To think RE is a big waste of time

[Himalaya]

I don't mean that kids shouldn't come out of school with a basic knowledge of the world's religions and some skills in philosophy and critical thinking, but to have to take RE classes every week for 12+ years seems like overkill, and a waste of their time.

They certainly don't come out at the end of it with twelve years worth of knowledge, so you have to wonder what is the point. The only point seems to me to be to instill in them strongly the idea that religions deserve a special kind of RESPECT.

Most of the stuff in primary and early secondary is just mush content-wise (but with a heavy undertone of respect).

I think the facts on religion they need to know could be covered in a couple of modules of general studies, or under humanities at KS3 and KS4. It would free up time that could be used for critical thinking, philosophy, study skills, economics, public speaking, sport, creative writing etc....

'I don't want my DC to have knowledge and understanding of religion. I want them to have healthy disrespect for all religious belief. A brief grounding in the history of the world's main religions is fine by me; I want them to learn facts and to argue rationally, not fill their heads with hocus pocus.'

As I said earlier - we teach not preach. Do listen and keep up Bonsoir!

What makes you think that many RE teachers don't have a cynical view about religious belief?

It is just not necessary to schedule a whole subject in the timetable over the life of school to cover that ground.

'I want them to learn facts and to argue rationally, not fill their heads with hocus pocus.
'

and that aim- the argument one- is shared.

But informed argument is better than not; and the ability to respectfully disgaree a pretty useful lifeskill as well.

The Hocus Pocus- that's stuff like the Qur'an or the Bible; things they will encounter throughout life, and whcih it is betetr for them to be able to say 'You're homophobic because you read Leviticus? So how come you're eating a prawn sandwich then? Or cut your hair / wear clothes with more than one fabric / don;t protest against mixing cow breeds?'

People use faith to justify quite absurd beleifs or abhorrent ones. Arming people with the tools to weed out the ridiculous is as important as letting kids now not every Muslim want Shari'a law or is fully veiled. But equally religion has some good stuff too- my Mum is arch Atheist but she argues that Jesus was an excellent Philosopher if not Son of God; for every Leviicus there is a Love Thy neighbour. Just as there is Zakat, or Langar, or Ahimsa: really great aspects which may not have originated in the faith (I don't believe morals and faith are necessary bedfellows either way,) but nonetheless have the potential to inspre really important ideas in children.

There is also the aspect that children raised in a strong faith may never get the chance to be exposed to other beliefs outside of RE, let alone question them. I went to school with a few chidlren raised in a mild version of an American cult and they were shielded from every potential influence. It may just be that RS is the only chance any of them will ever get to question that, or hear their own beliefs questioned or challenged with other explanations.

Bonsoir then presumably you don't want your kids reading any fiction in English? The way I teach RS is factual in that it is a fact that Jews eat kosher food, the Muslim holy book is the Qur'an , Christians believe Jesus died for humanity. These things are FACTS and once they learn them we have a rational discussion about the likelihood of the beliefs being true and the evidence for them. This usually leads onto a discussion on the nature of faith. "filling their heads with hocus pocus" is rather different.

Fiction does not purport to be the truth, trixie. I love fiction and greatly encourage my family to read widely.

It is just not necessary to schedule a whole subject in the timetable over the life of school to cover that ground

Yes it is. Curriculum and learning is cyclical. We don't teach 7 yr old about WW2 and evacuation and then tick that box as 'job done'. Many schools revisit WW2 when they are 14-16 yrs old and look at Nazi Germany and appeasement etc. As children mature and their outlook becomes wider then they can take on a greater understanding.

All subjects revisit knowledge they have already covered, and add to our understanding. That's how learning works.

And careful - lots of Jews do not eat Kosher food. It is not a fact that Jews eat Kosher.

YANBU

RE is a waste of time.

'It is just not necessary to schedule a whole subject in the timetable over the life of school to cover that ground.'.... in your opinion; which system is your dd in? Does it affect you at all as you educate your children in France? How do French students learn about comparative religion then? France is hardly a hotbed of tolerance and multiculturalism is it?

Exactly, Scram.

