Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on February 22, 2018, 12:22:14 AM
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sikh-man-turban-ripped-off-parliament-hate-crime-police-london-portcullis-house-a8222376.html
-
Why do you think RE or (more accurately) comparative religion would make a difference to bigotry? Or is it just that it would enable racist bigots to shout the correct religion when ordering people to go home?
-
Why do you think RE or (more accurately) comparative religion would make a difference to bigotry? Or is it just that it would enable racist bigots to shout the correct religion when ordering people to go home?
The power of language Rhiannon.
-
The power of language Rhiannon.
Can you elaborate on that?
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sikh-man-turban-ripped-off-parliament-hate-crime-police-london-portcullis-house-a8222376.html
How do you know that this guy hadn't studied RE?
-
How do you know that this guy hadn't studied RE?
Because he didn't know a Sikh from a muslim.
It doesn't seem that the English education system has stopped red neckism in it's tracks. RE was calmly swept under the carpet while a Woodheadesque secular curriculum focus was brought in.
It doesn't seem to have worked.
I used to debate with someone on another site whose thesis was that RE caused social violence.
-
Because he didn't know a Sikh from a muslim.
That doesn't prove anything - he may well have studied RE but either didn't understand the distinction, or perhaps didn't care.
Now it isn't clear whether this person was from the UK, but all kids in the UK study RE, by law, and have done for decades. So surely, according to your argument, there should be no religious hate crime perpetrated by UK-educated kids.
-
That doesn't prove anything - he may well have studied RE but either didn't understand the distinction, or perhaps didn't care.
Now it isn't clear whether this person was from the UK, but all kids in the UK study RE, by law, and have done for decades. So surely, according to your argument, there should be no religious hate crime perpetrated by UK-educated kids.
Surely it might be but it would be based on good knowledge, as it appears that Vlad would have had no more issues with this if the idiot had shouted out something about the person being Sikh?
-
It doesn't seem that the English education system has stopped red neckism in it's tracks. RE was calmly swept under the carpet while a Woodheadesque secular curriculum focus was brought in.
It doesn't seem to have worked.
I think there is a challenge here - we know that the vast, majority of kids in the UK aren't religious, certainly in any active way. So for the most part RE is learning about what others do. Now I am not saying that isn't a very valid thing to do, but it can easily become sterile and seemingly lack any relevance or meaning to, say a average 11 year old from a non religious household.
I think we need a major rethink of the curriculum area we tend currently to describe as RE to make it much more inclusive and by that I mean directly relevant to the 95% not the 5%. That would involve changing the focus entirely toward ethics (which is relevant to all kids), allowing age appropriate exploration of different ethical approaches and allowing kids to challenge and develop their own views. This would, of course, involve understanding the major religions as they are a major strand of ethical thinking in the UK and world today. But religious ethical approaches should not be seen as distinct from, nor better (or worse) than non religious ethical approaches.
-
Surely it might be but it would be based on good knowledge, as it appears that Vlad would have had no more issues with this if the idiot had shouted out something about the person being Sikh?
True - but that is hardly getting us very far. It might be preferable if the target of a hate crime was the 'right' target (in this example an muslim) rather than the wrong target (as actually happened), but that seems to be playing very much at the margins I would have thought. Surely the main issue is the hate crime and its motivation itself.
To use an analogy - when I was a kid the 'P' word was used as a derogatory term for anyone of south asian origin, regardless of whether they came from Pakistan, India or Bangladesh (or elsewhere). Franky I'm not that fussed about arguing over the failure of geography lessons to allow people to differentiate appropriately - I'm rather more concerned with the hate crime and insult itself.
-
True - but that is hardly getting us very far. It might be preferable if the target of a hate crime was the 'right' target (in this example an muslim) rather than the wrong target (as actually happened), but that seems to be playing very much at the margins I would have thought. Surely the main issue is the hate crime and its motivation itself.
To use an analogy - when I was a kid the 'P' word was used as a derogatory term for anyone of south asian origin, regardless of whether they came from Pakistan, India or Bangladesh (or elsewhere). Franky I'm not that fussed about arguing over the failure of geography lessons to allow people to differentiate appropriately - I'm rather more concerned with the hate crime and insult itself.
Yes, but I was using that Vlad appears to be more concerned about the ignorance of which religion shown by the thug than the crime to try and shoe the emptiness of the thread.
-
Yes, but I was using that Vlad appears to be more concerned about the ignorance of which religion shown by the thug than the crime to try and shoe the emptiness of the thread.
Indeed.
I guess the point here is about two types of ignorance. The ignorance which leads someone to commit a hate crime against someone who looks different, or the ignorance of not knowing the difference between a muslim and a sikh. Both aren't great, but I know which one I am more concerned about.
-
True - but that is hardly getting us very far. It might be preferable if the target of a hate crime was the 'right' target (in this example an muslim) rather than the wrong target (as actually happened), but that seems to be playing very much at the margins I would have thought. Surely the main issue is the hate crime and its motivation itself.
To use an analogy - when I was a kid the 'P' word was used as a derogatory term for anyone of south asian origin, regardless of whether they came from Pakistan, India or Bangladesh (or elsewhere). Franky I'm not that fussed about arguing over the failure of geography lessons to allow people to differentiate appropriately - I'm rather more concerned with the hate crime and insult itself.
That does lead to the question, which do you consider to be worse? Ripping off a turban, or calling a non Muslim, a "Muslim"?
-
That does lead to the question, which do you consider to be worse? Ripping off a turban, or calling a non Muslim, a "Muslim"?
I suspect you'll need to ask the victim that question. I don't see how I can answer it.
-
I suspect you'll need to ask the victim that question. I don't see how I can answer it.
Oh Dear. Duckout.
-
Oh Dear. Duckout.
Not really - it is pretty difficult for me to say, and actually I don't really think it is appropriate for me as an atheist to proffer a view on which is worse.
If you forced me I imagine the removal of the turban would be seen as worse but who knows - not me, but the victim presumably does so he really is the only person to be able to answer your question.
-
That does lead to the question, which do you consider to be worse? Ripping off a turban, or calling a non Muslim, a "Muslim"?
What do you think?
-
The Assault.
Easy, was it not?
-
The Assault.
Easy, was it not?
But it is surely more complicated - this in many people's eyes isn't an assault or perhaps is one of very limited severity. If I was walking down the street wearing a scarf and someone pulled it off me, I might be bewildered but if I wasn't in any way hurt I'd be unlikely to report it and probably wouldn't really consider I had been assaulted.
The whole point here is the significance of turban as an item of clothing.
-
I think it would take a bit more than a tug to remove a turban, the guy would be pulled about from the head quite a lot so could be considered an assault.
It's not a bad idea, in my view, for kids to be taught about different cultures which would include religions, we live in a society of different cultures and it's good to have some understanding. If only to avoid making faux pas. I remember a woman of my acquaintance mentioning 'Sikh synagogues' and my nephew coming home from school saying a teacher had talked about 'the Mohammedan church'. Cringe or what? The children at school would contribute quite well as we are a mixed society. A lot of fear and prejudice stems from ignorance.
Comparative religion doesn't float everyone's boat, I've always been interested in it which must be fairly obvious or else I wouldn't be posting here. Same no doubt applies to other posters.
