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....

Bonsoir I think most RE/RS teachers are quite realistic and also encourage discussion from those that they are teaching.

Apparently RE is under threat as a subject in UK schools. Here is a link for a petition to keep it in schools www.reactcampaign.co.uk

and kids LOVE re

they really do.

Grimma - I agree! I have no problem with having a subject as you describe, as long as knowledge about other religions is discussed. As far as I am concerned, there needs to be a religious education in our schools. It is not a waste of time. To put religions into a wider context of ethical approaches is fine, but they should be there.

Sorry that link is for a petition to keep RE in the humanities baccalaureate not just in schools in general. It is an interesting website though

"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."

Only alive and kicking because the world is still full of superstitious ignoramuses. Which proper, informed education could remedy...

Bonsoir, religious people are not "ignoramuses". Only someone fairly uneducated about religion would think that.

There are many highly educated and intelligent people who are religious, and many unintelligent atheists, and vice versa.

If religious people are supposedly not intelligent, then (taking Christianity as an example) how do you explain Oxford University Christian Union, or all the graduates who have become clergy, or the organisation Christians In Science?

Disagree with them by all means but don't call them unintelligent or uneducated.

I have not called religious people "unintelligent". Ignorant, yes, I think that you have to be ignorant in order to profess a religious faith. Which does not mean that you cannot be highly informed/educated on some other topics!

So Bonsoir, what exactly do you think religious people are "ignorant" (uninformed/uneducated) about?

In many cases a religious person will know just as much about a topic as a non-religious person, but draw different conclusions.

Ignorant of science, fundamentally, and of the course of human history and the massive increase in knowledge of our universe that has consistently shown religious faith to be human invention in the face of ignorance.

I think RE is very important and i have not experienced anyone pedalling their own agenda or religion. I have worked in 2 schools and supported in many an RE class.

At present the students discuss racism, sexism, learn about christianity, about justice etc etc. At my last school we also did Islam. discussed sex outside marriage, abortion, euthenasia etc

the students participate in discussion and i think it is a very valuable subject.

Oh dear I wouldn't go down there Bonsoir if I were you!

alemci - I agree that it is very important to discuss all those topics. But why under the umbrella heading "religious studies"?

No I know it's not at all wise, Himalaya. But you know, I was asked .

I'm feeling very cross about religion at the moment anyway, after the despicable way the Rabbi behaved at MOL's funeral a week ago. Grrrrr.

Bonsoir, it's quite possible for people to be well-informed about science and the latest knowledge about the world, and still draw the conclusion that God exists. There are many professional scientists who are religious, as well as many who are not.

It's also quite possible to be well aware of the course of history, and be religious. What part of the course of human history are you referring to? I'll use the example of war and religion. not everyone believes the old stereotype that religion causes wars. A religious person is more likely to believe that religion has been hijacked as a convenient excuse for some wars.

Is faith "human intervention in the face of ignorance"? In the case of a Messiah coming to earth in human form that's not a bad description actually...

X-post... I am sorry to hear about the funeral Bonsoir. I can understand you're cross about religion - and I do think it gets misused unfortunately. Just please don't tar all of us with the same brush, some of us are quite friendly really :)

I agree with Grimanome and it seems, captainbarnacle students in secondary school should have a subject that allows them to discuss subjects such as abortion, just war etc , but there is not reason that this subject should be called 'Relgious studies', with the implication that religions have any special insights on these issues
(on the other hand if students come to this class with existing religious ideas about these topics it is part of their frame of reference and part of what they will question.

They should have a basic general knowledge about religious practices and history, which you could do in a year.

Still don't see any need for continuous RE in primary school except for maybe a topic or two on 'myths and legends' or 'festivals'

and some of us who support RS teaching are not believers ourselves, but are intelligent enough to see and accept both sides and know that the problems in the world will not be solved through isolating religion and being patronising enough to think you can educate people out of it

I don't think it is a case of educating people out of religious beliefs. I think it is more of a case of educating people that it is inappropriate to discuss their religious beliefs in certain contexts, and that there are legal implications for doing so.

An example of this would be the recent case of the couple who can no longer foster children because of their religious beliefs about homosexuality. It isn't acceptable for children to be exposed to homophobia or sexist remarks, neither in a foster home nor in a school. If my child was attending an RE class where they were being exposed to homophobia through their religious peers being encouraged or allowed to express fundamentalist religious views on it, I would not be encouraging my children to debate biblical interpretations. I would instead make a formal complaint to the LEA.

Its not really like that Milly. What if it was someone from a Moslem faith who had that view. why is it always christians at fault.

anyway school is very pc so it would not be allowed. I remember a boy getting told off in an English class for implying it was not normal to be gay.

It would be exactly the same if it was a Muslim.

DS1 attends a Church school and it is compulsory he sits a Religious study GCSE, he wants to do forensic Science when he leaves school so it will be of no use to his career.

RE can be a good subject and an inteesting one, especially when coupled with philosophy.

However, I have only ever known it to be shite.

MillyR - are you saying that RE shouldn't be able to discuss the offensive ideas of religions, or just that student shouldn't be allowed to be personally abusive towards each other?

I don't see the point of teaching children that homophobia and sexism are ok, in the mosque or chapel, just don't bring them to school.

...but then that's the problem when discussing these things within a religious framework. There are no right answers in the 'learning from religion' bit of RE, and no particularly religion based insights for deciding which religious beliefs are justified, which are absurd and which are abhorent.
T

I think it is more of a case of educating people that it is inappropriate to discuss their religious beliefs in certain contexts, and that there are legal implications for doing so.

No - that's a case of people respecting the law. It's not really to do with religion - it's a couple of bigots using religion to justify their homophobia and thinking that the law should back them up. It doesn't. Most Christians I know are appalled at such behaviour.

DS1 attends a Church school and it is compulsory he sits a Religious study GCSE, he wants to do forensic Science when he leaves school so it will be of no use to his career.

That's if you value education just to get you onto a specific career route. I'm sure he has to do PE lessons, and yet they won't give him a qualification which will lead him to his future career. RE lessons are about developing the whole person and what they think about particular issues. In addition, I am certain that as a forensic scientist he will come into contact with work colleagues or uni friends who come from a particular cultural background or hold opinions different from his own. RE can help you to understand where they are coming from. If you disagree with the way your son's school teaches RE then you need to have considered that before you sent him to a Church school or you need to take it up with the school itself. It is not a justification for RE lessons being a waste of time.