GCSE RE content ruled unlawful ... a victory for common sense!

Various posters have mentioned faith schools. This ruling does not affect those schools. They are exempt from the legislation that was at issue here.

Optional GCSE RE should be completely decoupled from the compulsory RE provision which should be scrapped and replaced with philosophy & ethics.

Phil & ethics should teach a universal secular morality which will support a cohesive sceptical society able to think for themselves and have a common foundation in what is right and wrong.

The problem with the current RE curriculum is that it teachs a historical fantasy of religion that bares very little relation to how muslims/christians/jews actually live here and now.

So if we teach children that all religion is valid, that we should accept everyones views and never offend them, how can we complain when some children take their religion literally and try to enforce it on others? We need to be more honest.

It really annoys me when RE teachers teach what athiests believe in. Athiests do not have a belief system, they do NOT believe their is no god. The only assertion an "athiest" makes is that there is no sensible reason to think that theists are right.

My DS spent an RE lesson on the pros and cons of ISIS, really a whole lesson on what's good about a murderous death cult just to get balance. Maddness.

Also my DS wanted to op out of RE, school said no, its compulsory and we don't have any provision for kids to do anything else. I would have taken it further but my son was so worried about being singled out that we just accepted it. That is forcing religion on children.

KwJH

The thing about global warming is that it is scientific evidence is overwhelming that it is man-made. The thing about science is that you can see it, investigate and proof it. Not so with faith, since really science and religion are an example of non-overlapping magisteria.

It is worth noting that 20 years ago there were still a significant number of noted scientists who were global warming sceptics (that is scientists who are known for there impartiality and who do not have personal interested, e.g. the oil industry). Nowadays, there are practically none.

I suspect that part of the ruling was to force religious schools to consider other religions and lack thereof a tad
its a definite GOOD THING
as it strengthens the case to keep RE in schools
it being the best way to create atheists yet discovered
but keeps it broad

in our school there is the compulory RE lesson once a week that everyone does, and then GCSE RE lessons by those taking it.Id on't see the RE GCSE's role as being an antidote to religious teachings

Can we look forward to a similar challenge against the "global warming" and "man made climate change" bias peddled in schools?

Year after year, it crops up in many subjects and I've never yet seen any sign of the kids being taught the opposite view that global warming may or may not exist and may or may not be caused by man.

Yes, teach about it, teach about the problems, teach about the solutions, but they really should be open and honest enough to accept and teach that some people have differing views, rather than teach the MMCC as gospel.

I welcome the ruling, not because I have any problem with the teaching of comparative religions (I am sometimes shocked by how little my religious friends know about other people's beliefs!) but because it is important to have a counterbalance to the idea that the only way to be able to live a morally good life is to be religious. Faith-based schools encourage children to believe that you have to be religious to be a good person. Humanism is an attempt to work through this, arguing we should help other people because they are humans like us. Learning about it, if it is taught properly, at least shows religious children why they should respect the views of the non-religious. It also shows non-religious children that whatever they think, religion is important to other people. RE is a good subject - it encourages discussion and critical thinking and it should have room to ask questions of religion as well as to explain it. It would be an even better subject if it was philosophy and ethics.

We are very careful to present everything objectively and children are never told what to think.

And that is exactly what should happen, but it doesn't happen in all schools.

Many (not all) RC schools slant everything towards their faith eg in History I was told how terrible Elizabeth 1 was for killing 'the 40 martyrs' and how wonderful Mary I was for restoring the RC faith (the 300+ she killed was not mentioned).

As for RE, when RC schools were forced to teach about at least one other faith the school next door to the church my parents attended decided to teach 'Hinduism' a)it was taught as 'who can believe a man has an elephant's head?' type of thing and b) the school is an area with a large Muslim population so you would think teaching about your neighbours would be useful.

Otoh I've no memory of prayers so many times a day

I have, morning prayers or Mass on a Friday.
Angelus at 11.55
Hymns for a session once or twice a week.
Prayers before home time.

Once a term class mass, and then year mass.

Once in a while a week of 'retreat'.

