Why RE is essential

[Rhiannon]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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. 

[Rhiannon]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[Robbie]

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.)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

(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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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