Should Religious Education Be Taught In Schools?

[Chinahand]

I suppose I'm not adding that much to this thread ... its all been said before, but anyway ...

 

I'm in favour of the compulsory teaching of "cultural studies" or similar in schools. It should include the full range of beliefs that exist in the world. Most especially humanism, agnosticism and atheism as well as the standard religious beliefs. I also think the different sects of the major religions should be given emphasis: the Quakers, Mormons, Prespreterians, Suffis and Shi'ites etc. Make it clear that belief is a fractured environment.

 

As Robert Heinlein said: "One man's theology is another man's belly laugh."

 

I had to sit though daily religious services and Church on Sunday; and I do not want my children growing up uncritically believing anything.

 

I'd also like schools to teach critical thinking, rational thought and a proper understanding of the scientific method. The spread of fundamentalism, new age and quasi religious mumbo jumbo shows that too many people in this world remain far too credulous.

[sarahc]

Most of us here, if we were educated in the British Isles in the last 50 years, would have been given religious instruction to some extent.

The fact that those who have posted here seem to have a healthy scepticism suggests to me that this level of teaching that occurs in state schools is not that dangerous.

Even in the so-called C of E secondary school I went to most of us managed to come out the other end without being too damaged or brainwashed.

In my opinion as long as we have a state religion, religion will continue to be taught in state schools.

[Lonan3]

As a confirmed atheist I might be expected to oppose the teaching of religion in schools. However, having studied 'world religions' with the Open University, I've found that it has given a much better understanding of the beliefs that motivate people in their daily lives. Any study of history, for example, must be incomplete without some knowledge of various faiths.

Failure to learn about the Jewish diaspora, for example, would leave us with little knowledge of the impact that it has had on own society; knowing nothing of the conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims would leave no understanding of their present conflict in Iraq. A failure to learn about the differences between Catholic and Protestant Christianity would make it impossible to understand Tudor England or 20th Century Northern Ireland and so on.

Learning about religion, therefore, is not only acceptable but, IMO, essential to our understanding of the mores and conflicts in today's world. Trying to instil a specific belief system into children is, however, morally reprehensible as far as I'm concerned.

[VinnieK]

I suppose I'm not adding that much to this thread ... its all been said before, but anyway ...

 

I'm in favour of the compulsory teaching of "cultural studies" or similar in schools. It should include the full range of beliefs that exist in the world. Most especially humanism, agnosticism and atheism as well as the standard religious beliefs. I also think the different sects of the major religions should be given emphasis: the Quakers, Mormons, Prespreterians, Suffis and Shi'ites etc. Make it clear that belief is a fractured environment.

 

I agree with teaching the different schools of thought within a religion, but I'm not too bothered about a full coverage of different beliefs being given, in so much that a great amount of time is spent analysing each to an equal degree. This isn't because I don't think that they're any less important or interesting, but rather I don't have that much of a problem with a smallish majority of time spent covering one religion. The reasons for this are:

 

1. Every country teaches its own culture first and foremost. There's not that much controversy about English schools dedicating the larger part of History and English to the teaching of English History and English literature whilst keeping an eye out on external cultural influences.

 

2. If the subject were taught in the 'proper' manner, that is rigorously studying it as a school of thought, using Christianity as little more than an intellectual 'model' through which to study the more abstract subject of the development of belief and religious thought, and how it evolves and influences society, it should by virtue of its structure allow students to appreciate other religions on a similar basis. When teaching techniques and aspects of literary thinking, for example, it is not detrimental to use only one or two texts as a model or source of examples, the analysis of which may then be applied to other texts.

[Speckled Frost]

I was going to say something sensible but Vinnie K has mirrored my views.

 

What I would say is that RE at least gave us the chance to watch The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

[nipper]

Thinking about it, even back in the dark days when I was at junior school, there were two girls who sat outside the hall during Assembly while the hymns and prayers were done as they were Jehovah's Witnesses so I guess there's been provision for parents to remove their children all along.

 

At CRHS I remember similar, except there were about a dozen catholics who got to sit outside assembly every morning (and finish there homework etc).

 

Out of about 700 children I'm sure there were plenty more catholics etc who were in assembly, but their parents probably didn't see the need to so blatantly marginalise their offspring.

 

Incidentally, these were all children from Isle of Man families, and not brought over from say some awful Irish political/religious struggle or similar.

[VinnieK]

I was going to say something sensible but Vinnie K has mirrored my views.

 

What I would say is that RE at least gave us the chance to watch The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

 

That's true. It wasn't all bad. That and the videos of Iron Maiden designed to ward us off rock music and the inevitable satanism it leads to.

[Declan]

See that would have worked for me.

[VinnieK]

I think it would have worked better if they had just said "look, satanic imagery aside, they're just plain rubbish... and you'll look like a collossal fool wearing their t-shirts".

 

If only they had said that, and I had paid attention.

[Guest Klint]

RE isn't so much about just religious studies, but it's more of the study of social acceptance no matter who you are, what you are or where you are from.

 

Allows people to think with a broader sense of mind in regards to other people in 'their' society at a younger age.

[Tea&Biscuits]

I think that RE is a worthy lesson as from what I recall it wasnt just about the Bible and God etc, if you did RE you had to do contemporary studies within that - very interesting about world development/trade/ethical issues etc

 

I think that nowadays RE is more about several religions and is a good lesson in being culturaly aware?

 

Im a catholic and went to Castle Rushen - I never sat outside as it was CofE etc, although I seem to remember that there would be different religions every other day taking assembly? From Father Hurst to that mad vicar (cant remember his name) Mr kelly i think???? I also remember a Buddhist guy coming in now an then - AND i do remember that they had this guy called Ray Bevan (?) who was teaching us about the "evil" in some rock tunes, you knw when you play the record backwards, honestly we had this joker come in and tell us all about it and he actually played some records back, that did nt sound like anythin apart from records being played backwards! Idiots! Also remember the missionarys from leper colonies comeing to talk to us, all the time!

 

I took GCSE RE as I was interested in it, even though im not that religious - i still think the Bible is an amazing historical book however, and used to love reading it.

 

We also had the best teacher, Mr Fife!

 

So on the same vain, do you think that GCSE Childcare is a worthy subject? I took that too, and now I think about it, I think WHY?????? What exactly were they tryin to teach me? To change nappies? Is this a bit of an outdated subject also? I know people will say that its good if you wanted to be a nursery nurse, but surely a science would be better if you wanted to go onto nursery nurse/nursing pathway??

[VinnieK]

So on the same vain, do you think that GCSE Childcare is a worthy subject?

 

I disagree with it being taught as a GCSE. Maybe were it offered as an optional extracurricular non-qualification course 'for the good of it' it'd seem a bit more sensible, but I don't understand the teaching of vocational and practical courses at GCSE level. I thought that's what GNVQs were designed for, with GCSE providing a basic academic education.

[Crusha]

i do not believe in God myself. But RE that is tought in schools also teaches pupils about abortion, and morals etc ..... they dont tell you what to believe in, just help you to understand the difference between what is right and wrong.

 

Is that not a good thing for children?

[Lonan3]

Wouldn't it, perhaps, be better to teach philosophy - which could include religious matter and beliefs - and still be an acceptable 'academic' subject?

[TheScope]

i do not believe in God myself. But RE that is tought in schools also teaches pupils about abortion, and morals etc ..... they dont tell you what to believe in, just help you to understand the difference between what is right and wrong.

 

Is that not a good thing for children?

 

Teaching the difference between right and wrong should be the duty of the parents.

 

Although that might be a bit much to ask these days...