The Da Vinci Code in an RE lesson?

At 13 years old, I'd be more than happy with it.

I really like the way RE is taught at my ds's school and they do things like this. Everything is done in a 'some people believe' type way, from the crucifixion to abortion, and it's all about introducing concepts and providing the space for children to form their own opinions or challenge previously held beliefs.

I'm not too bothered what they teach in RE lessons, as long as 'Intelligent Design' doesn't get mentioned in Science.

I think it would be great to have an RE lesson that presented statements like:
Jesus married Mary M and had kids
Jesus was born of a virgin
Mohammed had a flying horse
Joseph Smith was told by an angel where to find golden plates that no one else ever saw

And get the class to rate them in terms of believability etc. Then a discussion about why more people believe some of them than others, and why some are dismissed as 'conspiracy theory' while others are held up statements to be respected.

Oh, yes! TBH I am fairly sure that day was one of those 'hmm, let's sit them in front of a film clip ...' lesson plans. But obviously it stood out in my memory and lots of RE lessons we had were absolutely dire, so I guess it can't have been that useless.

It depends how you do it, doesn't it? If it's a clip and a 'some people believe ...' shown to get the class talking, I can really see it working. Lots of adults have difficulty with the idea anyone's ever disagreed about what's in the Bible.

I don't think all belief systems are equal-and I don't think school RE should treat them as such.

I'm not sure what you mean here? I wouldn't class conspiracy theory as per the Da Vinci Code as equal to, say, Catholicism in terms of the attention it should receive in an RE class. However, I am a bit at anyone who says that Christianity is more or less worthy of discussion in RE than, say, Islam.

I quite like the idea of introducing slightly off-the-wall texts as a starter for debate - LRD did you actually do bits of Life of Brian?

My favourite religious joke is about a young woman going to a nunnery for the first time. She looks around in amazement at the grand old building and beautiful religious paintings on the wall and says "if this is poverty, I can't wait to see what chastity looks like."

I agree, Prh47bridge. I just wonder if the teacher was using it as a tool to open up young minds.

I do wish the curriculum would allow the Theory of Evolution into its RE teachings. That would be more useful than the Da Vinci Code - at least it's factual.

The key words are 'some people believe' I think, it opens the mind to how others interpret a religious authority.
(As an aside, the BBC had a programme called Vicars telling jokes which quite gently mocked Christianity. It was strangely funny

When we did RE we had bits of Joseph's technicolour dreamcoat and Monty Python. I don't remember any of us getting confused about whether they were on the same level as the book of Genesis. Isn't it just a way to help children understand a complicated topic?

The book is a pile of crap, mind.

Religious Education surely should embrace all religious beliefs, and also explore all arguments, whether for or against

I broadly agree.

To elaborate on what I said earlier, major religions are belief systems (i.e. sets of mutually supportive beliefs). The Da Vinci Code is a conspiracy theory (and not a very good one with obvious, major factual inaccuracies). It is not in any way a religion or a belief system on its own (although it may be part of some people's belief systems) and should not be taught as if it was. However, examining conspiracy theories and looking at the right way to approach them is a valid thing to do so I have no problem with that.

Well we should do a bit of mocking together on another thread then Nigella

Sorry - as I said - obviously over-sensitive today for some reason!

Sounds like a great basis for discussion; I don't see why you would have an issue with it.

but it is my religion as well slackcabbage

I agree with that actually turgiday - (and if you were with me and a few of my Irish friends after we've imbibed a few you would hear us mocking our own religion quick forcefully) I just wouldn't personally choose to mock someone else's I suppose (obviously over-sensitive today though!)

I remember being somewhat fascinated by certain aspects of the da Vinci Code when I read it, even if the writing itself is appalling. I didn't know that much about the apocryphal books, and thinking about what was in or out of the bible was interesting. Also, considering various other possible explanations for things written in the bible - the idea that they might have been metaphors with realistic scientific explanations - got me thinking about some concepts in ways I hadn't before, and doing more research afterwards. So while the book itself might be bollocks, it can stimulate thought, too, even if it's just to find out what evidence there was for any of it, and similarly, what evidence was there for the stuff that was in the bible, etc.

Mocking religion has a long and proud history in the UK, that I for one, would defend.

No worries and thanks *NigellasDealer] (love the nn btw!!)

it is the social justice aspects of my faith that interest me more frankly
I totally agree and sincerely apologise if my attempt at a sound bite caused you offence xx

Evansovalpie I wasn't referring to that as disrespectful, but another poster's description of Jesus as a "skinny bloke who may or may not have been nailed to a cross 2000 years ago in Jerusalem"

Well, I'm a Catholic (an easy going liberal one, not a literalist) but I winced at your description of Jesus and found it offensive. Honestly, just as it's not acceptable to disparage the main tenets of Judaism or Islam, it really isn't OK to mock Christianity either.

I don't want to continue to hi-jack the thread, or start a debate about the gospels and what's true and what's not, as it is the social justice aspects of my faith that interest me more frankly, but just for your information, aside from the gospels, there are three other independent historical sources that mention Jesus's life and death in Palestine in CE 64 ie Tacitus, Pliny, and the Jewish chronicler Josephus who describes him as undergoing 'exquisite torture' and 'suffering the extreme penalty ... during the reign of Tiberius [CE 14-37] at the hands of Pontius Pilatus'.

As a non-believer myself and having had my children forced into having lessons in religion of all types, it is actually most refreshing to hear of a teacher introducing other thought-provoking aspects into her lessons.

Why would that be disrespectful? Religious Education surely should embrace all religious beliefs, and also explore all arguments, whether for or against.

i do not see anything 'disrepectful' about my post slackcabbage.

(I'm not talking about the Da Vinci code btw but about your comment below:

"just like some people believe that they are consuming the body and blood of a skinny bloke who may or may not have been nailed to a cross 2000 years ago in Jerusalem."

NigellasDealer I don't want to hi-jack the thread but even if you don't agree with other people's religious beliefs, surely you can try and be a bit more respectful about them?