When I was at school the subject was called RI - Religious Instruction. That was plain wrong. What we have now is RE or RS - getting better. It can and should be better yet. If we don't do any at school some kids will only get 'RI' outside of it.

Doing it properly in say years 7-9 might work - avoid the potential of accidentally or deliberately making young children think one faith or another is actually the 'right' one, but getting it done before the rigours of GCSEs.

scaryteacher - my DD is at a secular school with a multiplicity of cultures, languages and religions among the student body. My DSSs, who are Jewish and have both done their Bar Mitzvah, are at Catholic schools...

How does RE teaching work in France - is it osmosis then?

captainbarnacle - there is no teaching of religion in state schools (or the few secular private schools). Most private schools are religious with varying degrees of faith required - some Catholic schools require baptism certificates and first communion/confirmation is mandatory, others, like my DSSs', are Catholic-lite and religion classes are unimportant.

Many children do catechism, Talmud Torah etc on Wednesdays.

Children do do citizenship-type classes at school. I'm not sure when, tbh, as my DD hasn't got there yet.

I am not convinced it should be compulsory all through he GCSE years: I do think it should be offered though, and taught earlier on.

Bonsoir your children are lucky; many are not so much. Where I am many schools are Church and the only available option (Wales, geographical limitations). Where I grew up tehre were no Jewish people I can think of; unsurprising when there was also no Synagogue. Paris, rural Wales, Somerset- very different places after all.

Buta s I said earlier on I do think it woudl benefit from a reworking as RE, Ethics and Philosophy - even if just to explain what it's actually about these days. I guess it's hardly surprising that people exposed to RI might think that still existed in the same format.

So in France, children from a religion are educated in extra curric classes by that religion, but all non-religious children get no religious education at all? Who answers all their questions?

TBH, I think that the problem of the rural-urban divide in children's experience of the world is a hell of lot bigger than exposure to world religions.

'my DD is at a secular school with a multiplicity of cultures, languages and religions among the student body' as is my ds, at n international school in Brussels, and the only things he gets taught about comparative religion is by me. There is no discussion about religious belief or practice amongst the students (so don't kid yourself there is), the conversation is about sport or PS3/PC games.

So you object to religion being taught, and yet your ds's have done their bar mitzvahs to acknowledge their religiously coming of age, and they go to a school where a man is considered infallible.....hocus pocus much?

Of course it is Bonsoir

But that doesn't mean we cannot input into those areas does it? Minimalising barriers either way is a positive of enormous value.

I am actually a great fan of schools working in partnerships so that those in deprived schools (the sort that are classically seen as inner city but as likely to exist in Somerset as anywhere else- although for anyone who know Somerset that might give them an inkling of my place of birth ). The kids here are largely hugely priveledged, have access to university facillities for studying as well as so much history and open space that they could give a lot to some of the kids from ds1's first primary; who in turn could teach them a lot about diversity (not just racial or faith- big diparity in the number of kids with Sn for example), getting on with it, and just basic normality.

Mind, I vaguely remember a lectures on racial and faith diversity in France where the Lecturer (Scallops will know who if I say Western) was not a big fan of the french system and their lack of monitoring etc at all. So you know, swings and roundabouts. And there are other issues with different aspects of the French system of course.

I think a lot of these pro-RE comments are simply being disingenuous. The truth is that many people don't want children taught about morality from a non-religious perspective because they would rather children follow the religious perspective, either because they want children to be religious or because they are, in the English cultural tradition, anti-intellectual.

CB, if you don't think that RE should be subsumed into a subject that covers morality and cultural issues from a wider and predominantly secular perspective, I think you need to explain why.

As for this idea that we can argue against homophobes who are also religious by pointing out the bit in Leviticus about mixed fibres, I've used such arguments myself but they don't work really. If someone is going to base their morality solely on what is written down in some religious text, you do them no favours by framing a debate within the confines of that text rather than encouraging them to develop a moral sensitivity to the real world.

RE is one way of teaching children about religion, RMPS is another (Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies,the name for the subject in Scotland).

RMPS is never a waste of time as it teaches pupils about different belief systems (religious and otherwise) and encourages them to have their own opinions, backed up by evidence.

