the world without lending credence to even more bullsh!t by giving rubbish ideas a veneer of validity by teaching them in schools and infecting the minds of impressionable children who will believe anything that Teacher says.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill here though, I really doubt enough people would want a creationist class to make it feasible. Maybe in the states, but I've watched interviews with the children of the parents pushing for it and they already believe creationism is true, even in schools where only the theory of evolution is taught.

I believe that creationism, in the context of this thread, is simply a stand-in for all kinds of bullplop like Intelligent Design or 'God made the mountains'.

Yes, there are children in the states who have been taught by their parents that creationism is fact. Unfortunately parents have the right to fill their children's heads with any old crap, but this should a) not be given any validity by the school system and b) should be railed against by said school system at every opportunity.

Schools should be there to make kids smarter, not dumber.

Sarky

Creationism and intelligent design are the same thing.