Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on April 24, 2016, 08:25:35 AM
-
The former chairman of a cross party committee on RE is complaining that non religious world views are no longer being considered and that the committee has many more Conservative Evangelicals. The BHA have lodged complaints about this.
It turns out though that the composition of the committee is a bit broader and Lord Inderjit Singh, a member, has agreed with the narrower remit (with half an eye on cultural imperialist tendencies in the BHA perhaps?).
Should therefore non religious world views be considered in every committee on RE? Should it just be the antireligious components of non religious world views that are taught? Aren't secular humanist values conveyed culturally in a predominantly secularist country anyway and isn't this just middle class people arguing whether the middle class should be old school Conservatives or humanist libertarian?
I shall be starting a separate thread for those who believe that non religious world views should be taught to find out what should be taught so smug humanists watch out!
I am in two minds since when The BHA get involved I suspect cultural imperialism on their part but believe there is both sufficient anti religion and heritage values for it to be considered as RE.
Source BBC Radio 4.
-
Disgraceful. All power to the BHA's elbow.
-
Disgraceful. All power to the BHA's elbow.
How can non-religious organisations be included in a review of a subject about RELIGIOUS Studies? ;) Remember that the humanists here are determined to make it clear that their belief system isn't a religious one!!
-
How can non-religious organisations be included in a review of a subject about RELIGIOUS Studies? ;) Remember that the humanists here are determined to make it clear that their belief system isn't a religious one!!
I'd have thought that a clear policy on what constitutes RE is needed, and it may be there is one - since this doesn't affect Scotland (education here is fully devolved) I don't know if there is or not.
In my view RE in the state school system should contain no acts of religious worship or observance but should address the cultural, political, historical and social aspects of religion in general, which should of course included details of the tenets of different religions. As such it would be appropriate to include non-religious perspectives on issues that, in a sense, compete with religions, such as morality and also the justification of religious institutions having special status in the public arena (such as the C of E and Bishops in the HoL), which makes secularism highly relevant to RE.
I can't see either, in terms of the domestic situation here in the UK, that the issue of the decline of Christianity can be avoided given the series of studies that indicate this, where a recent study showed that here in Scotland the majority now have no stated religious affiliation.
-
I'd have thought that a clear policy on what constitutes RE is needed, and it may be there is one - since this doesn't affect Scotland (education here is fully devolved) I don't know if there is or not.
In my view RE in the state school system should contain no acts of religious worship or observance but should address the cultural, political, historical and social aspects of religion in general, which should of course included details of the tenets of different religions.
.........and of course the theological aspects otherwise RE ends up just another boring demotivating crock of a curriculum.
-
In my view RE in the state school system should contain no acts of religious worship or observance ...
Obviously I don't know the situation in Scotland, but as far as I'm aware, this doesn't occur in either England and Wales.
-
Obviously I don't know the situation in Scotland, but as far as I'm aware, this doesn't occur in either England and Wales.
So no hymns are sung nor prayers said in school assemblies?
-
So no hymns are sung nor prayers said in school assemblies?
School assemblies are not part of the RE syllabus, Gordon - and no, the last time I heard a hymn sung or a prayer said in an ordinary school assembly was probably before I went to Nepal (1992). Agreed that I've heard the latter in a Remembrance Day assembly and the odd carol sung in a Christmas assembly, but not in the normal run of things.
-
School assemblies are not part of the RE syllabus, Gordon - and no, the last time I heard a hymn sung or a prayer said in an ordinary school assembly was probably before I went to Nepal (1992). Agreed that I've heard the latter in a Remembrance Day assembly and the odd carol sung in a Christmas assembly, but not in the normal run of things.
I thought there was a legal requirement for schools in England and Wales to provide a daily act of 'collective worship'?
-
I thought there was a legal requirement for schools in England and Wales to provide a daily act of 'collective worship'?
I think there is, but it is neither adhered to in most non faith schools, nor is it policed. The law should obviously be changed to remove any obligation and also to ensure that any religious worship in any state funded school is on an opt-in basis rather than an opt-out basis.
-
I think there is, but it is neither adhered to in most non faith schools,
If that is the case then those headmaster/mistresses (and their teams?) are basically breaking the law?
-
If that is the case then those headmaster/mistresses (and their teams?) are basically breaking the law?
Yes they are.
But there are many laws on the statute book that, although remain in place in theory, are actually not enforced and therefore are in practice no longer in force.
So you are right that although someone could try to take a head teacher to court for not having a daily act of worship it would require the crown prosecution service to determine that bringing a prosecution is in the public interest - I doubt they would do so. Alternatively someone could attempt a private prosecution but that is of course fraught with difficulty and cost if not supported by the CPS.
