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 believe that religious tensions in France and the US are any more or less marked than they are in the UK (having lived and worked in all three countries) and the examples you give of the banlieus have everything to do with poverty and lack of opportunity and very little to do with religion. Either way I suspect that the effects of RE in school on general cultural tolerance are irrelevant.

sorry, was off teaching some hocus pocus. Bonsoir please don't patronise me, I know not ALL Jews eat kosher in the same way that NO religion has a universal agreement on everything or sometimes anything! I was trying to give a couple of examples for the sake of brevity.

note to all
RE ( or RS or Ethics and philsophy - whatever you call it ) has changed IMMEASUREABLY In the last 5 years*
unless you have been INTO a school or had a kid doing it at secondary you will have NO IDEA

trixie - it was recently noted on another thread that an improved RE grade might be achieved simply by never forgetting to always say some

im lolling at the dad being an anthropologist

As Mumsnet, so is life

LOL scaryteacher, at misunderstanding teenage boys - you do realise I am surrounded by them . I promise you, the DSSs are fully aware of everyone's religious/cultural/linguistic background - and they are not nerdy sorts, on the contrary. Not all teenagers live in a cultural void...

Why is it funny that I mention that a child's father is an anthropologist? It just means that the child in question is hyper-aware of, and very interested in, cultures/traditions...

and if the kids father is a truck driver he has a keen awareness of road directions

"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."

See - that is interesting, because when I go out to dinner/see friends, I do have "deep and meaningful" conversations about culture (in all its shapes and forms), religion, money, women. But I cannot recall talking about cleaning ladies. School, yes, and other countries you have lived in or might live in in future, yes also.

Maybe your son is just following your example in not having friends he can talk about culture and religion with? Maybe our children are just following ours?

Except that road directions are not what this thread is about.

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.

I think that a moral, philosophical and ethical subject would be a good thing. A re-evaluation of RE as a subject is a good thing. But I object to subjects such as abortion, just war etc being subsumed all over the place into other subjects. They just wouldn't get covered in depth, and the skills of debate and argument based on knowledge and understanding would be lost.

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.

Yes. I think those children do suffer. Where is their outlet to have their family's beliefs challenged? Where will they get their religious knowledge from? It seems far too hapdash to me.

I am not a believer and my children are not christened and do not attend church. But I definitely want them to have a religious education in the same way I want them to have a geographical education and historical education.

I agree with withagoat - RS is very different even to when I was at school.

scaryteacher - would you talk about euthanasia, or abortion, in a social setting with your friends?

and they LOVE formulating opinions on different issues.
you can cover all the stuff that rigid exams is pushing out..You really wouldnt recognise the subject these days

captainbarnacle - but why do you think the challenging of family beliefs is, or worse still, should be the preserve of RS classes?

Bonsoir - your argument appears to be that you are providing an adequate cultural education for your children, therefore the state has no place in teaching any religion at all to any one. You do not take into account all the children (and adults out there) who are badly informed about religious practices and opinions. I believe such ignorance is dangerous and should be challenged.

No, my argument is that cultural education should come from plenty of sources but not from an RS class.

Bonsoir - I often talk about issues in the news with my friends, including abortion and euthanasia.

Challenging family beliefs should not be the preserve of RS classes, no. Where did I say that? But RS classes cover subject matter rigorously which is not covered by other subjects in an already squashed curriculum.

Why should cultural education not come from an RS class - or from subject matter which contains religious knowledge and opinion amongst other ethical ideologies?

captainbarnacle - the fact that you find the curriculum squashed is no argument in favour of pushing teaching of cultural issues into an RS class.

?? so what do you do? Rename and rejig RS into a more philosophical subject (sounds OK to me) or remove subject matter from other subjects, or fail to teach any religion at all?

I think it's just fine to teach about religion in the context of history/geography/economics. Not fine to have a subject matter called "religion" or "religious studies". We should be doing everything possible to help our children see the world as it really is, not through the ignorant eyes of the past.

But religion isn't the past! Look around you. It may well be the past for you and your family and friends, but it is alive and well and kicking all over the world.

But I object to subjects such as abortion, just war etc being subsumed all over the place into other subjects

Not 'all over the place' but neither should they - as at present - be subsumed into 'Relgious studies', with the implication that religions have superior rights to arbitrate such issues. They should belong in 'moral, philosophical and ethical' studies. Which could include the ethical positions of various religions.

BUT if you KNEW how it was taught and examined youd discover that the ideas of religious people acutally do blend in to opinions atheists have

the exam paper i teach is in fact VERY secular and you have to include secular opinions in any essay