-
Why do you think RE or (more accurately) comparative religion would make a difference to bigotry? Or is it just that it would enable racist bigots to shout the correct religion when ordering people to go home?
I think he's alluding to the wrong religion bit.
-
How do you know that this guy hadn't studied RE?
If he was British, he almost certainly had.
-
I think it would take a bit more than a tug to remove a turban, the guy would be pulled about from the head quite a lot so could be considered an assault.
It's not a bad idea, in my view, for kids to be taught about different cultures which would include religions, we live in a society of different cultures and it's good to have some understanding. If only to avoid making faux pas. I remember a woman of my acquaintance mentioning 'Sikh synagogues' and my nephew coming home from school saying a teacher had talked about 'the Mohammedan church'. Cringe or what? The children at school would contribute quite well as we are a mixed society. A lot of fear and prejudice stems from ignorance.
Comparative religion doesn't float everyone's boat, I've always been interested in it which must be fairly obvious or else I wouldn't be posting here. Same no doubt applies to other posters.
Absolutely.
-
Further to my last post, I was thinking that different religions/cultures come up in subjects other than RE or comparative religion, for example in history, literature, art & sociology, which leads to discussion.
-
Further to my last post, I was thinking that different religions/cultures come up in subjects other than RE or comparative religion, for example in history, literature, art & sociology, which leads to discussion.
In which case just do away with RE altogether.
-
I think he's alluding to the wrong religion bit.
Yes, but what difference does it make if the bigot gets the right religion while being a racist arse?
-
In which case just do away with RE altogether.
Another cake and eat it argument.
We must teach that RE does not really exist and fight tooth and nail to keep it out of science.
-
I think there is a challenge here - we know that the vast, majority of kids in the UK aren't religious, certainly in any active way. So for the most part RE is learning about what others do. Now I am not saying that isn't a very valid thing to do, but it can easily become sterile and seemingly lack any relevance or meaning to, say a average 11 year old from a non religious household.
I think we need a major rethink of the curriculum area we tend currently to describe as RE to make it much more inclusive and by that I mean directly relevant to the 95% not the 5%. That would involve changing the focus entirely toward ethics (which is relevant to all kids), allowing age appropriate exploration of different ethical approaches and allowing kids to challenge and develop their own views. This would, of course, involve understanding the major religions as they are a major strand of ethical thinking in the UK and world today. But religious ethical approaches should not be seen as distinct from, nor better (or worse) than non religious ethical approaches.
I used to be a school governor with responsibility for RE and as currently delivered its atrocious. Comparative religion would be a far better subject given how it covers ethics and ideas about what makes us human. It may not ‘float everyone’s boat’ but then neither does the current RE fudge, or history or geography come to that.
-
Another cake and eat it argument.
We must teach that RE does not really exist and fight tooth and nail to keep it out of science.
I was answering Robbie’s point that comparative religion features in other humanities.
Why is RE better than comparative religion as a subject?
-
Yes, but what difference does it make if the bigot gets the right religion while being a racist arse?
Well one difference is that Vlad wouldn't have been able to create this thread.
-
I was answering Robbie’s point that comparative religion features in other humanities.
Why is RE better than comparative religion as a subject?
I don't think it is, I imagine the starter of this thread meant 'Comparative Religion' rather than RE.
Could be called anything really, Culture and Society?
You're right that a racist arse is a racist arse but maybe, just maybe, there would be less racists if they learned about and understood different religions and cultures from an early age. Ignorance is certainly not bliss!
(One of my cousins has a Sikh neighbour, quite young, doesn't wear a turban & is married to an English girl. Someone came up to him in the street and called him a Muslim terrorist! Anyone who automatically assumes a person with a brownish skin and dark eyes is a Muslim is seriously ignorant. Same goes for assuming a Muslim is a terrorist.)
-
I think there is a challenge here - we know that the vast, majority of kids in the UK aren't religious, certainly in any active way. So for the most part RE is learning about what others do.
Do and think.
I am looking at this in the light of Dawkinsidea that we should not see kids as catholic, Muslim, Sikh etc.but here in your classification they are mainly secularist.
Another thing is that we give kids a background into life choices they might want to make.
I'm sure one of your complaints was that education did not prepare people for coming out as gay.
Is your intent now to have an education system confirming familial belief and practice as secular humanists and apatheists?
-
Do and think.
I don't think you can presume what individual people actually think, regardless of whether they are religious or not. So you can cover what religious people do (in other words practice and customs etc) and what the religions teach as a matter of belief.
I am looking at this in the light of Dawkinsidea that we should not see kids as catholic, Muslim, Sikh etc.but here in your classification they are mainly secularist.
Another thing is that we give kids a background into life choices they might want to make.
But why then restrict to merely religious value systems. Surely then we should de-emphasise religion (the choice of a minority, with a tiny minority choosing to actively practice religion) and re-focus towards non religious ethical approaches - which are the choice of the vast majority. That isn't to say that religion should be removed, but placed in proper proportion to its adherents. Currently, of course, RE tends to focus on religions alone, with non religious ethical approaches largely absent from school curricular.
But why merely focus on religion to support 'life choices'. It is likely that 90%+ of kids in schools today will choose not to be actively religious as adults, so for most the notion that RE should provide a choice of religions to choose from is non-sensical as they will choose none. However the vast majority will choose to study later in life, will choose to work, will choose to live somewhere - so why not (in your 'life choices' agenda) provide as much (or actually far more) emphasis on getting kids to understand what it is like to work as an accountant, or lawyer, or brick-layer, or nurse. Or for country kids, what it is like to work in the city, and vice versa. For kids from the north, what life is like in the south etc.
All of this is very laudable and indeed is done to an extent. But the school day is limited and there is already insufficient time to cover the basics. So in this reality I think it is important for children to have a curriculum which includes a focus on ethical perspectives, and as part of that religions (and their practices etc and ethical standpoints) can be discussed.
But you also have to recognise that despite RE being compulsory and focussed on religions, a vanishingly small proportion of kids choose to change religion - nearly all either retain the religion they were brought up in or choose to be non religious (if brought up religious). Those brought up non religious hardly ever become religious as adults. So this notion of 'life choices' is effectively theoretical and not actually borne out in reality as if it were a box of chocolates, in which each kids chooses one.
But actually the best 'resource' for kids is other kids. Rather than teach in a sterile, theoretical manner that muslims celebrate Eid, they can be inquisitive and ask their friend who is a muslim, what that is all about.
I'm sure one of your complaints was that education did not prepare people for coming out as gay.
Is your intent now to have an education system confirming familial belief and practice as secular humanists and apatheists?
Of course not, quite the opposite. And this is one of my principled arguments against faith schools - that they reinforce a view that a child should simply adhere to familial belief. I think it better that kids recognise that people come from all faiths and (mostly) none, and be able to see this not just in theory but in practice in the kids they rub shoulders with in the playground.
-
I don't think you can presume what individual people actually think, regardless of whether they are religious or not. So you can cover what religious people do (in other words practice and customs etc) and what the religions teach as a matter of belief.