-
How can non-religious organisations be included in a review of a subject about RELIGIOUS Studies? ;) Remember that the humanists here are determined to make it clear that their belief system isn't a religious one!!
I think it should be discussed that there are people with no religious faith and about what secularisim means (many people seem to have a problem with that one) but other than that I'm not really sure what would constitute non religious world views anyway.
-
I thought there was a legal requirement for schools in England and Wales to provide a daily act of 'collective worship'?
This is largely observed in the breach, Seb. For one thing, few schools (secondary, at least) have a hall large enough to house the full complement of pupils at a single sitting. Secondly, there are also other requirements under more modern legislation that require that staff interact in a form-room, as opposed to a class-room, setting at least once a week, doing things like checking homework diaries, passing on information about events, clarifying disciplinary and other issues that have arisen. The result is that most schools will split their pupils into three sections, years 7-9, years 10-11 and years 12-13 The assembly split is therefore years 7-9, and 10-11 - twice a week, years 12-13, once a week. Some schools actually have three physical building 'phases', and even then, when all students are catered for, they don't have a single event across the three halls and rarely have 5 assemblies a week in every hall.
-
The law should obviously be changed to remove any obligation and also to ensure that any religious worship in any state funded school is on an opt-in basis rather than an opt-out basis.
Whereas I would argue that there shouldn't be a need to opt-in or opt-out. The fact that religious issues are raised in assemblies so rarely in state-funded schools, I'd simply ditch the whole concept anyway. Christians across the two nations have been calling for this change since before I started teaching.
-
Whereas I would argue that there shouldn't be a need to opt-in or opt-out. The fact that religious issues are raised in assemblies so rarely in state-funded schools, I'd simply ditch the whole concept anyway. Christians across the two nations have been calling for this change since before I started teaching.
I wouldn't disagree that religious worship should be removed entirely from assemblies. Not suer how the faith school lot would think about that though. I wish to see the concept of state funded faith schools end, but while we are working toward that goal removing compulsion for collective religious worship and making it opt in rather than opt out would be a positive step forward.
-
I wouldn't disagree that religious worship should be removed entirely from assemblies. Not suer how the faith school lot would think about that though. I wish to see the concept of state funded faith schools end, but while we are working toward that goal removing compulsion for collective religious worship and making it opt in rather than opt out would be a positive step forward.
Much easier to simply enshrine current practice into law, rather than going all around the houses. If the state-funded church schools don't like that, tell them that they have to set up as church-funded, but Government-overseen schools (and let the Government the requisite school places to make them the option rather than the norm.)
-
How can non-religious organisations be included in a review of a subject about RELIGIOUS Studies? ;) Remember that the humanists here are determined to make it clear that their belief system isn't a religious one!!
Non-belief in God and the supernatural is relevant in studying religion.
-
Non-belief in God and the supernatural is relevant in studying religion.
Not sure that a subject called Religious Studies should be dealing with non-religious beliefs. Otherwise, we could be including politics, etc. Mind you, perhaps we ought to ditch the 'Religious' element of the name and use 'World-View', or something similar, instead.
-
Not sure that a subject called Religious Studies should be dealing with non-religious beliefs. Otherwise, we could be including politics, etc. Mind you, perhaps we ought to ditch the 'Religious' element of the name and use 'World-View', or something similar, instead.
I can't see how you could study the issue of religion without reference to politics.
-
The former chairman of a cross party committee on RE is complaining that non religious world views are no longer being considered and that the committee has many more Conservative Evangelicals. The BHA have lodged complaints about this.
It turns out though that the composition of the committee is a bit broader and Lord Inderjit Singh, a member, has agreed with the narrower remit (with half an eye on cultural imperialist tendencies in the BHA perhaps?).
Should therefore non religious world views be considered in every committee on RE? Should it just be the antireligious components of non religious world views that are taught? Aren't secular humanist values conveyed culturally in a predominantly secularist country anyway and isn't this just middle class people arguing whether the middle class should be old school Conservatives or humanist libertarian?
I shall be starting a separate thread for those who believe that non religious world views should be taught to find out what should be taught so smug humanists watch out!
I am in two minds since when The BHA get involved I suspect cultural imperialism on their part but believe there is both sufficient anti religion and heritage values for it to be considered as RE.
Source BBC Radio 4.
What has non religious world views to do with RELIGIOUS EDUCATION?
How can a non religious view be part of Religious Education?
Religious education is about religions throughout the world. The belief by individuals in such religions and their opinions are not part of that process. In a nutshell a non religious view would be discussing why people do not believe in any or all particular religions. It is immaterial when the idea is just to educate people about the religions of the world.
