Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think RE is a big waste of time

659 replies

Himalaya · 08/03/2011 07:58

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....

OP posts:
trixie123 · 08/03/2011 20:04

The chaplain at my school is a qualified scientist and the previous head of physics and science is a member of a fairly fundamentalist church. It is not as simple as religion vs science!

brass · 08/03/2011 20:05

I'd like atheism available as an alternative to RS. Religion doesn't have a monopoly in teaching tolerance and respect Hmm.

brass · 08/03/2011 20:10

'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.'

You don't need religion to appreciate a cultural background or a differing opinion. Empathy helps you to understand where people are coming from. Again no religion needed.

captainbarnacle · 08/03/2011 20:11

What exactly are the moral codes of atheism as a 'belief' system? What do atheists follow and believe? What ethical choices would they make? You cannot teach atheism like that when discussing issues because it's not a tangible thing...

noddyholder · 08/03/2011 20:12

I am surprised at this my ds loved it!

captainbarnacle · 08/03/2011 20:12

You don't need religion to appreciate a cultural background or a differing opinion. Empathy helps you to understand where people are coming from. Again no religion needed.

Where do you get empathy from? How can we engender it in our schoolchildren without explaining how and why some people think differently to ourselves?

GrimmaTheNome · 08/03/2011 20:17

CaptainB - yes, different indeed because typically atheists don't 'follow' - so what is needed is to teach children how to think not specifically what to think when it comes to ethical issues.

GrimmaTheNome · 08/03/2011 20:18

You don't need to be religious to be empathetic, but it surely helps to have an understanding of other's POV (including but not exclusively religious) to have empathy.

meadowlarks · 08/03/2011 20:22

Philosophy is far more useful than RE will ever be. It's a travesty it's not taught as a standard subject; it's useful in every area. Personally I think the facts on religion should come second to wider philosophical and spiritual debate. If it's really important then the parents will compensate.

brass · 08/03/2011 20:24

Do you need to qualify atheism within a rigid framework of rules before you can deal with it?

Let me give you a clue. The whole point of atheism is that there isn't one belief system or set of codes. People want to think for themselves and not be subjugated to some invisible friend.

Fennel · 08/03/2011 20:32

As the others say, you can't teach "atheism", it doesn't work like that.

You could teach a version of secular humanism, I think, though it's not my forte so I'm not totally clear on it. Or you could teach a Dawkins or Dennett-style scientific rationalist. But those are particular versions of atheism which attend to religious concepts. Many atheists just live happily without trying to do that.

brass · 08/03/2011 20:33

Agree philosophy is far more appropriate.

Ihavewelliesbuttheyrenotgreen · 08/03/2011 20:40

If atheism was a subject then surely all it would be teaching is that God does not exist. This is just indoctrining students with someone else's opinion. Atheism should be taught as part of RE as 'Atheists think this....discuss', as all religions/beliefs should be. Brass did you honestly expect when you sent your son to a Church school that they would be likely to be teaching atheism as a subject?

Ihavewelliesbuttheyrenotgreen · 08/03/2011 20:41

I do agree that Philosphy should be included in RE but I think that it already is to some extent.

MarshaBrady · 08/03/2011 20:43

Or RE should be included in Philosophy.

Original poster
Himalaya · 08/03/2011 20:46

But you don't need RE to explain why people think differently. On one level there is a really simple answer 9 times out of 10 you can explain it by the culture and family they were brought up in. Most Muslims come from Muslim families, Sikhs from Sikh families, christians from Christian families. Some people convert, but its a good rule of thumb. Few people around the world choose their religion, anymore than they choose their sexuality for that matter. Knowing 'why' doesn't really help with empathy and tolerance.

People have different cultures. They don't need to be anything to do with religion to be hard to get used to. The Chinese concept of 'face', the American habit of eating sausages with maple syrup, Geordies refusal to take a coat on a night out, the French way of driving. I'm not sure there is anything in RE that tells you more profoundly than these examples that people tend to judge acceptable norms by what they've been brought up with.

Then there are psychological reasons why people who know about the size and age of the universe, about evolution and quantum mechanics might at the same time be able to believe in a god that in some way corresponds to the customs and texts of their ancestors. But again I'm not sure these 'why' explanations are much help with empathy.

I don't know what it is that RE specifically can teach to give kids empathy.