But why then restrict to merely religious value systems. Surely then we should de-emphasise religion (the choice of a minority, with a tiny minority choosing to actively practice religion) and re-focus towards non religious ethical approaches - which are the choice of the vast majority. That isn't to say that religion should be removed, but placed in proper proportion to its adherents. Currently, of course, RE tends to focus on religions alone, with non religious ethical approaches largely absent from school curricular.
But why merely focus on religion to support 'life choices'. It is likely that 90%+ of kids in schools today will choose not to be actively religious as adults, so for most the notion that RE should provide a choice of religions to choose from is non-sensical as they will choose none. However the vast majority will choose to study later in life, will choose to work, will choose to live somewhere - so why not (in your 'life choices' agenda) provide as much (or actually far more) emphasis on getting kids to understand what it is like to work as an accountant, or lawyer, or brick-layer, or nurse. Or for country kids, what it is like to work in the city, and vice versa. For kids from the north, what life is like in the south etc.
All of this is very laudable and indeed is done to an extent. But the school day is limited and there is already insufficient time to cover the basics. So in this reality I think it is important for children to have a curriculum which includes a focus on ethical perspectives, and as part of that religions (and their practices etc and ethical standpoints) can be discussed.
But you also have to recognise that despite RE being compulsory and focussed on religions, a vanishingly small proportion of kids choose to change religion - nearly all either retain the religion they were brought up in or choose to be non religious (if brought up religious). Those brought up non religious hardly ever become religious as adults. So this notion of 'life choices' is effectively theoretical and not actually borne out in reality as if it were a box of chocolates, in which each kids chooses one.
But actually the best 'resource' for kids is other kids. Rather than teach in a sterile, theoretical manner that muslims celebrate Eid, they can be inquisitive and ask their friend who is a muslim, what that is all about.
Of course not, quite the opposite. And this is one of my principled arguments against faith schools - that they reinforce a view that a child should simply adhere to familial belief. I think it better that kids recognise that people come from all faiths and (mostly) none, and be able to see this not just in theory but in practice in the kids they rub shoulders with in the playground.
Mostly bollocks supporting a national secularist agenda.
-
Mostly bollocks supporting a national secularist agenda.
So no coherent response then - well that's a surprise.
You cannot have it both ways - you cannot want RE to be about 'life choices' i.e. whether or not to be religious, and if so which religion to choose, which would necessarily require information about the options to be provided in a balanced and neutral manner (which would require it to be secular in approach) and then complain that a proposal that would do just that is ... supporting a secularist agenda.
-
(One of my cousins has a Sikh neighbour, quite young, doesn't wear a turban & is married to an English girl. Someone came up to him in the street and called him a Muslim terrorist! Anyone who automatically assumes a person with a brownish skin and dark eyes is a Muslim is seriously ignorant. Same goes for assuming a Muslim is a terrorist.)
Cringe worthy in the extreme.
But I'm not sure for far RE can deal with this, particularly given the pressures of time in our overall curriculum. And of course case of this type go way beyond RE.
So we'd like to make sure someone doesn't cause offence by calling a Sikh a Muslim terrorist (but I think it is the terrorist part that is the most offensive rathe than the error of religion). But as we see here there are plenty of people on these boards who take offence at being considered as the wrong denomination of one religion - so do we need to ensure that all kids understand the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam, how about between Eastern and Greek Orthodox Christianity. It is simply impossible (and not very valuable in my opinion) to try use RE basically as a tool to understand and pigeonhole individuals into various sects.
And it goes well beyond religion - Welsh people are often called English, people from the Netherlands are often considered to be from Holland when the two aren't the same etc etc. What about a vegan being offered a cheese sandwich, or an assumption that a vegetarian eats fish. I don't think the latter are part of any formal curriculum.
Surely what we should be doing is getting kids to understand broad issues - particularly of respect and differences in culture etc, and the need to avoid making errors due to ignorance (and we hope not deliberately wanting to cause offence). That can then valuably be applied in all sorts of situations rather than trying to teach a million examples where such errors could be made.
-
So no coherent response then - well that's a surprise.
You cannot have it both ways - you cannot want RE to be about 'life choices' i.e. whether or not to be religious, and if so which religion to choose, which would necessarily require information about the options to be provided in a balanced and neutral manner (which would require it to be secular in approach) and then complain that a proposal that would do just that is ... supporting a secularist agenda.
I'm still deciding where to start.Lets begin at your assertion that the trouble with RE is that it focuses on religion.
Or
Your bizarre assertion that we only teach kids what the majority will end up needing in later life. That is an anti educationalist argument on stilts
-
I'm still deciding where to start.Lets begin at your assertion that the trouble with RE is that it focuses on religion.
Or
Your bizarre assertion that we only teach kids what the majority will end up needing in later life. That is an anti educationalist argument on stilts
The problem is a focus only on religion, rather than also on non religious ethical approaches.
And it is perfectly reasonable to see that as an issue in a country where 90% aren't actively religious (yet have ethical positions) and where it is probable that the current school age kids will have an even greater proportion who aren't actively religious.
Why is it a problem to appropriately broaden the curriculum.
And it is also appropriate to take account of the evidence - namely that vanishingly small numbers of people convert from one religion to another or convert to a religion having been brought up in a non religious household (despite being taught our current RE curriculum, which certainly in non faith schools gives a flavour of the major religions, albeit failing to cover non religious ethical approaches). To align RE, as you describe, to allow kids to make 'life choices' - effectively to choose from the box of religious chocolates - is addressing an issue that doesn't exist, as nearly all kids in any school will choose not to take a chocolate or already are committed to the walnut whip etc, even though currently they already learn about the different chocolates in the box.
-
The problem is a focus only on religion, rather than also on non religious ethical approaches.
And it is perfectly reasonable to see that as an issue in a country where 90% aren't actively religious (yet have ethical positions) and where it is probable that the current school age kids will have an even greater proportion who aren't actively religious.
Why is it a problem to appropriately broaden the curriculum.
And it is also appropriate to take account of the evidence - namely that vanishingly small numbers of people convert from one religion to another or convert to a religion having been brought up in a non religious household (despite being taught our current RE curriculum, which certainly in non faith schools gives a flavour of the major religions, albeit failing to cover non religious ethical approaches). To align RE, as you describe, to allow kids to make 'life choices' - effectively to choose from the box of religious chocolates - is addressing an issue that doesn't exist, as nearly all kids in any school will choose not to take a chocolate or already are committed to the walnut whip etc, even though currently they already learn about the different chocolates in the box.
There is no focus on religion. The vast majority of the curriculum is secular and has been for decades.
If you say that only 10% of pupils will go on to be religious then they are not and have not been served with anything like 10% of the curriculum. This does not constitute a focus on religion.
It seems here that you wish us to take the standard NSS version that any coverage of religion is a luxury that can be ill afforded.
-
In answer to the O P, I really don't like baseball caps or lots of other types of clothing, just because I don't like them, doesn't give me the right to go assaulting, in this case by tugging head wear off, people wearing things I don't like.
Unless, it was Vlad and I had recognised him and I'm sure when I explained who it was that I had assaulted was Vlad and of course I would be let off of any charges immediately.
Regards ippy
-
In answer to the O P, I really don't like baseball caps or lots of other types of clothing, just because I don't like them, doesn't give me the right to go assaulting, in this case by tugging head wear off, people wearing things I don't like.
