Print
Religious education
by Philip Beadle, The Guardian
Reposted from:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2171030,00.html
There's not much for secularists to sing about, says Philip Beadle
I spent the holiday in a villa on the Algarve, accompanied by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and a staunchly Roman Catholic mum. Dawkins and Hitchens, of course, came in my bag. I've always imagined that questioning a pupil's inherited belief system in class was a sackable offence. I imagined this because I've never tested it out, what with my own children needing shoes and stuff. Kids' justifications of the beliefs inflicted on them by various agencies usually hinge upon the "Because it does. Right?" argument.
Thankfully, for the English-teaching atheist, there's literature. You know the stuff - full of superior insights - generally satirical or scathing when dealing with what man will do in the name of faith. It is down to Of Mice and Men that I've been able - without fear of a sacking - to ask them to imagine the possibility that heaven might be a lie conjured up to keep them in their place.
So, it was with delight that I spent my summertime sweating with Christopher Hitchens in a pool of anti-theistic zeal.
Having gathered lots of fantastic facts - did you know that the idea of Mary's assumption into heaven wasn't coined until the early 1950s? - I resolved that my first column on returning would argue that, since atheism now has its own version of the good book, in Dawkins's The God Delusion, perhaps it could now assume its place on the religious studies curriculum. It all sounded reasonable enough. Then I did some research, which screams to be shared.
Two years ago Charles Clarke introduced the first "non-statutory" framework for teaching religious education. Kids have a legally protected "entitlement" to religious studies, but there is no control over what is taught. Schools can teach children that they are God's elect, that faiths apart from theirs are deluded, and that it is righteous to wage holy war on those born on the other side of a wall. If I wanted to set up a Satanist school, I could.
The framework is about as sane as these things can be, given that it has to accommodate viewpoints as diverse as the Russian Orthodox church and the British Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists - pretty well all perspectives on religious education in fact (aside, of course, from those of the National Secular Society). It is when we delve into the realms of suggested practice that it all gets a bit Old Testament.
The Standards Site for teachers features schemes of work for key stage 3 that could have been written by Billy Graham. Creationism on the curriculum is not happening only in the American Bible belt or outposts on Teesside: the government recommends it as a topic for study in every school. The suggested learning outcomes say that all year 9 pupils should be able to "explain the nature and meanings of the Genesis creation story for theists, creationists and others". The intent is that children "understand that science leaves questions of ultimate meaning and purpose unanswered".
There is a logical pedagogic link here that, though it may have been intended to promote a mature, dialectical approach, actually gives permission and approval to those who want to teach creationism as fact. First, you teach the theory, then question science's ability to answer questions about our genesis.
The aim of this scheme of work is that children "understand that historians of science now view the conflict account as misleading". Let me unpack this disgracefully disingenuous phrase for you: the government's desired final outcome of religious studies teaching in British schools is that children realise there is no conflict between religious belief and the evidence of science. This is a lie, the extent of which hits the three criteria for a mortal sin: it is grave, committed in full knowledge of the sin and deliberate.
It goes further. I had always suspected that the mark schemes rewarded blind obedience to a theistic point of view: "List 10 reasons why God exists" (10 marks), "Come up with a shaky reason He might not" (1 mark). These suspicions are confirmed with a look at the Standards Site's exemplar materials. The first scheme of work suggested for pupils on entry to secondary school is full of arguments for the existence of a deity. There ain't much there for secularists to sing about.
My father's generation had a lesson called religious instruction (RI). There is a valid argument that some religious education is vital for children to operate as decent members of a pluralist society. Where religious studies is of value is as a disinterested study of the customs of your peers. As such, the only group likely to produce materials with the appropriate degree of dispassion would, I think, be the National Secular Society.
As it is, it seems the government's suggested framework gives schools permission to reinstate RI, but this time the "I" stands not for instruction but for indoctrination and, things remaining so, creationist Sir Peter Vardy receives his reward on earth (yet again). Blessed indeed are the automotive retailers!
· Order a copy of Philip Beadle's book Could do Better: Help your Child Shine at School for £11.99 with free UK p&p at http://guardian.co.uk/bookshop or call 0870 836 0875
http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2171030,00.html
There's not much for secularists to sing about, says Philip Beadle
I spent the holiday in a villa on the Algarve, accompanied by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and a staunchly Roman Catholic mum. Dawkins and Hitchens, of course, came in my bag. I've always imagined that questioning a pupil's inherited belief system in class was a sackable offence. I imagined this because I've never tested it out, what with my own children needing shoes and stuff. Kids' justifications of the beliefs inflicted on them by various agencies usually hinge upon the "Because it does. Right?" argument.