So how is including non-religious views in an exam that is called religious studies a victory for common sense? Sounds quite the opposite to me

Because it is relevant. Like teaching about communism, if you just taught the ideals it would sound lovely, but if you compare and contrast with other ideologies you get a better picture.

If you teach about the suffragettes you have to teach about the suffragists and the views of those who didn't want women to vote (including many women).

If you are teaching nutrition you also teach what happens in the absence of nutrition.

You need to include zero when teaching maths.

Etc Etc

Fair point!

Hi shouldbecookin - perhaps I misunderstood: I thought the BHA was saying the GCSE itself was illegal. I don't think I've said anything that disagrees with including non-theist views in the curriculum. DD is at a faith school where it seems a good chunk of the other DDs are from atheist households and it would be inappropriate for their views not to be invited, which is probably why they are. As BrendaandEddie says, it's quite popular, being more a variant of philosophy than anything.

i wouldnt send my kid to a Catholic school for their abhorrent views on homosexuality

I am also an atheist RS teacher. agree it a WILDLY popular subject

I agree with oakmaiden.
I had a hell of a fight withdrawing my DC from acts of worship at his secondary school. Apparently, as far as they were concerned, the school rules superseded the law of the land. Some schools need to be told that people of different/no faith are also valid members of the community.

Roguedad, you worry me and show why I don't engage in discussions with atheists: it's just too damn scary. You clearly were over-catechised as a child - so was I, but I never lost sight of what my religion gives me even though I fully accept you don't feel the same way.

I welcome the change (though agree with posters who have said that the BHA seems to have misinterpreted the ruling) in modern religious education. It's much more balanced and all should learn about all faiths (I don't agree that atheists have no faith - their faith is in the absence of God, that's all). I also agree with Oakmaiden that not all faith schools are the same and that Catholic ones have a tendency (only that: I went to a Catholic school and we discussed many other faiths, though not atheism particularly to be fair twas a long time ago ) not to be as balanced in their approach. Otoh I've no memory of prayers so many times a day (I associate that more with Islam tbh!) - probably one in morning assembly.

"No teacher these days ' rams' religion in any orifice.""any good teacher mentions where secular views contrast with religious ones"

Have you ever taught in a Catholic school? I accept they are not all the same, but I did a day's supply in a Catholic school, and was astonished at the religious angle taken for every single subject on the days planning. Except, possibly, maths. Maths may not have been... Not to mention praying at the start of every day, before breaks and lunchtimes, and then at home time...

I really doubt those children were being exposed to a broad variety of world views. Which, no doubt, is why the parents' chose that school, but still... definitely at odds with the experience of the posters I have quoted above...

FFS I am an RE teacher and an atheist. We already look at non religous views including philosophy and ethics. We mainly however study religion as we teach RELIGIOUS education. We are very careful to present everything objectively and children are never told what to think. I spend a great deal of time at the moment discussing how religion affects the world. A lot of our children are very anti Muslim so I spend a lot of time discussing ISIS, what they believe/do and how it differs from most of Islam.

This ruling seems like bullshit.

My fiercely atheist dd Loves RS. She wants to take it to GCSE.

here is the ruling
www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/r-fox-v-ssfe.pdf

any good teacher mentions where secular views contrast with religious ones

I do it daily.

The thread heading does not appear to be entirely accurate and some of the reporting seems to be a little misleading. The judge specifically stated that it is not illegal to have an RS GCSE which is wholly devoted to the study of religion, i.e. which excludes non-religious world views.

The judge's concern appears to have been around a statement that suggested schools have fulfilled their legal obligations which he thought schools may interpret as meaning that they don't have to include non-religious views in their teaching.

The DfE has already said that as the judge clearly stated that the GCSE is not unlawful they don't need to change it.

The BHA appear to interpret the ruling differently. However I have to say that the BHA's interpretation appears to directly contradict the judge's words.

I don't believe that a judge applying the legislation can be considered stupidity. The only stupidity arising was the Government making an error of law. I am glad we live in a democracy where the Government is held to account for the laws it writes.

Religious studies is the study of RELIGIONS. No teacher these days ' rams' religion in any orifice.

Rouguedad - you havent been IN an RS lesson for a while have you?

You have it TOTALLY wrong

Stupidity