Unless, it was Vlad and I had recognised him and I'm sure when I explained who it was that I had assaulted was Vlad and of course I would be let off of any charges immediately.
Regards ippy
Ippy
You aren't the guy who chucked Domestos over a vicar and was charged with "Bleach of the Priest" are you?
-
If you say that only 10% of pupils will go on to be religious then they are not and have not been served with anything like 10% of the curriculum.
Vlad - you do realise how genuinely dumb that post is, don't you.
So if the fact that 10% of pupils will go on to be religious means that 10% of the curriculum should be devoted to religion ...
then ...
The fact that 90% of pupils will go on to adopt non-religious ethical positions means that 90% of the curriculum should be devoted to non-religious ethical positions.
Oops - no time left for maths, English, science etc.
And don't forget that 70% of pupils will go on to become parents so we need to devote an additional 70% of curriculum time to parenting skills. And 99% will go on to open bank accounts - need 5 days a week to cover that. And 30% will go on to vote Labour (that's another 1.5 days a week on that), plus the same on Conservative politics as 30% will go on to vote Tory.
You really do talk non-sense at times.
-
Vlad - you do realise how genuinely dumb that post is, don't you.
So if the fact that 10% of pupils will go on to be religious means that 10% of the curriculum should be devoted to religion ...
then ...
The fact that 90% of pupils will go on to adopt non-religious ethical positions means that 90% of the curriculum should be devoted to non-religious ethical positions.
Oops - no time left for maths, English, science etc.
And don't forget that 70% of pupils will go on to become parents so we need to devote an additional 70% of curriculum time to parenting skills. And 99% will go on to open bank accounts - need 5 days a week to cover that. And 30% will go on to vote Labour (that's another 1.5 days a week on that), plus the same on Conservative politics as 30% will go on to vote Tory.
You really do talk non-sense at times.
I was just demonstrating what wank it is using the figures the way you do to say whether something should be taught.
The curriculum has not favoured RE for decades.
To call for less is pure secular self indulgence.
-
I was just demonstrating what wank it is using the figures the way you do to say whether something should be taught.
That isn't what I was saying but what you appeared to be.
My point is that the curriculum linked to ethical discussion and development (which is currently pretty well entirely in then RE slot and pretty well entirely about religion) needs to be broadened and made more relevant to the majority of kids who aren't religious now and never will be.
The curriculum has not favoured RE for decades.
And how much of the RE curriculum is currently devoted to secular and non religious ethical approaches then Vlad.
To call for less is pure secular self indulgence.
I am not calling for less of the curriculum to focus on ethical issues - I am calling for rebalancing of that which is devoted to religious and non religious ethical positions. The currently level of time devoted to religion in schools, and its obligatory requirement, is a classic special privilege to organised religion (mainly due to failures in the 1944 Education Act). If anyone is engaged in self indulgence it is organised religions, who yet again scream and scream and scream until they are sick if anyone dares to suggest removing their precious special privileges.
-
That isn't what I was saying but what you appeared to be.
My point is that the curriculum linked to ethical discussion and development (which is currently pretty well entirely in then RE slot and pretty well entirely about religion) needs to be broadened and made more relevant to the majority of kids who aren't religious now and never will be.
And how much of the RE curriculum is currently devoted to secular and non religious ethical approaches then Vlad.
I am not calling for less of the curriculum to focus on ethical issues - I am calling for rebalancing of that which is devoted to religious and non religious ethical positions. The currently level of time devoted to religion in schools, and its obligatory requirement, is a classic special privilege to organised religion (mainly due to failures in the 1944 Education Act). If anyone is engaged in self indulgence it is organised religions, who yet again scream and scream and scream until they are sick if anyone dares to suggest removing their precious special privileges.
There was at one point meant to be non religious ethical consideration in PHSE and citizenship and also in school ethos Professor.
Again if you are saying RE should include humanism, you either acknowledge that humanism is a belief and should be in RE or you cut RE further..
I'm afraid contrary to the popular belief that there are secret armies of religious indoctrinators the standard approach to religion is to en masse and as a school community quietly sweep it under the carpet.But occasionally there are schools with talented RE teachers where Re becomes popular and pupils develop a talent for it as an academic subject.
-
There was at one point meant to be non religious ethical consideration in PHSE and citizenship and also in school ethos Professor.
Again if you are saying RE should include humanism, you either acknowledge that humanism is a belief and should be in RE or you cut RE further..
PHSE and citizenship are completely different curriculum areas. And I don't think I have ever mentioned humanism, although of course this should be included in a revised curriculum strand focusing on ethics, which would also include learning about major religions, but would no longer be called RE.
I'm afraid contrary to the popular belief that there are secret armies of religious indoctrinators the standard approach to religion is to en masse and as a school community quietly sweep it under the carpet.But occasionally there are schools with talented RE teachers where Re becomes popular and pupils develop a talent for it as an academic subject.
Again where did I ever say that. I am concerned about the narrowness of the RE curriculum in many faith schools, which is effectively a strand of religious instruction almost exclusively about a single religion.
My concern in non faith schools is that the curriculum lacks breadth and relevance to most kids, and fails in that respect. A broadened curriculum focussing on ethics would achieve that relevance to all children regardless of whether they are being brought up to be religious or not. Indeed one of points above is that RE has pretty well zero effect on kids in terms of pushing them to be religious if they aren't already, so why would I have concerns over indoctrination, certainly in non faith schools.
And yes there are talented RE teachers - I can think of a very good example in the school where I am a governor. Would he be less talented teaching a broader ethics-based curriculum - nope. Indeed I suspect he'd be rather keen as he was instrumental in shift from offering a narrow RE subject at GCSE to a (slightly) broader Philosophy & Ethics, although I was disappointed when I looked at the curriculum of the latter how focussed on religion it remained (although less so than RE).
-
PHSE and citizenship are completely different curriculum areas. And I don't think I have ever mentioned humanism, although of course this should be included in a revised curriculum strand focusing on ethics, which would also include learning about major religions, but would no longer be called RE.
Again where did I ever say that. I am concerned about the narrowness of the RE curriculum in many faith schools, which is effectively a strand of religious instruction almost exclusively about a single religion.
My concern in non faith schools is that the curriculum lacks breadth and relevance to most kids, and fails in that respect. A broadened curriculum focussing on ethics would achieve that relevance to all children regardless of whether they are being brought up to be religious or not. Indeed one of points above is that RE has pretty well zero effect on kids in terms of pushing them to be religious if they aren't already, so why would I have concerns over indoctrination, certainly in non faith schools.
And yes there are talented RE teachers - I can think of a very good example in the school where I am a governor. Would he be less talented teaching a broader ethics-based curriculum - nope. Indeed I suspect he'd be rather keen as he was instrumental in shift from offering a narrow RE subject at GCSE to a (slightly) broader Philosophy & Ethics, although I was disappointed when I looked at the curriculum of the latter how focussed on religion it remained (although less so than RE).
Fortunately real life acts as an antidote to tiny wee antireligious enclave thinking such as NSS and religionethics.
What puts the kybosh on a modern secularist ethos is its current links to antitheist and its historic links to moral relativism. In other words, moral explanation involving the idea that there is at base no real or ultimate validation and one has to divine the moral zeitgeist and moral taste might be ok for superannuated ex hippy types but completely not the vehicle to try to instil discipline, community and ethos for the future.
