How to protect children/vulnerable from Christian emotional abuse?

[Outrider]

There is nothing wrong in teaching children about other religions, provided you do so, not some watered down version that is untrue.

In principle that's fine - there's an area of discussion to be had about what's 'true' for any given faith, but as I understand it the various religious affiliations are invited to give their input into what the national curriculum teaches about each faith.

For example, a friend's daughter was given an essay to write on Orthodox Judaism and what steps they would take if an orthodox Jewish child was coming to tea and for a sleep over at their house. ( my friend isn't Jewish)

It was worded as if this was something quite reasonable to expect a non Jewish household to come across.

If it had been a reformed Jewish friend was coming over to stay, it wouldn't have been so bad.

Whatever the school was teaching the children, it wasn't really about Orthodox Judaism otherwise they would not have framed the question in the way they did.

I asked some Orthodox Jews I knew at the time, and basically it wouldn't happen.

So they created a situation to try to get children to see things from a given faith position, and your objection is that it didn't take into account the fact that this particular faith position is tribal and insular and wouldn't actually be sociable enough to go visit someone?

Do you actually think that's supporting your point or mine?

That still doesn't address the underlying point of the discussion - do you think a parents' religious viewpoint trumps their child's right to free, informed choice?

It's a tough call, and I'm not going to pretend that my lack of any noticable faith position probably informs my take on it - or, perhaps, my underlying nature informs my take on it and my atheism - but that doesn't invalidate the question or my position.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

For example, a friend's daughter was given an essay to write on Orthodox Judaism and what steps they would take if an orthodox Jewish child was coming to tea and for a sleep over at their house. ( my friend isn't Jewish)

It was worded as if this was something quite reasonable to expect a non Jewish household to come across.

Guess what if we had more integrated education rather than doing this as a theoretical exercise, she and her parents might actually be doing this for real. And how much better that would be in terms of learning about different cultures. And of course it cuts both ways as the orthodox jewish kid would learn about other cultures too.

And how appalling to bring this across as something 'reasonable' - so important for us to make it absolutely clear that never, ever, ever should an orthodox jewish child play and interact with a non orthodox jewish child.

Hmm there is a history of that kind of ghettoisation, and we know where that lead don't we.

[Outrider]

No, my objection is they didn't do their research properly before setting  a question, and that people such as yourself use terms like " tribal" "insular" and " unsocial" to judge someone else's religion because you can't be bothered to see a different POV or even explore why it wouldn't happen.

It's insular - why it's insular isn't something I went in to, but it blatantly is insular if they won't interact with people from outside of their faith group. And, again, why should a child be condemned to that insular existence?

My friends daughter was being taught things which were inaccurate about a different faith which is as bad as not being taught anything.

And people in faith schools are taught things which are incorrect or negatively spun about history, culture, other religions and science.

Sometimes that's deliberate, sometimes it's just poor teaching I don't doubt.

I note you still haven't addressed the question I asked which is, I believe, at the crux of this discussion: do you believe that a parent's religious affiliation trumps their child's right to self-determination?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

My friends daughter was being taught things which were inaccurate about a different faith which is as bad as not being taught anything.

Maybe so, just as people are taught things which are inaccurate about humanism and atheism. In neither case do I see that as a good thing.

But if there is active encouragement for integrated education, as opposed to the current situation, where ensure each little faith community has its own insular school, then your friend's daughter would be much more likely to get an accurate picture, because guess what the child sat next to her might pipe up and say 'no, miss, it isn't like that, we do this' and put the teacher right if something inaccurate is being portrayed.

 

[floo]

Children should be taught the basis of all the main world's religions as a general knowledge exercise, not as a means of proselytising.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh! Are you one of those people who object to Jews coming to live next to you because it leads to "ghettoisation" ?

I'm not, we almost had a large  community of Hasidic Jews live within walking distance from my home, objectors said it would lead to ghettoisation, whatever that is.

Unfortunately the objectors won. 