Thankfully, for the English-teaching atheist, there's literature. You know the stuff - full of superior insights - generally satirical or scathing when dealing with what man will do in the name of faith. It is down to Of Mice and Men that I've been able - without fear of a sacking - to ask them to imagine the possibility that heaven might be a lie conjured up to keep them in their place.
So, it was with delight that I spent my summertime sweating with Christopher Hitchens in a pool of anti-theistic zeal.
Having gathered lots of fantastic facts - did you know that the idea of Mary's assumption into heaven wasn't coined until the early 1950s? - I resolved that my first column on returning would argue that, since atheism now has its own version of the good book, in Dawkins's The God Delusion, perhaps it could now assume its place on the religious studies curriculum. It all sounded reasonable enough. Then I did some research, which screams to be shared.
Two years ago Charles Clarke introduced the first "non-statutory" framework for teaching religious education. Kids have a legally protected "entitlement" to religious studies, but there is no control over what is taught. Schools can teach children that they are God's elect, that faiths apart from theirs are deluded, and that it is righteous to wage holy war on those born on the other side of a wall. If I wanted to set up a Satanist school, I could.
The framework is about as sane as these things can be, given that it has to accommodate viewpoints as diverse as the Russian Orthodox church and the British Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists - pretty well all perspectives on religious education in fact (aside, of course, from those of the National Secular Society). It is when we delve into the realms of suggested practice that it all gets a bit Old Testament.
The Standards Site for teachers features schemes of work for key stage 3 that could have been written by Billy Graham. Creationism on the curriculum is not happening only in the American Bible belt or outposts on Teesside: the government recommends it as a topic for study in every school. The suggested learning outcomes say that all year 9 pupils should be able to "explain the nature and meanings of the Genesis creation story for theists, creationists and others". The intent is that children "understand that science leaves questions of ultimate meaning and purpose unanswered".
There is a logical pedagogic link here that, though it may have been intended to promote a mature, dialectical approach, actually gives permission and approval to those who want to teach creationism as fact. First, you teach the theory, then question science's ability to answer questions about our genesis.
The aim of this scheme of work is that children "understand that historians of science now view the conflict account as misleading". Let me unpack this disgracefully disingenuous phrase for you: the government's desired final outcome of religious studies teaching in British schools is that children realise there is no conflict between religious belief and the evidence of science. This is a lie, the extent of which hits the three criteria for a mortal sin: it is grave, committed in full knowledge of the sin and deliberate.
It goes further. I had always suspected that the mark schemes rewarded blind obedience to a theistic point of view: "List 10 reasons why God exists" (10 marks), "Come up with a shaky reason He might not" (1 mark). These suspicions are confirmed with a look at the Standards Site's exemplar materials. The first scheme of work suggested for pupils on entry to secondary school is full of arguments for the existence of a deity. There ain't much there for secularists to sing about.
My father's generation had a lesson called religious instruction (RI). There is a valid argument that some religious education is vital for children to operate as decent members of a pluralist society. Where religious studies is of value is as a disinterested study of the customs of your peers. As such, the only group likely to produce materials with the appropriate degree of dispassion would, I think, be the National Secular Society.
As it is, it seems the government's suggested framework gives schools permission to reinstate RI, but this time the "I" stands not for instruction but for indoctrination and, things remaining so, creationist Sir Peter Vardy receives his reward on earth (yet again). Blessed indeed are the automotive retailers!
· Order a copy of Philip Beadle's book Could do Better: Help your Child Shine at School for £11.99 with free UK p&p at http://guardian.co.uk/bookshop or call 0870 836 0875
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 53 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #71167 by gcdavis on September 18, 2007 at 1:25 am
For students up to 11 yearshttp://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/religion/
For 11-14 years
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/secondary_RE/
General
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/secondary_RE/rel7a/?view=get
These links provide some of the source material that the author is talking about.
There are very occasional references to a world without god but at no point is the student allowed to examine the atheist perspective in depth.
Questions like "Who was Noah" presume that such a bloke existed! How can you deal with this sort of nonsense?
Other Comments by gcdavis
3. Comment #71169 by Richard Morgan on September 18, 2007 at 1:29 am
Order a copy of Philip Beadle's book Could do Better: Help your Child Shine at SchoolWhen I was young, many years ago, and sent to Sunday school on a regular basis, one of the hymns we were forced to sing was :
Jesus bids us shine
With a pure, clear light,
Like a little candle
Burning in the night.
