The Lords Prayer advert now banned in cinemas.

[SWP's back]

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

Won't it simply be, some believe Christianity (module on that), then the next one and so on and then at the end "and some people don't believe any of that due to no empirical evidence of any of it"?

 

[aguero93:20]

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

I think 'Covering Atheism' in this regard will consist of reminding students that it is a valid viewpoint, there isn't much depth to go into.

 

[Damocles]

Won't it simply be, some believe Christianity (module on that), then the next one and so on and then at the end "and some people don't believe any of that due to no empirical evidence of any of it"?

Yeah but I'm not sure we need to legislate a throwaway comment.

I think 'Covering Atheism' in this regard will consist of reminding students that it is a valid viewpoint, there isn't much depth to go into.

I mean, are they forgetting? Is there a surge of kids coming out of school complaining that nobody ever told them that atheism is a thing?

RE should be about teaching religious beliefs and history. No religion is by definition not a religious belief.

Better analogy, do we teach Spanish in English class? It's just as legitimate a language and maybe kids should be reminded of that?

Of course not, we should keep English in English class and Spanish in Spanish class. Only at higher levels of study when the roots and core of language itself do we compare and contrast

 

[aguero93:20]

Yeah but I'm not sure we need to legislate a throwaway comment.



I mean, are they forgetting? Is there a surge of kids coming out of school complaining that nobody ever told them that atheism is a thing?

RE should be about teaching religious beliefs and history. No religion is by definition not a religious belief.

Better analogy, do we teach Spanish in English class? It's just as legitimate a language and maybe kids should be reminded of that?

Of course not, we should keep English in English class and Spanish in Spanish class. Only at higher levels of study when the roots and core of language itself do we compare and contrast

You're not studying comparative languages in English class are you?

 

[Matty]

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.

Or, alternatively, in no way the same. In fact, one could take offence at your comparison of religious belief with Shakespeare, and non-belief as the Daily Star. Clearly, as a believer, you believe you are right and non-believers are wrong, but there's a degree of arrogance attached to equating those who don't believe in God with inferior quality. You might have a point though as, personally, I find Shakespeare to be dull, over-rated drivel, which I have no intention of ever spending my time bothering with.

If children are only educated in the specifics of various different religions then they aren't being informed of all the options available to them. The idea of education is to impart knowledge, that's pretty obvious. If, from a young age, you indoctrine a child to believe that God existing is the only possible scenario, then their belief in God isn't actually faith, or really even a choice, because as far as they are aware there IS no alternative view. Religious Education shouldn't be about brainwashing, it should be about informing of all the options and allowing the individual to make their own decision. Do they prefer Christianity? Fine. They're more of an Islam kind of guy? That's ok too. Buddhism? Fair play. They don't actually feel any of the religions have convinced them of their validity? Well, that's fine too. Just as long as they have been allowed to come to their own conclusion with all the facts to hand.

 

[tonea2003]

Yeah but I'm not sure we need to legislate a throwaway comment.



I mean, are they forgetting? Is there a surge of kids coming out of school complaining that nobody ever told them that atheism is a thing?

RE should be about teaching religious beliefs and history. No religion is by definition not a religious belief.

Better analogy, do we teach Spanish in English class? It's just as legitimate a language and maybe kids should be reminded of that?

Of course not, we should keep English in English class and Spanish in Spanish class. Only at higher levels of study when the roots and core of language itself do we compare and contrast

they can teach about it as much as they want but not as a fact, which of course is exactly what a for example a RC or C of E school does
as matty has said children should be given the option to decide which way they want to go

 

[Damocles]

You're not studying comparative languages in English class are you?

That's sort of my point. RE at the level we're talking about is generally not a comparative study of religion itself but instead focuses on what religions belief and what has happened in certain religions over the years

 

[aguero93:20]

That's sort of my point. RE at the level we're talking about is generally not a comparative study of religion itself but instead focuses on what religions belief and what has happened in certain religions over the years

When I studied Religion at the same level here it was a comparative study of all religions. In my opinion, that's the best and fairest way to teach it. A comparative study of Religions by necessity will also teach students about the origins and development of each religion, whereas breaking them up and studying them separately won't necessarily teach them of their similarities and differences.

 

[Matty]

Yeah but I'm not sure we need to legislate a throwaway comment.



I mean, are they forgetting? Is there a surge of kids coming out of school complaining that nobody ever told them that atheism is a thing?

RE should be about teaching religious beliefs and history. No religion is by definition not a religious belief.

Better analogy, do we teach Spanish in English class? It's just as legitimate a language and maybe kids should be reminded of that?

Of course not, we should keep English in English class and Spanish in Spanish class. Only at higher levels of study when the roots and core of language itself do we compare and contrast

I went to a Catholic High School. We had to do a Religious Studies GCSE as a compulsory option. At no point was the concept that God might not actually exist at all ever covered. It was treated as a fait accompli that God was real and, in the main, it was also a fait accompli that Christianity was the only "real" way of worshipping him. We covered a little bit about Judaism, and Islam, and very, very small amounts of Buddhism, but that was just so we had covered the syllabus, we were told, specifically, what we needed to pass the exam on those subjects. 90%+ of what we did was Christianity.

It's all well and good people saying "Non-Religious beliefs aren't religious and, as such, have no place in the Religious syllabus" but where else do they fit? There are surely enough philosophical viewpoints to cover a lesson or two just to give the students a fully rounded picture? It's a little easy to say "Of course, some people don't believe in any of the religions" as a throw away line as if that's all there is to say on the matter.

 

[SWP's back]

Yeah but I'm not sure we need to legislate a throwaway comment.



I mean, are they forgetting? Is there a surge of kids coming out of school complaining that nobody ever told them that atheism is a thing?

RE should be about teaching religious beliefs and history. No religion is by definition not a religious belief.

Better analogy, do we teach Spanish in English class? It's just as legitimate a language and maybe kids should be reminded of that?

Of course not, we should keep English in English class and Spanish in Spanish class. Only at higher levels of study when the roots and core of language itself do we compare and contrast

One could argue, given your analogy, Spanish is an option, atheism is not an option and Re is usually mandatory for a few years.