I was very disappointed, I would have loved some Jewish neighbours even if they kept to themselves.

Unfortunately I think both you and the NSS have some very unrealistic expectations of sections of our society which is going to cause more resentment, rather than less.

You really do need to try and see the other POV before you start inflicting your ideals on them.

Attitudes like yours just get used by extremists as ammunition.

Blimey you really are losing it now.

No I don't object and actually I have lived in areas of north London that have a large jewish community. Currently (I fully accept) I live in an area that has a smaller jewish community but is erasable mixed, with a large muslim population nearby. Certainly very mixed considering it is a pretty affluent area. And I work in one of the most diverse melting pots in the country if not europe.

And no I don't like mono-cultures, I like to live, work, socialise etc etc with people from all sorts of backgrounds and indeed that's what I do.

And no I don't have unreasonable expectations at all. We've had a problem over the past few decades with successive governments pandering to a multicultural agenda, which was never what I consider multiculturalism to be. Effectively the agenda promulgated was one where groups (often defined by religion or nationality) were supported in living completely separate lives although maybe within a similar geographic area, so that the did not interact. And a key component was effectively separate schooling.

That's not multiculturalism to me. In my view multiculturalism is where interactions are supported and over time communities evolve as they take on aspects of other communities. And in doing so that interaction is much more likely to be respectful and supportive, rather than the current suspicions of 'them' who are different and we don't have anything to do with.

I fully understand that some communities are resistant to this, but that's social engineering as your are very unlikely to see this kind of suspicious behaviour between a group of 4 year olds. And in the interests of individual freedoms I think it is important for government to encourage integration and to provide opportunities for the children of parents from one cultural background or religion to choose a different path for themselves as well, of course, as having the opportunity to retain that religion of cultural heritage.

That's what freedom of religion means - it is about the individual being free to chose their religion regardless of their background. It isn't about saying that a religion and its culture must be allowed to socially engineer to make it extremely difficult for an individual to exercise their freedom to chose their religion (which of course may mean choosing a religion that isn't the same as their parents, or even to become non religious).

[Outrider]

When they are children yes, they are a part of their parents community and are part of a family unit.

Then that's where we disagree. I don't see that the parents' have the right to limit the child's future. That's the underlying principle that the NSS' position on education is founded upon. The fact that a child is born to Orthodox Jewish parents should mean their childhood is deprived of the full richness of human experience.

No one, IMO, has more rights than a parent, when it comes to the religious community and family a child belongs to.

Not even the child?

No one, not even a teacher has a right to break that up. ( only the social services if something is going on,  that breaks other expectations, such as abuse)

That I'd agree on - the right to family security is important, more important that other people's opinion on how your family is organised, but not more important than the child's right to know that there are other ways of living out there.

Children don't have self determination until they are older, unless someone starts grooming them especially young children.

And that's what religious schooling is about, it's about grooming them. That's what the insular mechanic of Orthodox Judaism is about, it's about isolating them from ideas and depicting the outside world as 'other'. As you say, children don't have self-determination until they're older, but they don't have informed choices if they're never exposed to the implications and benefits of those choices.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, my objection is they didn't do their research properly before setting  a question, and that people such as yourself use terms like " tribal" "insular" and " unsocial" to judge someone else's religion because you can't be bothered to see a different POV or even explore why it wouldn't happen.

It's insular - why it's insular isn't something I went in to, but it blatantly is insular if they won't interact with people from outside of their faith group. And, again, why should a child be condemned to that insular existence?

My friends daughter was being taught things which were inaccurate about a different faith which is as bad as not being taught anything.

And people in faith schools are taught things which are incorrect or negatively spun about history, culture, other religions and science.

Sometimes that's deliberate, sometimes it's just poor teaching I don't doubt.

I note you still haven't addressed the question I asked which is, I believe, at the crux of this discussion: do you believe that a parent's religious affiliation trumps their child's right to self-determination?

O.

When they are children yes, they are a part of their parents community and are part of a family unit.

