The Lords Prayer advert now banned in cinemas.

[SWP's back]

If you can spare the time it would be helpful if you could identify the arguments I've been hiding behind for the last six years so I know which ones I don't understand.

I should have just said you'd been consistent in your arguements for six years so I apologise.

 

[PistonBlue]

Yep, nobody is forcing the agency to take on the advert and the COE think they should be forced to take it on, that's exactly the problem.

Right, with you. I still don't see why everyone get so worked up about it though.

 

[George Hannah]

Given the way society is changing/developing, with a greater number of people, year on year, associating themselves with no religious group, it does seem a little uneven to educate children in the various different religions but chose to omit the perfectly acceptable viewpoint that none of the religions are actually right and there isn't a God. Obviously this viewpoint won't be taught in any particular depth as, by it's very nature, there isn't a great deal of depth to it. There are no parables, books of the bible, miracles or sermons to educate about, and as such the time set aside to it will likely be less. To ignore it totally however seems like an (albeit watered down) version of the deep south of America, where they refuse to teach about evolution and instead teach about creationism and literal bible versions of how the Earth developed.

Accommodating the view of those with no religious interest within the syllabus is rather strange, a bit like including Daily Star stories in the study of Shakespeare.

 

[SWP's back]

Right, with you. I still don't see why everyone get so worked up about it though.

Nobody did apart from the CoE

 

[aguero93:20]

I'm having a bit of difficulty in getting my head round the idea that RELIGIOUS Education has to involve NON-RELIGIOUS bits. Are maths curricula going to involve things like how long the Saxon spears were at Hastings, or English curricula deciding whether Shakespeare's plays take into account the splitting of the atom, and History has long suffered by not discussing the breadth and depth of eskers and drumlins?

0 is a number too ;)

 

[SWP's back]

Accommodating the view of those with no religious interest within the syllabus is rather strange, a bit like including Daily Star stories in the study of Shakespeare.

Don't do the bible down and compare it with the Daily Star.

 

[aguero93:20]

Accommodating the view of those with no religious interest within the syllabus is rather strange, a bit like including Daily Star stories in the study of Shakespeare.

I wouldn't view the Daily Star as a realistic alternative to Shakespeare.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

0 is a number too ;)

Is that really '0 is a number too' or '0 is a number two'?

 

[Damocles]

Given the way society is changing/developing, with a greater number of people, year on year, associating themselves with no religious group, it does seem a little uneven to educate children in the various different religions but chose to omit the perfectly acceptable viewpoint that none of the religions are actually right and there isn't a God. Obviously this viewpoint won't be taught in any particular depth as, by it's very nature, there isn't a great deal of depth to it. There are no parables, books of the bible, miracles or sermons to educate about, and as such the time set aside to it will likely be less. To ignore it totally however seems like an (albeit watered down) version of the deep south of America, where they refuse to teach about evolution and instead teach about creationism and literal bible versions of how the Earth developed.

Why would a class about religion and religious history teach no religion?

This would be like teaching science and then having a module dedicated to creationism.

RE is a vital part of the curriculum in terms of understanding different cultures and historical events. Between Christianity, Islam, Hindusim, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhs, Buddhism and the various offshoots there's already far too much to cover in what is typically a few small amount of time set towards it

 

[aguero93:20]

Is that really 0 is a number too or 0 is a number two?

The former. If you're going to teach about different viewpoints on Religion (that part is important, you're not teaching kids about different theistic religions, otherwise Buddhism for starters would have to be left out) then why leave out a valid viewpoint on Religion (ie that there is no God)?