In this world of darkness
So let us shine—
You in your small corner,
And I in mine.
Nowadays I am invited to call myself a "Bright" - which, I suppose, entitles me to "shine".
Help me out here, please, do I shine waves or particles?
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
4. Comment #71170 by Philip1978 on September 18, 2007 at 1:32 am
Richard, though my science knowledge is practically as non- existent as the gods I think it would have to be particles, they bounce together quite a bit dont they? I am sure they could be mustered up in to a bit of a frenzy to make you shine!Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
5. Comment #71180 by pewkatchoo on September 18, 2007 at 2:02 am
PhilipThis is not a matter of levity I am afraid. I have been very annoyed at some of the stuff that has been taught at my son's school in the guise of Religious Education. I object to it being taught at all, but some of the things I saw being expounded were pure ID nonsense. "Science will eventually prove the existance of god." was one of the more ridiculous proposals, thereby trying to ally science and religion. This is my own particular bete noire, and I am going to be campaigning ever stronger to get it removed from schools entirely. The sort of idiots that are teaching this nonsense in schools are the very worst of the rationally challenged.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
6. Comment #71181 by bamboospitfire on September 18, 2007 at 2:03 am
Oh dear. I take some comfort when considering articles such as this from the fact that my own madcap fundy RE teacher probably did more to make my colleagues and me question religion than almost anything else. I also don't think it is possible for a remotely inquisitive human being to consider a variety of monotheistic religions without questioning whether any of them are true, since they all claim to be the only one that is. However, we shouldn't have to clutch at such straws. The study of religion should necessarily include a frank discussion of whether there is any good reason to believe any of it at all. And you can do that whilst leaving science in the lab.It seems to me that this is the sort of situation which requires atheists to involve themselves in both policy-making and teaching. Is the policy side of things something that the National Secular Society, for example, should be raising with the government? On the teaching front, would it not be particularly rewarding to open young minds to the possibilities of philosophy which sit opposed to theism, as well as teaching the facts about religion which will help children better understand the people with whom they share the planet? No child's faith has to be questioned by his or her teacher. If religious education is taught in an even-handed, unbiased way, the children will do it themselves.
Other Comments by bamboospitfire
7. Comment #71184 by pewkatchoo on September 18, 2007 at 2:05 am
gcdavisThe way to answer such questions as 'Who was Noah?' the atheist way.
A. He was supposed to be some guy that was swallowed by a whale and survived... Bwahahahahhaaha!
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
8. Comment #71186 by pewkatchoo on September 18, 2007 at 2:07 am
RichardI think of it as the sun shines out of your +rse! Works for me.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
9. Comment #71188 by RascoHeldall on September 18, 2007 at 2:19 am
How can the Government hold its head high, all-the-while knowing that it is simultaneously presenting mutually-contradictory claims to different sets of pupils, all as if they were fact? Is it not even mildly concerned that this means some of its schools MUST be teaching utter falsehoods?By arguing that this reflects "parental choice", Ed Balls really couldn't make it any clearer that his decision has been taken more in the interest of self-serving political expediency, than any real interest in providing all pupils with a balanced education. After all, imagine if there was parental choice over the teaching of, say, mathematics, and that the Government had just announced it was establishing a new school for parents who wished to teach their children that two plus two equalled five. Such a ludicrous situation is unlikely to arise any time soon, but it is in principle little different to what is happening here. It is tantamount to saying it doesn't MATTER whether what our school system teaches is actually true or not, and New Labour's indifferent dismissal of this (you would have thought) rather important point demonstrates a chilling disregard, even contempt for, the rights of children to be educated about the world as honestly as possible.
Other Comments by RascoHeldall
10. Comment #71193 by gcdavis on September 18, 2007 at 2:36 am
pewkatchoYour comment about Noah reminds me of the lyrics of one my favourite songs, It ain't necessarily so.
It could become the atheists anthem
It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so
David was small but oh my
David was small but oh my
He shot Goliath
Who lay down and dieth
Little David was small but oh my
Jonah he lived in a whale
Jonah he lived in a whale
He made his home in that fishes abdomen
Jonah he lived in a whale
Moses was found on a stream
Moses was found on a stream
Floated on water old Pharaoh's daughter
Fished him she says from that stream
It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
They tell all your children
The Devil he's a villain
It ain't necessarily so
Other Comments by gcdavis
11. Comment #71195 by Philip1978 on September 18, 2007 at 2:43 am
pewkatchoo Sorry, you have mentioned in the past about your campaigning and I totally 100% agree with you, this is a dreadful abuse of kid's education. I dont want to sound like I dont care about all this, I was just being a bit silly earlier.