No one, IMO, has more rights than a parent, when it comes to the religious community and family a child belongs to.

No one, not even a teacher has a right to break that up. ( only the social services if something is going on,  that breaks other expectations, such as abuse)

Children don't have self determination until they are older, unless someone starts grooming them,  especially young children.

With rights come responsibilities Rose.

People are often all too quick to talk about their 'rights' but too slow to recognise their 'responsibilities'.

If you believe in freedom of religion then one of your responsibilities as a parent is to support your children in being able to exercise that freedom of religion as they are growing up. A parent that does not offer the opportunity for their child to take a different path to themselves should they chose either doesn't understand what freedom of religion is, or if they do aren't really taking their responsibilities seriously. Or perhaps they don't really believe in freedom of religion.

[ProfessorDavey]

No one, IMO, has more rights than a parent, when it comes to the religious community and family a child belongs to.

Not even the child?
[/quote]Game, set and match.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh! Are you one of those people who object to Jews coming to live next to you because it leads to "ghettoisation" ?

You do understand what a non-sense statement that is.

By definition ghettoisation is where one culture group lives next to people of the same cultural group. So if a jewish family moved next door to me that wouldn't by definition be ghettoisation as they be living next door on one side to a 'mixed faith' family with parents atheist and catholic, and on the other (either way) to families that are not actively religious (no idea whether atheist, agnostic etc, not the kind of conversation I tend to have). And up and down the road I know of practicing anglicans, muslims, practicing and non practicing jewish families. And of course (this being the UK) a majority that aren't actively involved in any religion.

Some 'ghetto'.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh! Are you one of those people who object to Jews coming to live next to you because it leads to "ghettoisation" ?

You do understand what a non-sense statement that is.

By definition ghettoisation is where one culture group lives next to people of the same cultural group. So if a jewish family moved next door to me that wouldn't by definition be ghettoisation as they be living next door on one side to a 'mixed faith' family with parents atheist and catholic, and on the other (either way) to families that are not actively religious (no idea whether atheist, agnostic etc, not the kind of conversation I tend to have). And up and down the road I know of practicing anglicans, muslims, practicing and non practicing jewish families. And of course (this being the UK) a majority that aren't actively involved in any religion.

Some 'ghetto'.

No, what was proposed was that the Hasidic Jewish community moved enmasse and in effect took over a whole area, within walking distance from me.

They weren't dispersed among people of other faiths, the proposal was they move in almost like a little village .....

They would have had their  own shops schools etc
I didn't  have an issue with that.

Some people saw that as leading to ghettoisation

Well unsurprisingly, given that I believe in integration, integrated schooling and people from different backgrounds and cultures living together, working together and interacting together as a community, yes I would have a problem with that.

And don't get me wrong this isn't anything to do with religion - I'd have the same issue if the group was from any other cultural background.

To suggest this is appropriate is the grossest form of social engineering - but I thought you were against social engineering, clearly not.

Groups of people with different cultural backgrounds living together (i.e. near each other) but effectively separate (i.e. never interacting) is a problem.

[Outrider]

No, what was proposed was that the Hasidic Jewish community moved enmasse and in effect took over a whole area, within walking distance from me.

They weren't dispersed among people of other faiths, the proposal was they move in almost like a little village .....

They would have had their  own shops schools etc
I didn't  have an issue with that.

Some people saw that as leading to ghettoisation

I can't imagine why people would think that building a complete, segregated community for a sub-culture would be seen as ghettoisation?

ghetto ‎(plural ghettos or ghettoes or ghetti)

An (often walled) area of a city in which Jews are concentrated by force and law. (Used particularly of areas in medieval Italy and in Nazi-controlled Europe.)  [quotations ▼]
An (often impoverished) area of a city inhabited predominantly by members of a specific nationality, ethnicity or race.  [quotations ▼]
An area in which people who are distinguished by sharing something other than ethnicity concentrate or are concentrated.

Oh, that's why - because it's pretty much the definition of a ghetto.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh! Are you one of those people who object to Jews coming to live next to you because it leads to "ghettoisation" ?