Religious Education is about the religions themselves not the opinions of the people who believe in them or those which don't.
My advice would be: Make it clear in topic heading that the RE stands for religious education.
Make sure people know that educating people about all religions is not in anyway looking to convert anyone.
Nor is it about personal opinions of belief.
You would think grown men and women could have worked that one out for themselves.
-
I can't see how you could study the issue of religion without reference to politics.
Not all religions are interested in politics. Christianity is possibly the one with the greatest link, but then - in my view, that ought to be being covered in Citizenship-type lessons.
-
Not all religions are interested in politics. Christianity is possibly the one with the greatest link, but then - in my view, that ought to be being covered in Citizenship-type lessons.
I guess it depends what you mean by politics.
You can take a narrow view of politics, specifically linked to formal government. You can take a much broader view that politics is any process and system that aims to make decisions about the running of a community, society or group of people.
Sure in the narrower definition you may argue that some religions don't get involved in politics. However if you take the broader view then pretty well all religions are inherently political organisations in that they make decisions that apply to all people within that group (members of that religion).
-
I guess it depends what you mean by politics.
True, but I would suggest that - apart from briefly touching on the overall poltical stances of various religions in RE (something that we don't do at present, if you think about it) the best place for the study of politics is in Citizenship or PSHE classes, depending on which a given school uses.
-
True, but I would suggest that - apart from briefly touching on the overall poltical stances of various religions in RE (something that we don't do at present, if you think about it) the best place for the study of politics is in Citizenship or PSHE classes, depending on which a given school uses.
I think for as long as there are C of E Bishops sitting in the H o L by default (and I think you said you don't support this) then in UK terms religion and politics aren't mutually exclusive.
-
I think for as long as there are C of E Bishops sitting in the H o L by default (and I think you said you don't support this) then in UK terms religion and politics aren't mutually exclusive.
Explain please,Gordon.
Give all the evidence in bullet points in support of your statement,
Thanks
-
Explain please,Gordon.
Give all the evidence in bullet points in support of your statement,
Thanks
Don't need bullet points since this is a simple matter of fact: there are CofE clerics participating in the U.K. political process.
The House of Lords is a part of the UK political governance arrangements and it has seats, by default, reserved for 26 CofE Bishops (often referred to as the 'Lords Spiritual'). Five of these 26 seats are for the current Bishops of Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester while the other 21 go to Bishops on a length of service basis.
This is easily checked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual
-
Explain please,Gordon.
Give all the evidence in bullet points in support of your statement,
Thanks
Well done, Sass - shot yourself in the foot.
-
Don't need bullet points since this is a simple matter of fact: there are CofE clerics participating in the U.K. political process.
The House of Lords is a part of the UK political governance arrangements and it has seats, by default, reserved for 26 CofE Bishops (often referred to as the 'Lords Spiritual'). Five of these 26 seats are for the current Bishops of Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester while the other 21 go to Bishops on a length of service basis.
This is easily checked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual
Aren't most of the members of the House of Lord's there because of their peerage?
I see nothing wrong or mutually exclusive about the House of Lords and who sits in it considering religion and politics.
Most of the house of Lords are people there because of their status in life or their job.
But I do not feel that there is anything hampering by either as all know their place. The Country and the People should be their first priority. I feel the Church have a better grasp on life and the reality of those living in the real world than aristocracy.
-
Aren't most of the members of the House of Lord's there because of their peerage?
90 hereditary peers, 682 life peers, 26 Lords Spiritual. In other words, the Bishops don't have that much influence in terms of voting power.
I believe that the HoL is an important part of our political establishment, but I also agree that the 'Lords Spiritual' needs to be more inclusive of non-Anglican and non-Christian religious leaders.
But I do not feel that there is anything hampering by either as all know their place. The Country and the People should be their first priority. I feel the Church have a better grasp on life and the reality of those living in the real world than aristocracy.
But most of the House aren't 'aristocracy', Sass. Just because one is a peer doesn't mean that you are of that section of society.
-
Aren't most of the members of the House of Lord's there because of their peerage?
Even so, it is a fact that 26 of them are simply because they are CofE Bishops: this is naked special privilege in the public arena.
I see nothing wrong or mutually exclusive about the House of Lords and who sits in it considering religion and politics.
I see a lot wrong with it in a democracy: it political governance by the unelected.
Most of the house of Lords are people there because of their status in life or their job.
Where none of them are elected.
But I do not feel that there is anything hampering by either as all know their place.
In a democracy any place in political governance by default in ananchronism, as is the sychophancy surrounding the aristocracy/monarchy.
The Country and the People should be their first priority.