Apologies,
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
12. Comment #71200 by Cartomancer on September 18, 2007 at 2:52 am
Appalling. Quite simply appalling. I'm just glad I'm never going to have any children for them to teach...Actually it is highly ironic that I was, for one year, acting head of Religious Studies at the sixth form college I taught at. I was actually a classics teacher, but the woman I was replacing for the year was also head of religious studies, so I got lumbered with that job too. We don't actually teach religious studies of course, which made my job considerably easier, but I did feel that the irony of the situation ought not to go unmarked and so made every attempt to put religious nonsense in its place during my classics lessons. This proved surprisingly easy to do.
The absolute killers were Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannos (the third Stasimon is possibly the most powerful encapsulation I have ever read of the human epiphany that there are no gods and, scarily, we have to make our morals and our justice for ourselves) and the early Socratic dialogues of Plato - Euthyphro and Apologia. Funnily enough I had one rabidly christian girl who loved all of it until I pointed out that the arguments were just as applicable to her religion as to that of the classical greeks. The roundabout comparative approach really seemed to work where, I suspect, confronting the demons of Abrahamic monotheism head on would have roused too much hostility in this one. Last time I saw her she was buried in the copy of God is Not Great that I gave her and appeared to be sweating profusely - progress on that score methinks.
My lesson on classical greek homosexuality cleared up quite a few misnomers and prejudices among my students as well - elucidating the fact that pre-christian societies had radically different views and forcing them to examine whether there really is a basis for discrimination or if it all just comes from religious prejudice. Open mindedness and good education are the most powerful tools we have in this fight against repressiveness and ignorance.
Of course, I was in post-16 education and the comments of the article don't really apply with anything like the force they do to the compulsory bit. Let us hope fervently that the Gordon Brown administration sees sense in this matter and reverses the trend, and let us do all that we can to reverse it ourselves if they do not.
Other Comments by Cartomancer
13. Comment #71201 by stephenray on September 18, 2007 at 3:05 am
From one of the DfES sites:"Use some optical illusions to establish the idea that there are different ways of seeing the same thing."
Comment ought to be superfluous, but just in case: this is doubly disingenuous.
Optical illusions actually demonstrate that the processing centres of the brain use short-cut algorithms which sometimes produce a defective result. Something looks like a 3-d image but in fact it isn't.
It would be like demonstrating colour blindness and using it to illustrate the assertion that some people are easily fooled.
If this is how standards are set, no wonder all the kids nowadays are getting exam results which would have been impossible 30 years ago.
Other Comments by stephenray
14. Comment #71204 by Acleron on September 18, 2007 at 3:20 am
RascoHeldallThe 2 + 2 = 5 teaching may be nearer than you want. The creationists will have you believe that 4.5 billion years = 6000 years.
Other Comments by Acleron
15. Comment #71205 by irate_atheist on September 18, 2007 at 3:21 am
Having followed the links provided by the good gcdavis, note that the guidelines state explicitly that:'The scheme is not statutory; you can use as much or as little as you wish. You could use the whole scheme or individual units'.
Basically a total carte blanche for teaching children a particular brand of ignorant supersition.
I strongly recommend that people here actually read the guidelines in full, including articles such as:
Unit - Who was Noah / Why did Noah build the ark?
Objective:
Children should learn:
that Noah obeyed God
Such activities as:
Retell or act out the whole of the story of Noah.
Discuss what has been learnt about the story, and what the children think we can learn from it.
Using the frieze as a visual aid, encourage the children to ask further questions about the story, eg Why did God choose Noah? How did Noah collect all the animals? Did the ark smell? Why was everybody else wicked? Why do we still have floods? Would children have drowned in the flood? Why did all the other animals die?
Finish the lesson by reminding the children that the story of Noah is a very old story that can be found in the Old Testament part of the Bible.
Finish the frieze by displaying some of the children's questions.
- -
Have these ignorant halfwits no real idea of what genies they are releasing from their bottles? Or do they just not care as long as they keep the collective nutters happy and voting for them?