You do understand what a non-sense statement that is.

By definition ghettoisation is where one culture group lives next to people of the same cultural group. So if a jewish family moved next door to me that wouldn't by definition be ghettoisation as they be living next door on one side to a 'mixed faith' family with parents atheist and catholic, and on the other (either way) to families that are not actively religious (no idea whether atheist, agnostic etc, not the kind of conversation I tend to have). And up and down the road I know of practicing anglicans, muslims, practicing and non practicing jewish families. And of course (this being the UK) a majority that aren't actively involved in any religion.

Some 'ghetto'.

No, what was proposed was that the Hasidic Jewish community moved enmasse and in effect took over a whole area, within walking distance from me.

They weren't dispersed among people of other faiths, the proposal was they move in almost like a little village .....

They would have had their  own shops schools etc
I didn't  have an issue with that.

Some people saw that as leading to ghettoisation

Well unsurprisingly, given that I believe in integration, integrated schooling and people from different backgrounds and cultures living together, working together and interacting together as a community, yes I would have a problem with that.

And don't get me wrong this isn't anything to do with religion - I'd have the same issue if the group was from any other cultural background.

To suggest this is appropriate is the grossest form of social engineering - but I thought you were against social engineering, clearly not.

Groups of people with different cultural backgrounds living together (i.e. near each other) but effectively separate (i.e. never interacting) is a problem.

Not always, the Jewish community in London have been doing it for years.

Plus when we have had large numbers of migrants they have always been put together by the state anyway, thinking of the ones I met at about 13 when Amin threw them all out, before they all seemed to move to Leicester.

It's not their fault, in a lot of cases that's where they were put.


Also people who share the same culture and language always seem to want to live near each other and naturally seem to group together.

British ex pats in Spain and Portugal being an example.

I think there is a natural tendency for people to want to have a decent number of people of the same cultural background as them around. That's not what I am talking about. I am talking about engineering a situation where a group detaches itself from the rest of society and lives in isolation. That's isn't good, whether you are talking about the jewish community, ex pats in spain or groups of new immigrants. And where local authorities are involved they should pander to that social engineering extreme.

So where there are large groups of immigrants arriving it is best to distribute these people into many communities in such a way that they still have sufficient 'like minded' support network, but necessarily will need to start integrating with the rest of the community. And of course the best and easiest way to do this is through education and schooling. So the child of refugees for example rapidly starts learning english at school and integrating with the rest of the community. They can help break down language barriers with the rest of the community etc. But that doesn't mean they lose their cultural background.

I can think of countless examples of such communities. Think of the west of Scotland italian communities (also in Welsh valleys) - exceptionally well integrated, but also retaining a proud heritage of their italian origins. Plus of course responsible for some major ice cream output!

[ProfessorDavey]

Plus when we have had large numbers of migrants they have always been put together by the state anyway, thinking of the ones I met at about 13 when Amin threw them all out, before they all seemed to move to Leicester.

The Ugandan asian refugees of the 1970s are an excellent example of integration. Although you might have thought they all ended up in Leicester (and sure a lot did) the greatest number ended up in London but many also elsewhere.

But as a group there was a strong focus on integration and education (I knew a few in school and had a couple of friends at university - sadly one since died) from that community. There was never a sense that they wanted to keep themselves to themselves to the exclusion of the existing communities. Quite the opposite, most I knew were absolutely dedicate to integrate into the existing communities and indeed to educate themselves and work hard, succeed and to rise to the top levels within that community. And many have done, including Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, John Sentamu, Shriti Vadera and others.

Should point out, of course, that unlike the other two John Sentamu wasn't a Ugandan asian but was a refugee from the Amin regime.

[Rhiannon]

My best friend growing up was an Asian girl of Indian descent whose family came here because of Amin. They most definitely did integrate very well; she was allowed to go to all kinds of places with me and even came on holiday with us, whilst I benefitted hugely from joining her cultural celebrations as family. Her parents and mine even exchanged Christmas gifts.