I think you'll find New Labour were probably closest to getting the ethos thing right.
-
Fortunately real life acts as an antidote to tiny wee antireligious enclave thinking such as NSS and religionethics.
You mean the real life in which 90%+ of people aren't actively religious, and likely to be even greater amongst the current crop of school-age kids now and as adults in due course.
Rather than the current situation, which is about as far removed from real life as is possible, where the only subject (yes that is right, the only subject) that must be on the curriculum in state schools (whether faith or non faith) throughout the whole school age from 5-18 is RE.
-
What puts the kybosh on a modern secularist ethos is its current links to antitheist and its historic links to moral relativism. In other words, moral explanation involving the idea that there is at base no real or ultimate validation and one has to divine the moral zeitgeist and moral taste might be ok for superannuated ex hippy types but completely not the vehicle to try to instil discipline, community and ethos for the future.
Do you think it is right or wrong that children in schools learn that some people consider morality to be relative and changes over time and with culture etc. Plus also that they learn that other people consider morality to be objective and therefore does not change.
And to be given examples linked to established moral theories, both religious and non religious, of both approaches.
-
You mean the real life in which 90%+ of people aren't actively religious, and likely to be even greater amongst the current crop of school-age kids now and as adults in due course.
Rather than the current situation, which is about as far removed from real life as is possible, where the only subject (yes that is right, the only subject) that must be on the curriculum in state schools (whether faith or non faith) throughout the whole school age from 5-18 is RE.
Explain this then
https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum/other-compulsory-subjects
-
Explain this then
https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum/other-compulsory-subjects
Did you bother to read it:
Sex and relationship education is only compulsory from year 7 (i.e. age 11).
There are no other subjects that are compulsory beyond the age of 16, except RE.
RE is the only subject which must be on the curriculum from 5-18. No other subject is - not English, Maths, Science, Languages, Humanities, PE etc, etc, etc. Only RE.
Do you think that is right Vlad?
-
Do you think it is right or wrong that children in schools learn that some people consider morality to be relative and changes over time and with culture etc. Plus also that they learn that other people consider morality to be objective and therefore does not change.
Maybe in the sixth form when pupils have had a grounding in hegemony, democracy, ethos as a real thing, religion, Harris's scientific morality, perhaps.
-
Did you bother to read it:
Sex and relationship education is only compulsory from year 7 (i.e. age 11).
There are no other subjects that are compulsory beyond the age of 16, except RE.
RE is the only subject which must be on the curriculum from 5-18. No other subject is - not English, Maths, Science, Languages, Humanities, PE etc, etc, etc. Only RE.
Do you think that is right Vlad?
You didn't bother to read sections 1,2 and 3 RE is one of OTHER compulsory subjects.
RE is also a subject where a parent can opt to withdraw. So much for compulsory.
-
Maybe in the sixth form when pupils have had a grounding in hegemony, democracy, ethos as a real thing, religion, Harrises scientific morality, perhaps.
So what do you think they should be taught up to 16?
Only that morality is objective? That would be totally inappropriate as it would only provide one side of the argument. While I accept that learning must be age appropriate - I do not accept that there is an age where only one side of the argument can ever be provided. If a child is old enough to learn that some people consider that morality is objective, then they are also old enough to learn that other people consider that morality is relative.
-
You didn't bother to read sections 1,2 and 3 RE is one of OTHER compulsory subjects.
Go on then - find me another subject that must be on the curriculum from the age of 5-18. Prove me wrong.
-
Go on then - find me another subject that must be on the curriculum from the age of 5-18.
You said that as though it was a bad thing.
Again parents have a right to withdraw children. In what way then can RE can be termed compulsory.
-
You said that as though it was a bad thing.
I think it is bizarre that the only subject that must be on the curriculum from the age of 5 to 18 is RE.
Again parents have a right to withdraw children. In what way then can RE can be termed compulsory.
Which is also a sign of failure of the approach - I'd be in favour of a broadening, as I have suggested to make the topic much more appropriate to all pupils, and I'd also be in favour (on the basis that it had been broadened) for it to be compulsory, without parental opt out. But only up to the age of 16.
How are you getting on in finding another subject that must be on the curriculum from 5 to 18?
-
I have not said that one shouldn't teach that morality is whatever one thinks it is or roll your own morality or morality according to taste but post 16.
It sounds as useful to our youth as eating as much Ice cream or crisps as you like or observe whatever rules you want to.
-
I have not said that one shouldn't teach that morality is whatever one thinks it is or roll your own morality or morality according to taste but post 16.
It sounds as useful to our youth as eating as much Ice cream or crisps as you like or observe whatever rules you want to.
What do you think that a 14 year old should learn:
A: That some people think (and some moral codes are based on the concept) that morality is objective and therefore fixed over time and across cultures, while other people think (and some moral codes are based on the concept) that morality is relative and may change over time and across different cultures.
Or
B: That morality is objective and fixed over time and across cultures
Or
C: That morality is relative and may change over time and across different cultures.
For what it is worth - I think A.
-
What do you think that a 14 year old should learn:
A: That some people think (and some moral codes are based on the concept) that morality is objective and therefore fixed over time and across cultures, while other people think (and some moral codes are based on the concept) that morality is relative and may change over time and across different cultures.
Or
B: That morality is objective and fixed over time and across cultures
Or
C: That morality is relative and may change over time and across different cultures.
For what it is worth - I think A.
I'd agree. But not in the stupid counterproductive way you sound like you'd risk.
-
I'd agree.
Great - then we have agreement.
But not in the stupid counterproductive way you sound like you'd risk.
And what would that be then Vlad?
-
Great - then we have agreement.
And what would that be then Vlad?
I've already Expressed my fears as to what can be taught too early.
-
I've already Expressed my fears as to what can be taught too early.
So do you think that morality is objective and fixed over time and across cultures is suitable to be taught earlier than that morality is relative and may change over time and across different cultures?
If so please justify.
To my mind neither should be taught without reference to the other, to provide balance. So once it is age appropriate for children to learn one, then they are old enough to learn the other.
Note this is not the same as implying that there aren't rules that exist within a culture or a setting (e.g. a school) that need to be adhered to. The presence of rules within a society tells us nothing about whether morality is considered to be objective or relative.
-
So do you think that morality is objective and fixed over time and across cultures is suitable to be taught earlier than that morality is relative and may change over time and across different cultures?
If so please justify.
To my mind neither should be taught without reference to the other, to provide balance. So once it is age appropriate for children to learn one, then they are old enough to learn the other.
Note this is not the same as implying that there aren't rules that exist within a culture or a setting (e.g. a school) that need to be adhered to. The presence of rules within a society tells us nothing about whether morality is considered to be objective or relative.
We need to teach RE, we need to teach the principles of citizenship, we need to teach ethos we must teach the law of the land we must even teach the principled campaigns of the BHA and NSS we must teach the great ethical movements and then we should go into moral realism and moral irrealism.
A disconnect between dogma and praxis of moral irrealism should be left to when such contradictions can be more maturely held.
-
We need to teach RE, we need to teach the principles of citizenship, we need to teach ethos we must teach the law of the land we must even teach the principled campaigns of the BHA and NSS we must teach the great ethical movements and then we should go into moral realism and moral irrealism.
