Why RE is essential

[ippy]

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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Beano - it enlightened me for many a good year.

There's no mistaking the style Trent.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[ippy]

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

[ippy]

So sorry you needed to evade

I knew it.

Regards ippy

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Nearly Sane]

I knew it.

Regards ippy

Yes, I knew you wouldn't answer too. 

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.......

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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!

[Robbie]

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!

[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

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 

 

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[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?

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

[Samuel]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ippy]

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

     

[Samuel]

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.

[Samuel]

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.

[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.

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.