[ProfessorDavey]

My best friend growing up was an Asian girl of Indian descent whose family came here because of Amin. They most definitely did integrate very well; she was allowed to go to all kinds of places with me and even came on holiday with us, whilst I benefitted hugely from joining her cultural celebrations as family. Her parents and mine even exchanged Christmas gifts.

I think actually many of the Ugandan asians almost went to opposite extreme and remember they were two times migrants have earlier relocated from India in the late 19thC. So I think many wanted to actually become almost 'uber' members of the establishment - top doctors, top lawyers etc etc and out-Englishing the English so to speak. And many have been very successful.

[BashfulAnthony]

I suppose the answer needs to be far wider-reaching than 'Christian' extremism, Floo.  I can think of young people,bought up by fundamentalist Muslim, Hindu and atheist parents, who have exhibited far greater damage in later life than any from Christian extremist thinking that I've heard of. 

In a way, I think that the appearance of this topic on the 'Christian Topic' board is misleading and should probably be on something like the Religion and Ethics board (though that could be a problem since some would then argue that it exonerates atheism).  After all, Jesus' teaching - in fact,the whole of the New Testament - as well as the Bhavadgita and the Qur'an, deals with the route that people chose to take in life very differently from the extreme forms that many such extremist groups teach.

A least the atheist parents in  general don't tell lies about things that they nor anyone else can possibly know.

I doubt very much that religious believers point out the difference between beliefs and established facts and if they do I'll take a bet it's kept  low key.

ippy

And how on earth do you know that?  A truly absurd assertion.  It's not just religion you can indoctrinate people in  -  didn't you know that?

[Outrider]

And how on earth do you know that?  A truly absurd assertion.  It's not just religion you can indoctrinate people in  -  didn't you know that?

That's true, as we've seen in such cases as the Soviet era, where atheism was indoctrinated. The NSS explicitly is wanting to avoid that, they are actively in favour of a broad-based curriculum of Religious Education about all faiths to all children - the exact opposite of indoctrination.

BA, I appreciate your comment was in response to particular comments from Ippy, but I didn't want the NSS case to be lost in the fray.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

And how on earth do you know that?  A truly absurd assertion.  It's not just religion you can indoctrinate people in  -  didn't you know that?

That's true, as we've seen in such cases as the Soviet era, where atheism was indoctrinated. The NSS explicitly is wanting to avoid that, they are actively in favour of a broad-based curriculum of Religious Education about all faiths to all children - the exact opposite of indoctrination.

BA, I appreciate your comment was in response to particular comments from Ippy, but I didn't want the NSS case to be lost in the fray.

O.

Fair enough.

[ProfessorDavey]

And how on earth do you know that?  A truly absurd assertion.  It's not just religion you can indoctrinate people in  -  didn't you know that?

That's true, as we've seen in such cases as the Soviet era, where atheism was indoctrinated. The NSS explicitly is wanting to avoid that, they are actively in favour of a broad-based curriculum of Religious Education about all faiths to all children - the exact opposite of indoctrination.

BA, I appreciate your comment was in response to particular comments from Ippy, but I didn't want the NSS case to be lost in the fray.

O.

There is often a suggestion that the ideal is a broad and balanced education, and of course I agree. But that is sometimes merely an ideal and given the amount we wish our children to learn and the limited amount of time something has to give, breadth or balance (or actually depth of learning).

In the case of RE (which let's face it is an opinion-based subject rather than a 'fact' based subject, such as maths or science) then I think it is critical that balance is maintained. It is better that children learn a little about a range of opinions, religious and non religious in a philosophical context and therefore are able to balance and recognise that a 'range of opinions are available' rather than to lose balance and have the curriculum dominated by a single point of view (whether that be a specific religion or humanism etc). In that way balance would be lost and the children may end up feeling that this is the 'only' approach. Better actually not to cover anything rather than to provide an grossly unbalanced curriculum in my opinion.