A disconnect between dogma and praxis of moral irrealism should be left to when such contradictions can be more maturely held.
Then I think we are basically in agreement.
Thinking about this over the past day or so, my feeling is that we should embed all these elements under the broad umbrella of 'citizenship', which would be a developing curriculum strand throughout compulsory education ages. This would, of course, involve learning about religions (the major ones, not just a single one), both in terms of culture, practice and belief but also linked to morality and ethics - the latter needing to be taught alongside non religious ethical approaches.
It would also include what is currently describes as 'British Values' (I hate the term as they are no more British than most other developed nation values) eg. respect tolerance, rule of law, democracy elections etc etc. We would also include the PHSE strands too.
All aspects need to be taught in an age appropriate manner.
This citizenship strand should be compulsory and without parental opt out.
If kids want to learn more about religion etc they are free to study RE or Philosophy and Ethics at GCSE or A level.
If faith schools are to continue to exist they should also be required to cover this curriculum.
-
Then I think we are basically in agreement.
Thinking about this over the past day or so, my feeling is that we should embed all these elements under the broad umbrella of 'citizenship', which would be a developing curriculum strand throughout compulsory education ages. This would, of course, involve learning about religions (the major ones, not just a single one), both in terms of culture, practice and belief but also linked to morality and ethics - the latter needing to be taught alongside non religious ethical approaches.
It would also include what is currently describes as 'British Values' (I hate the term as they are no more British than most other developed nation values) eg. respect tolerance, rule of law, democracy elections etc etc. We would also include the PHSE strands too.
All aspects need to be taught in an age appropriate manner.
This citizenship strand should be compulsory and without parental opt out.
If kids want to learn more about religion etc they are free to study RE or Philosophy and Ethics at GCSE or A level.
If faith schools are to continue to exist they should also be required to cover this curriculum.
Talking of faith schools would that include schools whose customers had been blessed by Mammon?
-
Talking of faith schools would that include schools whose customers had been blessed by Mammon?
And which schools might those be?
-
And which schools might those be?
Independent schools into which admission is down to means to pay. Should they have the same curriculum?
-
Independent schools into which admission is down to means to pay. Should they have the same curriculum?
Interesting question.
To an extent there is a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune. So where schools are state funded then there should be significant oversight of the curriculum, but perhaps less so for independent schools which should probably have greater flexibility.
That said I think there does need to be a broad framework - so, for example I think all schools should be register (I think they currently are, or are supposed to be) and all schools should be subject to Ofsted inspection, regardless of whether they are state or private. I think there does need to be a significant focus on ensuring that the education received by all kids has a broad and balanced curriculum, and that includes children who are home schooled. And a broad and balanced curriculum should surely include the elements I mentioned that I would like to see in a broadened 'citizenship' curriculum.
While I suspect most independent schools are fine on the 'broad and balanced' curriculum requirement there is certainly concern over some islamic and jewish independent schools that effectively teach little else than religion. That is wrong and should not be allowed, as failing to provide kids with an appropriate educations is, in effect, a safeguarding issue as it is neglect.
-
Interesting question.
To an extent there is a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune. So where schools are state funded then there should be significant oversight of the curriculum, but perhaps less so for independent schools which should probably have greater flexibility.
That said I think there does need to be a broad framework - so, for example I think all schools should be register (I think they currently are, or are supposed to be) and all schools should be subject to Ofsted inspection, regardless of whether they are state or private. I think there does need to be a significant focus on ensuring that the education received by all kids has a broad and balanced curriculum, and that includes children who are home schooled. And a broad and balanced curriculum should surely include the elements I mentioned that I would like to see in a broadened 'citizenship' curriculum.
While I suspect most independent schools are fine on the 'broad and balanced' curriculum requirement there is certainly concern over some islamic and jewish independent schools that effectively teach little else than religion. That is wrong and should not be allowed, as failing to provide kids with an appropriate educations is, in effect, a safeguarding issue as it is neglect.
I can't be the only one to notice you banging on about a unified curriculum only to change tune once sponduliks is mentioned like the classic sketch of the maitre D' unable to accommodate a diner until a 50 dollar bill is flourished.
-
I can't be the only one to notice you banging on about a unified curriculum only to change tune once sponduliks is mentioned like the classic sketch of the maitre D' unable to accommodate a diner until a 50 dollar bill is flourished.
I think it was pretty clear that I was talking about state schools when discussing the unified curriculum. But I think I also made it clear that regardless of where kids are educated they should (indeed have a right to) receive an education which covers those elements, hence;
'a broad and balanced curriculum should surely include the elements I mentioned that I would like to see in a broadened 'citizenship' curriculum'
However I think that independent schools, and indeed home learners, can have a greater degree of flexibility in how they deliver it, but it still needs to be delivered.
-
Surly teaching religion in our schools, lends religion an unwarranted status, it's only worth a mention when it comes up in history lessons, because is a part of humankind's history and as such it would be senseless to try to write it out of its place in our shared history.
It might be better to start references to the various religions, dating from the annuals of the enlightenment days, for students over the age of seven years onwards, I'd be happy wit that.
Regards ippy
-
Surly teaching religion in our schools, lends religion an unwarranted status, it's only worth a mention when it comes up in history lessons, because is a part of humankind's history and as such it would be senseless to try to write it out of its place in our shared history.
It might be better to start references to the various religions, dating from the annuals of the enlightenment days, for students over the age of seven years onwards, I'd be happy wit that.
Regards ippy
So no need to think about the fact that are people are religious today
-
Surly teaching religion in our schools, lends religion an unwarranted status, it's only worth a mention when it comes up in history lessons, because is a part of humankind's history and as such it would be senseless to try to write it out of its place in our shared history.
It might be better to start references to the various religions, dating from the annuals of the enlightenment days, for students over the age of seven years onwards, I'd be happy wit that.
Regards ippy
What are'' the annuals of the enlightenment days?''
-
What are'' the annuals of the enlightenment days?''
The Beano - it enlightened me for many a good year.
-
So no need to think about the fact that are people are religious today
So sorry I didn't write a multi paged thesis for you N S, please be as disparaging as you like if you feel the need to reply, don't hold back.
Regards ippy
-
The Beano - it enlightened me for many a good year.
There's no mistaking the style Trent.
-
So sorry I didn't write a multi paged thesis for you N S, please be as disparaging as you like if you feel the need to reply, don't hold back.
Regards ippy
So sorry you needed to evade
-
The Beano - it enlightened me for many a good year.
My spell checker didn't pick it up, spelling, something I'll never master, all I can say yes and put my hands up, please be far more surprised when get it right, I'm nearly 76 now and it never gets any better, I wish.
Regourds ippy
-
So sorry you needed to evade
I knew it.
Regards ippy
-
What are'' the annuals of the enlightenment days?''
1747 - David Hume with bag on head and nothing else is the front cover, 1751 - Kant awakening out of bed from his slumber in the nude is the front cover. 1792 - the infamous philosophes with cut up dolls and blood is the front cover - banned in the U.S, where the NRA have a cover of slave children shot by a musket as the front cover
-
I knew it.
Regards ippy
Yes, I knew you wouldn't answer too.