Other Comments by irate_atheist
16. Comment #71211 by RascoHeldall on September 18, 2007 at 3:44 am
Have these ignorant halfwits no real idea of what genies they are releasing from their bottles? Or do they just not care as long as they keep the collective nutters happy and voting for them?You've just answered your own question. They couldn't care less. They really do not care that they are destroying education in this country - the short-term electoral gain to be had in keeping religious parents happy outweighs the need to provide children the opportunity to learn about the world, and to function within a society which still (just) values reason and evidence over 16th century superstition.
With these actions, New Labour have done no less than jeopardise civilisation. They are barbarians.
Other Comments by RascoHeldall
17. Comment #71217 by Bertybob on September 18, 2007 at 4:14 am
"Would children have drowned in the flood? Why did all the other animals die?"#1 - Yes (see also answer to #2)
#2 - Because God is a bastard.
It gives me a bit of hope reading these questions.
Any half intelligent child is going to start questioning what all this stuff is about and I would reckon on most starting to think - "this is all bo**ocks".
Other Comments by Bertybob
18. Comment #71219 by RascoHeldall on September 18, 2007 at 4:36 am
Well I hope so but this seems like a concerted attempt to shape children's minds so that they are incapable of being critical.Other Comments by RascoHeldall
19. Comment #71221 by Shifty Frog on September 18, 2007 at 4:47 am
Sorry to be picky on my very first post but...Re post #71184: *Jonah* was swallowed by the whale and survived, not Noah. Noah had the ark. (See post #71193 for confirmation!) Mind you, it's all myth anyhow but I'm a picky sort!
Peace,
Liz
Other Comments by Shifty Frog
20. Comment #71223 by epeeist on September 18, 2007 at 4:54 am
Comment #71211 by RascoHeldall
They couldn't care less. They really do not care that they are destroying education in this country - the short-term electoral gain to be had in keeping religious parents happy outweighs the need to provide children the opportunity to learn about the world, and to function within a society which still (just) values reason and evidence over 16th century superstition.
On the contrary, I think they care an awful lot.
However, what the likes of Blair, Kelly and Harman care about is that their religion can carry on taking precedence over other educational requirements.
Other Comments by epeeist
21. Comment #71226 by Mercurius on September 18, 2007 at 5:17 am
I have just spent my lunch hour reading the utter drivel that is passing for a curriculum for RE in England. Why are our children still being taught in such a way? They really do describe the STORY of the Ark and Noah as though it actually happened!!! I think there needs to be a serious shift in RE in schools as the current situation does leave carte blanche for fundamentalists to become teachers and indoctrinate impressionable minds in one of the places (school) they should be safe from such tripe. It seems our government bend over backwards to keep the religious voters happy. Newsflash, secular folk vote too and there are more of us than you think...! Other Comments by Mercurius
22. Comment #71229 by mr-zero on September 18, 2007 at 5:37 am
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/religion/rel3e/3eq1?view=getKS1 and 2 (5-11 year olds)
Unit 3E: What is faith and what difference does it make?
"Tell the story of Abraham, the epitome of faithfulness, focusing on his response to God's promise on his great journey and his readiness to sacrifice his son Isaac. Discuss what made Abraham respond as he did. ..."
Seriously. Are children really supposed to have Abraham as a positive role model? How does his willingness to sacrifice someone else demonstrate faith?!
Ye gods!
Z
Other Comments by mr-zero
23. Comment #71230 by pewkatchoo on September 18, 2007 at 5:39 am
Shifty FrogWelcome to RDnet. However, I am sorry to say that that whooosshhing noise you currently hear is the noise of the point flying right over your head.
I am well aware that Jonah was swallowed by the whale. That is my sarcastic way of pointing out that they are all just crazy stories.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
24. Comment #71260 by monkey2 on September 18, 2007 at 8:34 am
Thanks gcdavis for those linksI dipped in to Unit 1C: Celebrations: why do Christians give gifts at Christmas? Section 3: Invisible gifts
Why might a Christian want to 'give their heart' to Jesus? Children might say, 'Because I love Jesus'.
Surely that crosses the line between education and 'grooming'.
Other Comments by monkey2
25. Comment #71262 by GoneGolfing on September 18, 2007 at 8:38 am
IA said:"Have these ignorant halfwits no real idea of what genies they are releasing from their bottles? Or do they just not care as long as they keep the collective nutters happy and voting for them?"
Exactly ! And not to mention the fact that most of the brains of the people in power are still strongly gripped by this "fear of God" that they most likely were indoctrinated with as children themselves and now feel our innocent children must adhere to as well.