[Outrider]

There is often a suggestion that the ideal is a broad and balanced education, and of course I agree. But that is sometimes merely an ideal and given the amount we wish our children to learn and the limited amount of time something has to give, breadth or balance (or actually depth of learning).

That, then, becomes a question of 'is religious education of sufficient merit to justify time on the curriculum at all', rather than should people be able to replace religious education in single-faith schools with religious indoctrination.

In the case of RE (which let's face it is an opinion-based subject rather than a 'fact' based subject, such as maths or science) then I think it is critical that balance is maintained.

Religious Education is not opinion based. Religions definitively exist, even if the objects of their worship aren't demonstrable: Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology, these are all real organisations and traditions, with political, cultural and social impact and influence. In the modern world, where one of the more pressing clashes is the cultural interaction in an increasingly multi-cultural world, knowing at least some of the fundamentals of these is a useful part of an education.

It is better that children learn a little about a range of opinions, religious and non religious in a philosophical context and therefore are able to balance and recognise that a 'range of opinions are available' rather than to lose balance and have the curriculum dominated by a single point of view (whether that be a specific religion or humanism etc).

Absolutely agree, and that's what I'd advocate, and what the National Curriculum on religious education makes a reasonable fist at delivering; the problem comes when schools are given the right to ditch that in favour of their own faith-based, potentially insular viewpoint.

In that way balance would be lost and the children may end up feeling that this is the 'only' approach. Better actually not to cover anything rather than to provide an grossly unbalanced curriculum in my opinion.

I disagree, I think they're just different kinds of terrible: both of them create situations where ignorance leads to categorisation of 'other'. Children should be exposed to these ideas and traditions and cultures so that they are normalised, and then much of the fear and suspicion that feeds into racism and religious bigotry would be undermined at source.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is often a suggestion that the ideal is a broad and balanced education, and of course I agree. But that is sometimes merely an ideal and given the amount we wish our children to learn and the limited amount of time something has to give, breadth or balance (or actually depth of learning).

That, then, becomes a question of 'is religious education of sufficient merit to justify time on the curriculum at all', rather than should people be able to replace religious education in single-faith schools with religious indoctrination.

Indeed - see comment below.

In the case of RE (which let's face it is an opinion-based subject rather than a 'fact' based subject, such as maths or science) then I think it is critical that balance is maintained.

Religious Education is not opinion based. Religions definitively exist, even if the objects of their worship aren't demonstrable: Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology, these are all real organisations and traditions, with political, cultural and social impact and influence. In the modern world, where one of the more pressing clashes is the cultural interaction in an increasingly multi-cultural world, knowing at least some of the fundamentals of these is a useful part of an education.

Sorry I think you are misunderstanding what I meant by opinion based, or perhaps I didn't explain it properly. Of course religions and religious belief exists, but what I am talking about is that whether or not someone choses to be part of a religion, their acceptance or otherwise of the moral teaching is opinion-based. In my opinion homosexuality is fine, in the opinion of someone else it isn't fine (perhaps based on religious teaching. So in a manner this is similar to politics - our alignment with different politics views is opinion, there is no 'fact' - you cannot prove that right wing ideology is 'better' than left wing ideology but it may be your opinion that it is. Same with religion. But I guess at least with politics you can more clearly see the effects of implementation of policy, whereas many of the claims of religion (specifically gods, life after death etc) cannot be assessed. So where we are discussing differences of opinion (whether religious or political) as part of education (and certainly state education) balance and lack of bias is key - otherwise it appears that one opinion is favoured by the state.

It is better that children learn a little about a range of opinions, religious and non religious in a philosophical context and therefore are able to balance and recognise that a 'range of opinions are available' rather than to lose balance and have the curriculum dominated by a single point of view (whether that be a specific religion or humanism etc).

Absolutely agree, and that's what I'd advocate, and what the National Curriculum on religious education makes a reasonable fist at delivering; the problem comes when schools are given the right to ditch that in favour of their own faith-based, potentially insular viewpoint.