However, it is burdened by the image that it's all about 'bible-bashing' which should not be the case of it's taught objectively as an academic subject. The fact it's compulsory but rarely assessed for a qualification (unless you specifically choose it as a subject choice as well, and that's only possible in some schools) also makes pupils view it as 'a waste of time', when they could be doing extra time in examined subjects.

Which is a great pity, as by the time you get to Higher, RMPS along with History are the only subjects left in the Scottish education system that actually bother to teach real academic analysis (i.e proper essays!).

scaryteacher - I am sorry for your DS (and for you) if the fact that he attends a school with an international student body does not allow him to discuss religious or cultural heritage with his peers, or to experience other religious and cultural traditions. I am not "kidding myself" into believing that my DD's experience is quite different: it is. She invited three of her best friends to DSS2's Bar Mitzvah: one of her friends has a Jewish father and a Catholic mother; another has a German father and a Jordanian mother; and the third one has mixed French and Antillais heritage, and a father who is an anthropologist. And DSS2's friends were largely Catholic, from school, though there were plenty of Jewish family friends, and Muslim friends too. Plenty of cultural tradition was enjoyed by all; no religious belief was apparent at all, however.

'As for this idea that we can argue against homophobes who are also religious by pointing out the bit in Leviticus about mixed fibres, I've used such arguments myself but they don't work really. If someone is going to base their morality solely on what is written down in some religious text, you do them no favours by framing a debate within the confines of that text rather than encouraging them to develop a moral sensitivity to the real world.
'

But you are not giving the kids the arguments, suerly you are inspiring them to question them?

RMPS sounds like my thing but after all, one can only teach the variant taught where they are based. Scotland a bit of a commute from S Wales

I don't want it subsumed into a subject where it's predominantly secular: but I have no issue with a large secular input. I want them to debate from all aspects, as well as understanding what the Qur'an is, or having read sections of the Guru. It should IMO be a mix. And taught alongside other philosophies such as Humanism, Feminism, etc as there are things to be elarned from all.

Mind, I am neitehr of the type that wants my chidlren brainwashed into a faith or out of one: own path and confidence in it is my aim.

scaryteacher, captainbarnacle: RE is not taught in public schools in France or the US (and many other countries) because it is illegal to do so. Do you believe these children suffer because they are not taught RE? Religious families can send their kids to Sunday school or whatever, non-religious families don't care.

It's perfectly acceptable to teach about religion in the context of say history or geography or literature. I fail to see why it requires its own slot in the curriculum for the entirety of child's school life.

RE is a bit like school uniform, other countries appear to function perfectly well without it but if you suggest scrapping it here all hell breaks lose.

Don't need your sympathy thanks - but that is the way it is at his school - very secular indeed. 15 yo boys don't discuss their cultural or religious heritage with their peers - I think you misunderstand the nature of most teenage boys. They might go to each others houses to watch movies or play video games, and the cultural traditions may be his friends mum trying to feed my ds dried Icelandic fish, but that is really as far as it goes.

It means nothing that people have parents of different nationalities - very common here as well, doesn't mean that culture or religion are discussed or practised. Indeed, amongst a very large, professional ex-pat (of all nationalities) community - we all seem remarkably homogeneous. I can't say that when I go to dinners with people of different nationalities and cultures we have deep and meaningful discussions about religion or culture (because it is considered unwise to talk about religion, women or money), but about where you expect to be sent next; is your cleaning lady any good, and what school your kids attend.

Your daughter invited friends to the Bar Mitzvah; my point is that in general terms in a school, this won't come up in conversation, or if it does will be met with 'well how far did you get on Black Ops this weekend then?' PMSL at the Dad being an anthropologist, so?

I don't think that other countries do function well without it though. You look at France - banning the Burkha, the banlieus erupting when racial and religious tension gets too high; Le Pen overtaking Sarkozy in the polls. At least UK children have some idea of what drives other people with religion. I wouldn't hold the US up as a shining example either.

I think all children should study the six major religions and have a grasp of what they believe, how they are practised (ritual, scripture etc) and the effect this has on an adherents life. Some people don't care if their kids are taught science or not, doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught.

You can't teach about religion in the context of something else - it is a stand alone subject. You could argue that the reformation (and much of history) should be taught in the context of religion as that is what drove it.