Fear ? Yes, fear of a just and vengful God, whom without this fear, surely these children would all eventually lead lives of sin, debauchery, and evil. And we all know where that would lead them !
Teaching a child about a place like hell is utterly disgusting and mentally abusive.
I sometimes wonder if governments are implementing these types of mandatory programs believing that they will somehow act as "preventative medicne " so to speak, thus instilling a better or stronger morality in its children for the future by forcing them to be exposed to religiosity now.
Politicians discussing the matter:
"Hey, who cares what religion or faith they cling to as long as they lead moral and good lives what does it matter?...We'll just get that fear into them and let the rest work itself out"
Grrrr
GG :-)
Other Comments by GoneGolfing
26. Comment #71263 by irate_atheist on September 18, 2007 at 8:38 am
I would say it crosses the gulf between education and child abuse. Other Comments by irate_atheist
27. Comment #71267 by epeeist on September 18, 2007 at 8:51 am
Comment #71230 by pewkatchoo
Welcome to RDnet. However, I am sorry to say that that whooosshhing noise you currently hear is the noise of the point flying right over your head.
Shifty Frog - what you have to realise is that some of us here like to vie for the title of "Most Facetious Person on the Site" in a low level way.
Have a glance at the Leprechology thread and see how revcort is being handled.
Other Comments by epeeist
28. Comment #71270 by Bertybob on September 18, 2007 at 9:05 am
I can't vouch for RE now, but when I did it at High School in the 80's in the UK it was pretty lame stuff and was dropped as soon as we could.We did more "academic" study of the world religions, Abrahamic, Hindu, Buddism, Shintoism etc.
It was this which pushed me into teapot agnosticism as I thought "well you can't all be right, which means most of you are doomed to hell or at least one large disappointment".
TGD then liberated me from my fence sitting.
Give kids a break, in the UK the only people who take RE seriously are RE teachers and kids under 9. Even in CofE and Catholic Schools I would bet on most kids having no real "faith" as such, they just mouth the words until it's time for the bell and a few swift tinnies in the park.
I don't remember the Atheist viewpoint coming up in RE and I think it should (assuming a fair representation), just for balance.
The current government drive for more faith schools as a way of raising standards and preventing trouble does scare the willies out of me more than the RE curriculum. In the words of Enoch Powell, "rivers of blood" come to mind, but not on race grounds this time it will be faith.
Other Comments by Bertybob
29. Comment #71271 by thirdchimpanzee on September 18, 2007 at 9:11 am
I'm appalled at what is happening on the RE front in the UK. The only RE I remember from the late 60's was a relatively benign survey of World Religions which would have made disbelievers of any of us that weren't too preoccupied with the girls and their mini-skirts.If the political clout doesn't emerge to roll back these travesties, perhaps some additional lesson plans and support materials could be developed and made available to teachers. These could apply to any of the religions under discussion, and would basically invite children to consider the aims and morality of the God character(s) in the various Biblical/Koranic/Hindu stories being discussed.
More than few deconversions have taken place following a close reading of the Bible - and consideration of the malevolence of the deity involved.
Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee
30. Comment #71272 by Yorker on September 18, 2007 at 9:14 am
5. Comment #71180 by pewkatchoo I think I saw in a past thread that you were a Scot, was that a Scottish school you refer to? If so, I'd like to know which one.
Other Comments by Yorker
31. Comment #71273 by Flagellant on September 18, 2007 at 9:18 am
You're absolutely right, young bertybob (28), about faith schools. One day, they'll have to secularise education, so why not do it now? I've felt queasy about faith schools for more than fifty years. It has turned into rage, now. Why can't people see how divisive they are?We have a terrible problem, though: two million people signed a petition against road-pricing but only a few thousand signed for the abolition of faith schools. Aaargh!
Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
Other Comments by Flagellant
32. Comment #71282 by A.Lex on September 18, 2007 at 9:26 am
"There is a valid argument that some religious education is vital for children to operate as decent members of a pluralist society."Does that mean that without "some religious education" children cannot become "decent members" of a society? I doubt this guy Beadle is serious!
Other Comments by A.Lex
33. Comment #71287 by pewkatchoo on September 18, 2007 at 9:33 am
epeeistFacetious, moi? Shirley not!