Indeed - parents may chose to 'unbalance' their children's education toward one religious or political opinion, but the state, and therefore state funded schools, should never be party to that 'unbalancing'.

In that way balance would be lost and the children may end up feeling that this is the 'only' approach. Better actually not to cover anything rather than to provide an grossly unbalanced curriculum in my opinion.

I disagree, I think they're just different kinds of terrible: both of them create situations where ignorance leads to categorisation of 'other'. Children should be exposed to these ideas and traditions and cultures so that they are normalised, and then much of the fear and suspicion that feeds into racism and religious bigotry would be undermined at source.

O.

Referring back to your earlier response, I'm not sure we are disagreeing. Effectively what I am saying is that RE must be balanced, or it should be ditched from the curriculum altogether. I'm not actually convinced of the arguments that RE must be essential due to the importance of religion. Sure it is desirable for children to learn about all sorts of things, but there are things which fail to be covered in the standard curriculum (or barely covered) - for example much of political thought and opinion, that have far greater impact on society and everyone in it than religion. Certainly in the UK it is pretty easy to live your life with barely a ripple of influence from religion, and indeed most people do. The importance placed on religion within the school curriculum outstrips its importance within society, and more specifically the younger population in society.

[Outrider]

Sorry I think you are misunderstanding what I meant by opinion based, or perhaps I didn't explain it properly. Of course religions and religious belief exists, but what I am talking about is that whether or not someone choses to be part of a religion, their acceptance or otherwise of the moral teaching is opinion-based.

Apologies, yes, I did take it rather more simplistically than it appears you'd intended. Despite that, I think the point still stands - religious education isn't about whether or not the individual child is or isn't from a particular tradition or whether or not the child 'should' adopt a particular position, that's an issue for the life outside of education and their personal choice. The education is about exposing them to the ideas and traditions of all of those religious outlooks so that a) they have an informed choice about which, if any, they might wish to join, and b) they have an understanding of the multiplicity of people who might be in their community.

In my opinion homosexuality is fine, in the opinion of someone else it isn't fine (perhaps based on religious teaching. So in a manner this is similar to politics - our alignment with different politics views is opinion, there is no 'fact' - you cannot prove that right wing ideology is 'better' than left wing ideology but it may be your opinion that it is. Same with religion. But I guess at least with politics you can more clearly see the effects of implementation of policy, whereas many of the claims of religion (specifically gods, life after death etc) cannot be assessed. So where we are discussing differences of opinion (whether religious or political) as part of education (and certainly state education) balance and lack of bias is key - otherwise it appears that one opinion is favoured by the state.

I don't disagree, and I think there's certainly an argument for including the fundamentals of political positions in PHSE lessons at some point, especially as students approach the point where they are eligible to vote, which is increasingly looking like it might drop to 16 in the near future.

Indeed - parents may chose to 'unbalance' their children's education toward one religious or political opinion, but the state, and therefore state funded schools, should never be party to that 'unbalancing'.

I don't think, on review, that we're that far apart on our thinking

[quote Referring back to your earlier response, I'm not sure we are disagreeing.

See, told you

Effectively what I am saying is that RE must be balanced, or it should be ditched from the curriculum altogether. I'm not actually convinced of the arguments that RE must be essential due to the importance of religion.

I think, in the current climate, no education is worse than poor education, but I think that single-faith indoctrination is no education at all. I'd love a world where the general culture was so mixed and accepting that we didn't need that education in the schools, and religious education was unnecessary and we could spend the time in schools on more progressive topics.

Certainly in the UK it is pretty easy to live your life with barely a ripple of influence from religion, and indeed most people do.

In some places that's the case, in others in the UK it really isn't, and in the international sense it's increasingly difficult to separate political and religious sentiment with the Islamic upheaval in the middle East and America's continued internal fundamentalist Christian pressure.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sorry I think you are misunderstanding what I meant by opinion based, or perhaps I didn't explain it properly. Of course religions and religious belief exists, but what I am talking about is that whether or not someone choses to be part of a religion, their acceptance or otherwise of the moral teaching is opinion-based.