OP posts:
captainbarnacle · 08/03/2011 21:00

It is difficult to teach atheism or Dawkins style scientific rationalism without first teaching what the religions state! You cannot explain why someone rejects religion without an explanation of what they do reject. Hence people should not be certain of being atheists without exploring and rejecting the alternative.

A lot of the racism and islamophobia I encountered in my classroom boiled down to ignorance. I do not understand people who reject knowledge and reject their children gaining extra knowledge. It might well be extra knowledge about religions which 'will not help them in their future career' - but it cannot harm them?

Then there are psychological reasons why people who know about the size and age of the universe, about evolution and quantum mechanics might at the same time be able to believe in a god that in some way corresponds to the customs and texts of their ancestors. But again I'm not sure these 'why' explanations are much help with empathy.

'Psychological reasons'? Belief is belief. Religious people - hopefully - have weighed up all the information and just concluded that there still is a god. However much I can try, I just conclude that there probably isn't.

To dismiss faith as a psychological episode or as a manifestation of ignorance is - in my opinion - narrowminded, insular and patronising. It is without empathy. It is disrespectful. I personally am not a believer, but I am interested in what believers have to say about the world and I have taken their opinions on board and come up with my own conclusions. Why is this apparently threatening to some people?

Bonsoir · 08/03/2011 21:03

I disagree a bit there, Himalaya. I do find that understanding why people hold the beliefs they do, and, more particularly, why they are ignorant of things that seem obvious to me, does help me be more tolerant of their limitations.

One good cultural example for me has been understanding the French education system and realising that skills that are considered quite basic in a normal English curriculum are barely touched upon in the French system. The reverse holds true too, of course (though after 20 years living and working with French people their skill set has rubbed off a bit on me). Instead of getting annoyed, I just shrug my shoulders...

Bonsoir · 08/03/2011 21:05

captainbarnacle - what do you think of astrology? graphology? tarot cards? crystal balls? fairies? ghosts?

Ihavewelliesbuttheyrenotgreen · 08/03/2011 21:07

Himalaya I remember discussing a lot of the points you have raised in RE lessons. We talked about people being brought up in Christians families and also about people who had had a variety of experiences which had caused them to convert later in life. I also remember discussing science and religion and how intelligent people who were very successful scientists could also be very committed Christians.

I don't think its all about empathy, its about exploring and thinking about ethical issues and moral dilemas. Surely this is a useful skill/experience to have. I can't really think of another school subject that does this. I remember a bit of overlap in English lit, History and Geography but no with so much depth.

Bonsoir · 08/03/2011 21:11

Ihavewellies - I don't think we have reached a conclusion about why the very useful skill that you identify that is imparted in religious studies lessons has to be the preserve of the religious studies syllabus.

captainbarnacle · 08/03/2011 21:11

astrology? Nah. Bit of fun.
graphology? Interesting, but when I was 14.
tarot cards? Nope.
crystal balls? lol
fairies? No no no
ghosts? lots of anecdotal evidence.

Why?

I wouldn't put these on the curriculum, but I would perhaps link them together as alternative beliefs? Have actually discussed 2 of them in GCSE RE lessons before now.

Bonsoir · 08/03/2011 21:13

It's a bit like the argument that is often used for maintaining the study of Latin, namely that it teaches English children grammar.

GrimmaTheNome · 08/03/2011 21:19

Hence people should not be certain of being atheists without exploring and rejecting the alternative.

But, equally, people should not be certain of being a theist without exploring and rejecting the alternative also.

Currently, the default position offered in UK state schools is theistic. RE lessons are predominantly about theistic religions; assemblies in primary schools mostly adhere to the letter of the law requiring 'a collective act of worship Christian in character' (something like that), and include prayers to someone and hymns often presupposing creator.

The balance needs redressing.

captainbarnacle · 08/03/2011 21:24

Grimma - agreed again. The balance - esp regarding the assembly anachronism - should be changed. That is utterly outdated, and should not be prescribed by the government.

I don't think though that UK state schools are theistic. Obviously the church schools are, but having one RE lesson a week or so is hardly pushing theism. I also disagree with state funded church schools - but that's a whole different thread :)

To be an atheist or a theist and reject the alternative needs information and education. Yes, I think atheism (or non belief) should be taught alongside more establish belief systems. But you cannot ignore one or the other. On the whole, we live in a largely atheist culture, and I see a weekly RE lesson as readdressing that particular balance.