to be outraged that RE is a compulsory subject at GCSE level and History or a language aren't?

[seeker]

Well am I? I thought it was just my dd's very old fashioned school that insisted they study RE even if they aren't doing the exam, but I find out that it's a statutory requirement. So they can drop Modern Languages, History, Citizenship......but they have to do RE. And religious people say that thier faith doesn't impose on my life at all.

ANd I undersstand that it consits of reallly intersting discussion about issues of the day, and is really all about morality and philosophy and is mportant stuff, but why call it RE?

"lessons and we end up like America where anything different is viewed with distrust"

Inaccurate and offensive. America is certainly no worse than the UK (not that it says much.

Smugmum, just as I thought. Will let her do the beginners (might join her) then reckon she will realise it's too much to take on. She said that she studied it for 2 years and could hardly speak a word so that's why she dropped it.

I did it to O level but only got a grade D

Merci beaucoup!

I agree with Bonsoir, languages and history should be compulsory first, if people want to argue that RE teaches about the world and other cultures.

I don't think it's compulsory at our planned secondary, though I haven't checked cos these things change every few years anyway.

I wonder why the more religious among us can't be more open minded and try tounderstand why our children being obliged to study a subject 9however worthy that subject be) called Religious education is so difficult for us? I am completely open minded about religious people instructing their children as they wish - what I am not open minded about is them wishing to instruct my children too.

They are studying it, not being "instructed in it". It is an important subject to study and understand; the students are not indoctrinated.

SGM, you're just repeating what others have already said. Can you explain why you think religious morality, religious critical thinking and tolerance of religious diversity are more important than secular morality, secular critical thinking and tolerance of cultural diversity?

Nobody on this thread has said they think RE is about Christianity.

Milly, like it or not you live your life within a set of laws that are based on the Decalogue, Judeo-Christian rules. Like it or not, religion is still a big ticket issue in the world. It affects ethics, politics and in the States, science. Whilst you may not practice religion (I don't), I still want my ds to see that belief has a huge impact on all our lives and to try to teach him why that is. I think religion is one of the main drivers of the events of the last 85 years and will continue to be so.

You cannot teach the political dimension of a topic without reference in many cases to the religious. If the woman who is sentenced to death by stoning for adultery in Iran was a topic in Crime and Punishment, how could one avoid mentioning that Iran is a Muslim country?

How do you approach the case of the doctor who was shot by an anti abortionist who was a Christian? Where do ethics come from? Aren't we all really following the Golden Rule as outlined in the NT, whether we believe in religion or not?

How can one teach the Arab/Israeli conflict without reference to the religious aspect of this? I shall be fascinated to see how ds's history teacher approaches this, later on this year.

Why don't you go to a GCSE RE lesson Milly and see what we actually do? I don't teach these things as a primarily religious concern at all. I ask the class their views on abortion as an example. Run through the history, what the law says, have a debate for and against, show a video about the issues surrounding late abortions (having issued a warning the week before so that those who would be affected can let me know they'll be absent), and only then, look at the differing views within Christianity and Judaism from the RC view of no, to the liberal protestant, lesser of two evils stance. Same with Judaism.

I would not teach GCSE Catholicism anyway, as I believe in abortion and contraception and I do not believe that any man is infallible. I also have to disagree with you here 'What offends me most about RE is that people say it is vital to teach children about diversity.' I'm not teaching about diversity, I'm teaching what the differing religions believe and showing how in many cases the beliefs are very similar, although presented in a different way and resulting in different practices. I'm trying to teach religious literacy not diversity, a very different thing imo.

I am rather astounded also that it is a compulsory subject when languages are not. Languages NEED to be studied I think, at the moment they are only compulsory (iirc) in language specialist schools.

Also humanities should be studied also, surely. If we (they) are using the argument that knowledge is necessary in RE to avoid ignorance, surely this applies MORE to historical and geographical knowledge of the world. I know which I think is more useful.

RE has always been complusory to study, but only recently has it been part of a complusory examined course.

DD is doing 11 GCSEs and is badly dyslexic, to be honest she could do without another (useless) course.

DD's RE teacher this year is an evangelical Christian. I will be interested to see how diverse his RE instruction will be (dd has doubts).

You can't understand Shakespeare completely if you don't know a bit about earlier English Literature, Astronomy, French, Geography or a hundred other subjects. Why aren't they compulsory subjects then?

And I'm not stupid - I don't think they are studying Christianity - or even any other faith during their weekly discussions. It's just the entrenching of RE in the curriculum that enrages me. Why not call it Philosophy?

I'm all for religion being studied in an historical context, but why is RE compulsory?

Scaryteacher, can you then explain to me how you teach an understanding of how non-religious people make ethical decisions?

That would seem to me to be an absolutely vital skill which children need to learn about in a country where most people do not believe in God.

Nothing in your post says that you teach this, and saying people just follow the golden rule is really not good enough.

Surely the GCSCE isn't compulsary? Back in the dark ages when I did GCSEs the school got around it by having a rotation of two lessons a week that covered any bits it didn't want to make compulsary GCSEs. French, history or geography, maths, english language and lit. and at least dual science were compulsary.

I would be happy with them learning RE as part of a package including philosophy, perhaps some social science, history, geography. Ideally they would study these in another language, though I can see that isn't going to happen in UK schools.
But prioritising RE over these others is offensive. It's only more important than the other humanities or social sciences or philosophy to people with a religious belief.

No SGM, teaching religious difference helps with tolerance of religious diversity, which is a tiny part of cultural diversity. To teach morality, cultural diversity and critical thinking as topics within RE is the wrong way around. RE is a small part of these topics.

The fact that you can't see that religion is only a small part of contemporary cultural diversity is exactly the problem that I am worrying about as a consequence of the heightened position RE is given in the education system.

They have 3 years of compulsary RS at senior school anyway StewieGriffinsMom. And Any decent english lit teacher will give context to the material they're teaching- you have to understand the world view of Shakespeare and the divine right of kings to get the whole unnatural behaviour of the horses and the stormy weather in Macbeth.

I think Fennel's idea is a good one. It would also improve the quality of teaching because it there was a general humanities course, then there could be a humanities PGCE. It would allow lots of high calibre graduates in Philosophy, Anthropology, Economics, Politics and so on who currently struggle to get on to PGCE course to get teacher training places to be selected.

It is ludicrous that people with RE or Theology degrees should be considered more appropriate people to teach children critical thinking about important contemporary issues than these other graduates. A lot of really good potential teachers are being turned away as a result.

Hang on, most people in this country do believe in God. The percentage who are actual atheists is tiny.

Religion is not just a historical context - it is today, and it is tomorrow too. Religions are on-going, whether you like it or not.

You can't call RE philosophy, if you are studying world religions as well as ethics/philosophy. World religions and their impact/influence on life today as well as in history - culture, politics, ethics - need to be studied. Pure philosophy is studied at A level.

I am pretty sure there is some discussion at GCSE level about general morality and where it comes from, and what understanding there is of the origins and practice of morality when someone doesn't have a faith. My kids have taken GCSE RE and have discussed it a fair amount with me, and I have known several RE teachers.

It's not compulsory.

See

They just have to be taught in it.

DD, most people in this country do not believe in God. That is different to being actively athiest.

Most people in this country are similar to my family. We are culturally Christian but have no actual faith.

It's a really soft subject. It was 100% course work at the school I attended- the only subject that was- and most of the people I knew who took it knocked that out over a weekend. They were also given months worth of lesson time to work on it!