Apologies, yes, I did take it rather more simplistically than it appears you'd intended. Despite that, I think the point still stands - religious education isn't about whether or not the individual child is or isn't from a particular tradition or whether or not the child 'should' adopt a particular position, that's an issue for the life outside of education and their personal choice. The education is about exposing them to the ideas and traditions of all of those religious outlooks so that a) they have an informed choice about which, if any, they might wish to join, and b) they have an understanding of the multiplicity of people who might be in their community.

In my opinion homosexuality is fine, in the opinion of someone else it isn't fine (perhaps based on religious teaching. So in a manner this is similar to politics - our alignment with different politics views is opinion, there is no 'fact' - you cannot prove that right wing ideology is 'better' than left wing ideology but it may be your opinion that it is. Same with religion. But I guess at least with politics you can more clearly see the effects of implementation of policy, whereas many of the claims of religion (specifically gods, life after death etc) cannot be assessed. So where we are discussing differences of opinion (whether religious or political) as part of education (and certainly state education) balance and lack of bias is key - otherwise it appears that one opinion is favoured by the state.

I don't disagree, and I think there's certainly an argument for including the fundamentals of political positions in PHSE lessons at some point, especially as students approach the point where they are eligible to vote, which is increasingly looking like it might drop to 16 in the near future.

Indeed - parents may chose to 'unbalance' their children's education toward one religious or political opinion, but the state, and therefore state funded schools, should never be party to that 'unbalancing'.

I don't think, on review, that we're that far apart on our thinking

[quote Referring back to your earlier response, I'm not sure we are disagreeing.

See, told you

Effectively what I am saying is that RE must be balanced, or it should be ditched from the curriculum altogether. I'm not actually convinced of the arguments that RE must be essential due to the importance of religion.

I think, in the current climate, no education is worse than poor education, but I think that single-faith indoctrination is no education at all. I'd love a world where the general culture was so mixed and accepting that we didn't need that education in the schools, and religious education was unnecessary and we could spend the time in schools on more progressive topics.

Certainly in the UK it is pretty easy to live your life with barely a ripple of influence from religion, and indeed most people do.

In some places that's the case, in others in the UK it really isn't, and in the international sense it's increasingly difficult to separate political and religious sentiment with the Islamic upheaval in the middle East and America's continued internal fundamentalist Christian pressure.

O.

I guess the question is about the relationship between religion and geo-politics.

Certainly there are major conflicts that may affect people in the UK, including the risk of terrorist activities, but the point is whether we need actually to understand the 'fundamentals' or merely the kind of geopolitics.

So perhaps an analogy to my own childhood. I was brought up through the 1970s and early 80s which was a time of major conflict in Northern Ireland which impacted the UK greatly (arguably far more greatly than the current ISIS threat). Now, without doubt there was a clear religious element to the conflict, but was it necessary to understand the differences between protestant and catholic theology to gain an understanding of the conflict. I'm really not sure it was - of course that level of in depth knowledge may be useful, but the geopolitics was more about the historical interaction between Britain and Ireland, rather than directly about differences in religious belief (although there is an underpinning there). So in the absence of huge amounts of time to study everything, I think the most important elements to understand were the geopolitics and not the religion per se.

So back to current geo-political situation - a major element to the current conflicts relate to similar sectarian divisions between shia and sunni islam. Does an understanding of the distinctions between the two really help us understand the conflict, rather than simply a recognition (as with protestant and catholic) of long standing animosity and conflict between the two sectarian factions. Likewise is an understanding of the differences between Islam and Judaism essential to understand the current conflict between Israel and other countries in the middle east - I'm not sure it is. And certainly knowing about the geo-politics but not about the distinctions between the religions on a theological level is going to take you far further toward understanding the conflict than the other way around.

[Sassy]

The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way.
No one can force them as history shows.
Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.