-
My spell checker didn't pick it up, spelling, something I'll never master, all I can say yes and put my hands up, please be far more surprised when get it right, I'm nearly 76 now and it never gets any better, I wish.
Regourds ippy
Spell checker wouldn't. Right spelling, wrong word. It isn't a problem in this but it is amusing. Sometimes these are. Annals is the 'correct' one. f'narr. f'narr
Just realised the line should have been f'nnarr. f'nnarr
-
1747 - David Hume with bag on head and nothing else is the front cover, 1751 - Kant awakening out of bed from his slumber in the nude is the front cover. 1792 - the infamous philosophes with cut up dolls and blood is the front cover - banned in the U.S, where the NRA have a cover of slave children shot by a musket as the front cover
I would enjoy an article on enlightenment hats, Hume, Bentham, Pinker....No sorry that's his hair.......
-
Surly teaching religion in our schools, lends religion an unwarranted status, it's only worth a mention when it comes up in history lessons, because is a part of humankind's history and as such it would be senseless to try to write it out of its place in our shared history.
Not sure I agree with that - religion retains a significant (albeit diminishing) profile in this country, and beyond and is an important aspect of our shared and individual cultural heritage.
So I think kids should learn about the various religions, but there is currently far too much curriculum time devoted to it, which cannot, in my opinion be justified. So a refocussing, away from RE as a separate curriculum subject, but with learning about religions embedded in a broadened and more universally relevant citizenship curriculum.
Religion may, of course, raise its head in a range of other topics, including history, geography and English lit for example.
-
I would enjoy an article on enlightenment hats, Hume, Bentham, Pinker....No sorry that's his hair.......
My hat - It's a categorical Imperative says Immanuel! If I was offered the chance for the universe to end or give up my hat, it would be my hat, every time says le bon, and tres bon he is, David. This hat made most people happy says Jeremy. Stephen shows hair is better with huge graphs.
-
My hat - It's a categorical Imperative says Immanuel! If I was offered the chance for the universe to end or give up my hat, it would be my hat, every time says le bon, and tres bon he is, David. This hat made most people happy says Jeremy. Stephen shows hair is better with huge graphs.
My hat - It's a categorical Imperative says Immanuel! If I was offered the chance for the universe to end or give up my hat, it would be my hat, every time says le bon, and tres bon he is, David. This hat made most people happy says Jeremy. Stephen shows hair is better with huge graphs.
Stephen's coiffeur uses fuzzy logic.
ThanKs for your humerus contribution Sane I'm lovin' it.
-
Stephen's coiffeur uses fuzzy logic.
ThanKs for your humerus contribution Sane I'm lovin' it.
Best get my upper arm bone on stage before it wears off!
-
Not sure I agree with that - religion retains a significant (albeit diminishing) profile in this country, and beyond and is an important aspect of our shared and individual cultural heritage.
So I think kids should learn about the various religions, but there is currently far too much curriculum time devoted to it, which cannot, in my opinion be justified. So a refocussing, away from RE as a separate curriculum subject, but with learning about religions embedded in a broadened and more universally relevant citizenship curriculum.
Religion may, of course, raise its head in a range of other topics, including history, geography and English lit for example.
Yes!
-
Spell checker wouldn't. Right spelling, wrong word. It isn't a problem in this but it is amusing. Sometimes these are. Annals is the 'correct' one. f'narr. f'narr
Just realised the line should have been f'nnarr. f'nnarr
Bit of a prattish response N S, my spelling ability is so bad that although I would known the difference between those two words by the context of where they would be used, I am unable to differentiate between these sorts of instances unless they were offered up alongside each other, even then I would need to look them up to see which one of the two was the one I was looking for, I spot a few but not all of them, as in that last mistake of mine.
I can't say I look forward to seeing the next mistake you make when posting, we all do it, we all make them, at least I hold up my hands when I do, but I think you'll find that most people are adult enough to ignore the minor stuff and stick to the point, unless of course they're incurable pedants.
No doubt you find yourself something in this post to fit in with your version of humour, I thought you were an administrator on the forum and supposed to be setting an example of how to behave?
Regards ippy
-
Bit of a prattish response N S, my spelling ability is so bad that although I would known the difference between those two words by the context of where they would be used, I am unable to differentiate between these sorts of instances unless they were offered up alongside each other, even then I would need to look them up to see which one of the two was the one I was looking for, I spot a few but not all of them, as in that last mistake of mine.
I can't say I look forward to seeing the next mistake you make when posting, we all do it, we all make them, at least I hold up my hands when I do, but I think you'll find that most people are adult enough to ignore the minor stuff and stick to the point, unless of course they're incurable pedants.
No doubt you find yourself something in this post to fit in with your version of humour, I thought you were an administrator on the forum and supposed to be setting an example of how to behave?
Regards ippy
it was quite a supportive post but just pointing out we all make mistakes. And played on the idea of mistakes. Mebbe now again remove the chip?
-
it was quite a supportive post but just pointing out we all make mistakes. And played on the idea of mistakes. Mebbe now again remove the chip?
At least it's on the record N S, that you know spelling is a seriously difficult area for me, 07-21 Tuesday 27th February 2018, I'm unable to make my spelling any better than it is, of course absolutely any thing else I put in my posts is fair game and why not.
Regards ippy
-
Not sure I agree with that - religion retains a significant (albeit diminishing) profile in this country, and beyond and is an important aspect of our shared and individual cultural heritage.
So I think kids should learn about the various religions, but there is currently far too much curriculum time devoted to it, which cannot, in my opinion be justified.
Except within many schools RE is routinely and disproportionately under-supported in comparison to other subjects. In addition, whether we like it or not religion still plays a central role in many communities, their senses of identity and they ways in which they conduct themselves in society. Learning about religion is learning about other people and I am unaware of any state school RE curriculum that doesn't take that approach.
So a refocussing, away from RE as a separate curriculum subject, but with learning about religions embedded in a broadened and more universally relevant citizenship curriculum.
I couldn't agree with you more, and most RE teachers I've met feel the same. Two I know very well (my brother and sister-in-law, but no relation to each other) both take the approach that RE means Religion and Ethics, rather than Religious Education. They encourage debate and discussion as a routine part of their classroom discourse. One fine example of this approach from my sister-in-law was around the subject of abortion. She invited different people - a lawyer, a doctor, a vicar, an imam and women who had had abortions - to talk to her class briefly and give their views on abortion. They then discussed what they had heard and were encouraged to form their own views based on what they had heard. This was a secondary school by the way, GCSE students I think.
Not only are ethical and religious issues excellent for exploring critical thinking* it also exposes young people to the possibility of having to consider something from another's point of view. I can't think of another subject where this is covered in such a real and relevant way. When it comes to other subjects religion usually only gets a mention as a piece of context. In addition to that it is crucial to have some familiarity with how religion plays a part in how people relate to one another, for good or ill.
*I don't mean for one second that religion teaches critical thinking, so don't try it (I'm watching you Ippy). I mean that having to asses the positions people take because of their beliefs necessitates the weighing up of evidence, belief and personal liberty and their respective roles in motivating people to act in certain ways.
-
Learning about religion is learning about other people and I am unaware of any state school RE curriculum that doesn't take that approach.