Yorker
Yes I am Scottish (or Scarrish as an old NY girlfried used to say)! However, I live in Bucks and my lad goes to a private school there. Pisses me off that I pay so much cash to have him taught bollox. He actually got a B in his RI GCSE, even though he thinks it is all nonsense. His teacher was totally astonished, as was he!
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
34. Comment #71295 by Arcturus on September 18, 2007 at 9:59 am
gcdavis, here's another nice song :). Anybody recognizes?Whoever we are
Wherever were from
We shoulda noticed by now
Our behavior is dumb
And if our chances
Expect to improve
Its gonna take a lot more
Than tryin to remove
The other race
Or the other whatever
From the face
Of the planet altogether
They call it the earth
Which is a dumb kinda name
But they named it right
cause we behave the same...
We are dumb all over
Dumb all over,
Yes we are
Dumb all over,
Near n far
Dumb all over,
Black n white
People, we is not wrapped tight
Nurds on the left
Nurds on the right
Religous fanatics
On the air every night
Sayin the bible
Tells the story
Makes the details
Sound real gory
bout what to do
If the geeks over there
Dont believe in the book
We got over here
....
Hey, we cant really be dumb
If were just following gods orders
Hey, lets get serious...
God knows what hes doin
He wrote this book here
An the book says:
He made us all to be just like him,
So...
If were dumb...
Then God is dumb...
(an maybe even a little ugly on the side)
Other Comments by Arcturus
35. Comment #71296 by pewkatchoo on September 18, 2007 at 10:05 am
ArcturusDon't know the song, but it sounds like the Zapparoo!
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
36. Comment #71297 by Phil Beadle on September 18, 2007 at 10:07 am
Re Post 32. Alex, the piece was heavily sub-edited.The following para especially
There is a valid argument – though there is an equally valid and never ventured argument for its abolition - that some form of religious education is vital for children to operate as decent members of a pluralist society.
Interesting what they cut out I think
Other Comments by Phil Beadle
37. Comment #71298 by epeeist on September 18, 2007 at 10:07 am
Comment #71270 by Bertybob
The current government drive for more faith schools as a way of raising standards and preventing trouble does scare the willies out of me more than the RE curriculum.
Unfortunately the faith schools seem to be cherry picking their pupils to avoid the ones that might reflect badly on their achievements, see http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2170337,00.html
Other Comments by epeeist
38. Comment #71300 by bwana ndege on September 18, 2007 at 10:16 am
Anecdotal and statistically insignificant it may be but on talking to my students at a secondary school in the UK they invariably say that RE is their least favourite subject.Please let this be a representative sample.
Other Comments by bwana ndege
39. Comment #71301 by Arcturus on September 18, 2007 at 10:17 am
pewkatchoo, you got it!It's none other than the genius Zappa, "dumb all over" :). Too bad he's not among us anymore, he would have been an important voice these days.
Other Comments by Arcturus
40. Comment #71303 by tieInterceptor on September 18, 2007 at 10:38 am
from those links of the Standards site, makes me really worried,
Objectives
Children should learn:
* about the argument from design
* to think of their own illustration for the argument from design
* to reflect on their own experience of creation
Outcomes
Children:
* write about the main arguments to prove God's existence from the design of the world
* exemplify the argument for themselves
* read biblical text with understanding
seriously, if that is not an ID cook book I don't know what it is...
and we pay taxes for this?
Other Comments by tieInterceptor
41. Comment #71310 by SteveA on September 18, 2007 at 11:45 am
I moved to the UK about two years ago and sat the GCSE short course on religious studies. It actually struck me how NON-religious the course was. The other students were all highly credulous (as was the teacher) and the course, at least in this case, centered around moral philosophy and the origins of creation myths.I would assume that the syllabus varies widely but if it is at all indicative of how the subject is taught it certainly doesn't produce religious zombies. I do agree however, that it would be great to have atheism taught credibly and objectively alongside the creation myths (TGD would make excellent source material).
Other Comments by SteveA
42. Comment #71321 by NJS on September 18, 2007 at 12:39 pm
I love that 10:1 question - not because I can't think of one reason never mind ten but because I only need one for the other:No evidence. QED.
Other Comments by NJS
43. Comment #71344 by OrbitalMike on September 18, 2007 at 1:29 pm
The 2 + 2 = 5 teaching may be nearer than you want.
