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....

Well said captainbarnacle, best quote of the thread.

"There is nothing big or clever about rejoicing in rejecting religion without knowing much about it."

Those who are pro RE what age do you think it should start?

Ds1 is five and up until now was not aware of religion. Now he does it weekly and knows about Jesus on the cross etc. They do other religions but this is the one that he talks about. I would prefer to start age 8 or 9.

What benefit is there in starting so young do you think?

Sorry Brass got you mixed up with Runawaywife whos son wanted to study forensic science

I try :) This thread has taken up much of my day! And I was supposed to be continuing the study for my open uni science degree tonight

CB, you seem to be missing the point. I will explain it again.

People who do not believe in God follow a variety of moral framework. For example, I am a moral particularist. Other atheists will have different moral frameworks.

Many people who believe in God also have additional moral frameworks that are not from within their particular religion.

If you do not believe in God then learning about moral frameworks that are based on the belief in a higher power will not help you to understand or choose an appropriate moral framework. It will simply teach you how religious people make moral decisions based on their religion. How does that help someone develop their own, non-religious morality?

Mily - we are talking about children here. Children at school. I doubt very much they will identify themselves as a 'moral particularist'. They are on a journey. They need information on that journey.

When I was at school my opinions on god and religion were constantly fluctuating. I think this is a 'good thing'.

I did not come to my current beliefs (which are personal - not private I mean just personal to me) until I was in my 20s.

You seem to live in a very black and white world.

Alemci, short course RE (or at least the course DS does) only covers Christianity and Buddhism.

He has already covered the other religions in years 7 and 8 He got a handbook on Islam and it did say about promoting tolerance on the first page. Then he read the bit about hell. His tolerance of religion has decreased as a consequence. He's doing Christianity next.

Cb, I don't think that I am describing anything black and white. I am describing choices.

Moral particularism is a lot less complicated than Christianity.

Simple does not equal 'the best' Simple does not mean it is 'the most important'. Simple does not qualify moral particularism to be the mainstay of a child's moral and philosophical education.

I think you will find that some GCSE students will be interested in the various facets of atheism, and some of those will go on to study ethics and philosophy post 16. But atheism is only one belief route.

Atheism is one way of looking at things, but it is not the only way for the 7 billion people on the planet.

MillyR, my DP teaches moral stances including religious authority, egoism, utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. What's wrong with that?

'the examples you give of the banlieus have everything to do with poverty and lack of opportunity and very little to do with religion.'mmmm but the occupants of the banlieus are mostly muslim, so religion does come into it. Why are they poor and have such a paucity of opportunity? Is France so inclusive then?

Bonsoir - the international community I mix with is mainly military and there are certain codes of conduct about conversation - not discussing religion is one of them. What I discuss with the ladies I teach English too is different, but again, I have to be careful as two of them are Muslim and one is RC and to discuss abortion or euthanasia, or feminism for example can be a tad tricky, especially if you want to avoid offending sensibilities. What I discuss with my friends, as opposed to those I may mix with outside my close friends, is different.

Thank you so much for your patronising assumption that my 15yo lives in a cultural void; I too am surrounded by teenage boys - I taught the buggers as well, and whilst yours may be paragons of cultural virtue, the remainder of the species on the whole are not.

Withagoat - Bonsoir lives in Paris, therefore her life is on a different intellectual plane to ours
Withagoat

MarshaBrady I would be happy for it to start at any age, as long as the content is age-appropriate. So young children could learn the basics of different festivals/customs/food, or chat about whether any of them have visited a mosque/church/synagogue.

Cb, you seem incapable of understanding the difference between moral philosophy and atheism. I am not suggesting that moral particularism become the mainstay of education. My post made it clear that I want a range of different moral frameworks to be considered.

My argument throughout this thread has been that pupils should be taught about religion as a subsection of moral philosophy, anthropology, equality and diversity and an understanding of the arts.

Except where they choose RE as an optional subject.

Hissymissy - where do you work then? We took our lot to Eden in year 9 for RE when we were doing the environment. Not far from school for us.

I9, there's nothing wrong with that.

totally agree with OP

educated at a catholic grammar. this may or may not have a bearing on my response

Some of this debate seems to me more about the label RE than the actual content. In Scotland the sunject is called RMPS, which I think encompasses most of the facets some critics feel should be included. However, I'm sure when it's called RE it still includes moral issues, philosophy and social justice issues. Religion is far from being the only thing discussed in RE.

Some of this debate seems to me more about the label RE than the actual content. In Scotland the sunject is called RMPS, which I think encompasses most of the facets some critics feel should be included. However, I'm sure when it's called RE it still includes moral issues, philosophy and social justice issues. Religion is far from being the only thing discussed in RE.

Thanks for your advice, MillyR. I have no idea what you are trying to tell me - I agree with you that RE reaching has scope for reform and to be part of a wider subject of moral philosophy. What do you think you are arguing about?

I am arguing about the points raised by the OP.

But what is your point? That RE lessons shouldnt teach the Bible is literal? They don't. That they should include a discussion of what atheists think? Most do.

I9, I suspect one of the reasons that RE in England has come to cover a range of topics that are not really about religion is because many RE teachers did their undergraduate degree in subjects that have very little connection to RE, and have an expertise they are keen to pass on to their pupils.

I also think that schools have a range of issues they want to explore with pupils, and there isn't room for these in PSHEE lessons, so they spill over into the time allocated for RE.

From what I have seen, compared to when I did GCSE RE, the actually religious elements of RE are taught far better now than they were when I was at school.

CB, no, you cannot teach what atheists think because all that atheists think is that there is no God. They have no common belief other than that.

My point about RE lessons is that they should not exist other than as a GCSE and A level option. Apart from that RE should be taught as a topic within other academic subjects that are not currently on the school curriculum.

But Milly that is the same for Christianity and Islam and all religions - they are all umbrella terms. Again, we are teaching children here. The finer intricacies of belief systems are touched upon and often explained (eg different subsects of Protestantism) but it takes more in depth study to ascertain all the finer points.

So your point is that you do not believe RE should be a compulsory lesson for students at school. So we should condone pupils being ignorant of religions? We should only encourage the religious to further study religion? Which subjects do you think have the space to subsume RE topics? Or are you advocating a discrete Philosophy subject?

All the subjects I can think of that are exam options are part of the core curriculum prior to that. Not sure why RE/RS whatever should be left out.