If you mean learning about other people who aren't from your own faith tradition, then you clearly have never looked at the standard RE curriculum in RCC state schools, as determined by the Catholic Education Service. It is a wonder to behold:
http://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/images/RECD_2012.pdf
Do you really think that someone studying this curriculum would come to have any genuine understanding of a religion other than catholicism.
Note that the RCC fought tooth and nail to require pupils in their schools to follow a GCSE RE curriculum involving study of catholicism only.
-
Except within many schools RE is routinely and disproportionately under-supported in comparison to other subjects. In addition, whether we like it or not religion still plays a central role in many communities, their senses of identity and they ways in which they conduct themselves in society. Learning about religion is learning about other people and I am unaware of any state school RE curriculum that doesn't take that approach.
I couldn't agree with you more, and most RE teachers I've met feel the same. Two I know very well (my brother and sister-in-law, but no relation to each other) both take the approach that RE means Religion and Ethics, rather than Religious Education. They encourage debate and discussion as a routine part of their classroom discourse. One fine example of this approach from my sister-in-law was around the subject of abortion. She invited different people - a lawyer, a doctor, a vicar, an imam and women who had had abortions - to talk to her class briefly and give their views on abortion. They then discussed what they had heard and were encouraged to form their own views based on what they had heard. This was a secondary school by the way, GCSE students I think.
Not only are ethical and religious issues excellent for exploring critical thinking* it also exposes young people to the possibility of having to consider something from another's point of view. I can't think of another subject where this is covered in such a real and relevant way. When it comes to other subjects religion usually only gets a mention as a piece of context. In addition to that it is crucial to have some familiarity with how religion plays a part in how people relate to one another, for good or ill.
*I don't mean for one second that religion teaches critical thinking, so don't try it (I'm watching you Ippy). I mean that having to asses the positions people take because of their beliefs necessitates the weighing up of evidence, belief and personal liberty and their respective roles in motivating people to act in certain ways.
Sam, I can't be exactly certain but about a year to 18 months ago, or there about, at one of the C of E synods the subject of teaching RE was under discussion and one of the proponents was referring to these lessons in our schools as one of their main recruitment areas, of that I am certain.
Is it necessary to have the word 'Religion' within the title, I'm sure religion would be a part of any such ethical/moral part of the curriculum, is placing religion at the heading of these kinds of subjects really necessary; I would think the important parts of philosophical, ethical and moral subjects wouldn't preclude any necessity to exclude religion from the discussion, more religion wouldn't be placed on the front foot where I would think the playing field should be as even as is possible?
I'm only wanting to add these thoughts to your post, the teachers you speak of sound fine to me.
Regards ippy
-
If you mean learning about other people who aren't from your own faith tradition, then you clearly have never looked at the standard RE curriculum in RCC state schools, as determined by the Catholic Education Service. It is a wonder to behold:
http://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/images/RECD_2012.pdf
Do you really think that someone studying this curriculum would come to have any genuine understanding of a religion other than catholicism.
Note that the RCC fought tooth and nail to require pupils in their schools to follow a GCSE RE curriculum involving study of catholicism only.
Oh wow... I stand corrected. That is quite a depressing read.
-
Sam, I can't be exactly certain but about a year to 18 months ago, or there about, at one of the C of E synods the subject of teaching RE was under discussion and one of the proponents was referring to these lessons in our schools as one of their main recruitment areas, of that I am certain.
Is it necessary to have the word 'Religion' within the title, I'm sure religion would be a part of any such ethical/moral part of the curriculum, is placing religion at the heading of these kinds of subjects really necessary; I would think the important parts of philosophical, ethical and moral subjects wouldn't preclude any necessity to exclude religion from the discussion, more religion wouldn't be placed on the front foot where I would think the playing field should be as even as is possible?
I'm only wanting to add these thoughts to your post, the teachers you speak of sound fine to me.
Regards ippy
That's a good point Ippy. Part of me thinks you're right, but part of me thinks its too idealistic. Like it or not religion is still front a centre for great swathes of society. Should school be about presenting what 'should be' not 'what is' about the world? I dunno... there's a debate to be had there I guess.
-
That's a good point Ippy. Part of me thinks you're right, but part of me thinks its too idealistic. Like it or not religion is still front a centre for great swathes of society. Should school be about presenting what 'should be' not 'what is' about the world? I dunno... there's a debate to be had there I guess.
I think a part of where you seem to think I'm being to idealistic, is where we have all including myself have become accustomed to seeing religions automatically placed in the front seat, from my point of view I would rather see all areas becoming more secularised, including this one under discussion here.
Actions such as withdrawing the word religion from these discussions may seem to be a small point until we hear the protest, I'm sure would follow, comming from the religious believing world, if the word religion were to be dropped from these discussions and we had titled, ie, Moral & ethical lessons within our schools.
I realise it may look like me banging, perhaps I am but not without good reason, on but in front of any other of my dislikes of religion when it's unjustifiably pushed to the fore front, is the teaching of religion to the very youngest most vulnerable school children when it is common knowledge that the average age children acquire the ability to reason for themselves is seven years old onwards, bit of a coincidence the largest amount of schools run by the C of E happen to cover up to seven year old children, funny that.
I'm certain removing the word religion from the subjects of moral and ethical discussions would be looked on by any religious organisation, as persecution, they generally do with any point like this, when really it's only about acquiring a level playing field, even though people, including myself, have no legitmate reason to want to remove people that hold religious beliefs from the discussions.
It's important to remove the word religion as I have described above, it's no small point.
Regards ippy
-
I think a part of where you seem to think I'm being to idealistic, is where we have all including myself have become accustomed to seeing religions automatically placed in the front seat, from my point of view I would rather see all areas becoming more secularised, including this one under discussion here.
Actions such as withdrawing the word religion from these discussions may seem to be a small point until we hear the protest, I'm sure would follow, comming from the religious believing world, if the word religion were to be dropped from these discussions and we had titled, ie, Moral & ethical lessons within our schools.
I realise it may look like me banging, perhaps I am but not without good reason, on but in front of any other of my dislikes of religion when it's unjustifiably pushed to the fore front, is the teaching of religion to the very youngest most vulnerable school children when it is common knowledge that the average age children acquire the ability to reason for themselves is seven years old onwards, bit of a coincidence the largest amount of schools run by the C of E happen to cover up to seven year old children, funny that.
I'm certain removing the word religion from the subjects of moral and ethical discussions would be looked on by any religious organisation, as persecution, they generally do with any point like this, when really it's only about acquiring a level playing field, even though people, including myself, have no legitmate reason to want to remove people that hold religious beliefs from the discussions.
It's important to remove the word religion as I have described above, it's no small point.
Regards ippy
I'm inclined to agree - to use Religion & Ethics somehow implies that ethics is somehow necessary associated with religion, which, of course, doesn't need to be the case and there are plenty of ethical approaches that are not religious at all. Sure it would seem odd to have a comprehensive approach to ethics that didn't recognise religion as a source of some religious approaches, but it should be no more, nor less than that.
Hence my suggestion of a substantially broadened Citizenship curriculum which would cover a lot of ground, including discussion of 'right' and 'wrong' and therefore ethics. That would include religious and non religious approaches in a balanced and neutral manner. And would crucially focus on the individual and their developing view of right and wrong themselves.