Sorry to be pedantic (and somewhat off topic), but in my line of work, 2+2 really does equal 5. Of course, as with anything, you must question what it is that you're adding. In my case, 2dB + 2dB = 5dB (Sound Pressure Level re: 20 microPascals). Since the decibel scale is logarithmic, sums don't appear to follow the normal rules. The real sum turns out to be 2*(3.17e-5 Pa)=(6.34e-5 Pa) In fact, 0dB + 0dB = 3dB in acoustics.
Anyway, sorry for the diversion, but I get annoyed with that reference!
As to the article, I am glad that I had a Catholic education in the US which exposed me to most of the nonsense of the theistic point of view. Unfortunately for the Church, I was also taught to question the assumptions and to look for proofs.
Other Comments by OrbitalMike
44. Comment #71352 by Bonzai on September 18, 2007 at 1:47 pm
You Brits here should start some kind of compaign to stop this madness.Religious study should be taught as a secular subject along the line of world civilization, it shouldn't teach students to think like religious believers. I think some material has crossed the line into promoting theistic philosophy and blatant falsehood like ID.
It seems that these half wits interpret "pluralism" to mean ecumenical, non denominational stupidity. To achieve this ideal they concoct a syllabus that teaches an amalgamation of absurdities from different faiths in an equal opportunity fashion.
Other Comments by Bonzai
45. Comment #71381 by Zaphod on September 18, 2007 at 3:46 pm
If religious education is to be mandatory it should have a secular module in it like humanism. Other Comments by Zaphod
46. Comment #71399 by Nails on September 18, 2007 at 5:18 pm
My eldest two attend a local 'science college' and i was horrified to find out they still pray in morning assembly.Turns out the label is just a way of syphoning extra funding out of the education authority, another local school is a 'sports college'.
My son hates RE, it bores him to tears.
So glad he watched 'Growing Up In The Universe' first!!
Seriously though, I'm considering standing for election to the schools board of governers to have this religious pretence removed - if it really is a science college, it should not make any attempt to glorify religion in any way whatsoever - least of all by morning prayer.
Other Comments by Nails
47. Comment #71465 by CHeard on September 18, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Questions like "Who was Noah" presume that such a bloke existed! How can you deal with this sort of nonsense?
No, they don't, not any more than "Who was Gilgamesh?" or "Who was Ebenezer Scrooge?" Correct answers could be formed, "A character in ..." without any claim about historicity.
Other Comments by CHeard
48. Comment #71475 by thirdchimpanzee on September 18, 2007 at 8:56 pm
I'm surprised this article in today's New York Times hasn't already been linked:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/science/18mora.html?ex=1347768000&en=dd9759e9cc299aa1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
but the title is:
Is "Do Unto Others" written in our genes?
Perhaps RE can end up in Biology classes.
Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee
49. Comment #71485 by monkey2 on September 18, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Bonzai saysYou Brits here should start some kind of campaign to stop this madness.
Zaphod says
If religious education is to be mandatory it should have a secular module in it like humanism.
I tried to find out who designs the RE framework. It appears to be SACREs to some extent. I had decided that this must be an acronym for Secret Association for Christian Religious Education until I finally came across a detailed and relevant description of their activities at Http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1266 .
Other Comments by monkey2
50. Comment #71545 by gcdavis on September 19, 2007 at 2:31 am
Hey guys that Ark was really some boathttp://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html
Other Comments by gcdavis
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"I doubt that religion can survive deep understanding. The shallows are its natural habitat. Cranks and fundamentalists are too often victimised as scapegoats for religion in general. It is only quite recently that Christianity reinvented itself in non-fundamentalist guise, and Islam has yet to do so (see Ibn Warraq's excellent book, Why I am not a Muslim). Moonies and scientologists get a bad press, but they just haven't been around as long as the accepted religions. Theology is a respectable discipline when it studies such subjects as moral philosophy, the psychology of religious belief and, above all, biblical history and literature. Like Bertie Wooster, my knowledge of the Bible is above average. I seem to know Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon almost by heart. I think that the Bible as literature should be a compulsory part of the national curriculum - you can't understand English literature and culture without it. But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns. "
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Freedom Evolves
Daniel C. Dennett
Irreligion
John Allen Paulos
Atheist Manifesto
Michel Onfray
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #71162 by Philip1978 on September 18, 2007 at 12:55 am
Well, I guess I would have failed that test, I cant think of 10 reasons for God's existence and I can't think of a "skaky" reason for him not to, if they want a plethora of reasons why I am convinced God does not exist then I would get quite a few minus marks to be sure!
Good Article though, I like the way he writes, I like the Satanist school he intends to create hehehe!
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978