Maybe so, but the problem is that they don't need to convince us of this first, and we don't get the chance to either select or reject them.
I feel the Church have a better grasp on life and the reality of those living in the real world than aristocracy.
Hard to see how 26 CofE Bishops are especially qualified to take part in political governance, and nor does it seem to me that their 'grasp on life' is commendable given the history surrounding the specific organisation they represent. Then there is the matter of the general decline of Christianity across U.K. society, and it is even harder to see how 26 CofE Bishops have any relevance to real life here in the West of Scotland.
So, perhaps they'd do better to stand on a CofE manifesto and let their local electorate determine they extent of their participation in political governance. I say bin the HofL and if there is to be a second chamber at all then its membership should be the result of regular elections.
-
I believe that the HoL is an important part of our political establishment, but I also agree that the 'Lords Spiritual' needs to be more inclusive of non-Anglican and non-Christian religious leaders.
On what basis should political governance arrangements include by default unelected religious representatives?
-
Aren't most of the members of the House of Lord's there because of their peerage?
I see nothing wrong or mutually exclusive about the House of Lords and who sits in it considering religion and politics.
Most of the house of Lords are people there because of their status in life or their job.
But I do not feel that there is anything hampering by either as all know their place. The Country and the People should be their first priority. I feel the Church have a better grasp on life and the reality of those living in the real world than aristocracy.
Could someone please translate this into intelligible English?
-
On what basis should political governance arrangements include by default unelected religious representatives?
On the same basis as other non-elected representatives are involved in the arrangements, Gordon. After all, even the law-makers of the HoC are 'assisted' and even, in many cases, 'led' by unelected, appointed people - eg: senior civil servants, or members of the public voicing their opinion, Trades Unions members voting with their own benefits in mind, judges who interpret the law, etc. The latter groups often have a greater grasp of the reality of legislative outcomes than those making the law, because they deal on a day to day basis with the grassroots folk of this country. Religious leaders are no different in this respect. Furthermore, such religious leaders have often come to their religious posts via other speciality roles - eg, Archbishop Welby worked in industry before becoming a clergyman.
-
On the same basis as other non-elected representatives are involved in the arrangements, Gordon. After all, even the law-makers of the HoC are 'assisted' and even, in many cases, 'led' by unelected, appointed people - eg: senior civil servants, or members of the public voicing their opinion, Trades Unions members voting with their own benefits in mind, judges who interpret the law, etc. The latter groups often have a greater grasp of the reality of legislative outcomes than those making the law, because they deal on a day to day basis with the grassroots folk of this country. Religious leaders are no different in this respect. Furthermore, such religious leaders have often come to their religious posts via other speciality roles - eg, Archbishop Welby worked in industry before becoming a clergyman.
You are missing the key point, which is that those who are responsible for political decisions and who are accountable for the background and consequences (good or bad) of these decisions are in our democratic arrangements elected: their mandate is via the ballot box, and that mandate can be withdrawn via the ballot box.
That there may be support staff, such as civil servants, that there are organisations and interest groups lobbying for their cause or that elected politicians need to take on board relevant information when coming to making policy and related decisions does not change the location of the political responsibility and accountability in our political arrangements - except, of course, when it comes to the HofL.
No matter how much of an apologist you are for organised Christianity, and no matter how experienced or competent Welby is, the simple fact is that he and his 25 CofE Bishop colleagues are unelected and yet they have an active role in political governance: that they do (along with all the other inhabitants of the HofL) is an affront to democracy,
-
Even so, it is a fact that 26 of them are simply because they are CofE Bishops: this is naked special privilege in the public arena.
I see a lot wrong with it in a democracy: it political governance by the unelected.
Where none of them are elected.
In a democracy any place in political governance by default in ananchronism, as is the sychophancy surrounding the aristocracy/monarchy.
Maybe so, but the problem is that they don't need to convince us of this first, and we don't get the chance to either select or reject them.
Hard to see how 26 CofE Bishops are especially qualified to take part in political governance, and nor does it seem to me that their 'grasp on life' is commendable given the history surrounding the specific organisation they represent. Then there is the matter of the general decline of Christianity across U.K. society, and it is even harder to see how 26 CofE Bishops have any relevance to real life here in the West of Scotland.
So, perhaps they'd do better to stand on a CofE manifesto and let their local electorate determine they extent of their participation in political governance. I say bin the HofL and if there is to be a second chamber at all then its membership should be the result of regular elections.
Don't forget, most bishops are awarded a title on retirement, so where do they end up?
ippy
-
Don't forget, most bishops are awarded a title on retirement, so where do they end up?
ippy
Jobs for the boys then (and in this case it is always boys).