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....

You shouldn't be respectful of hocus pocus.

You should be respectful of people and their right to believe things that you don't and their right to not be mocked or belittled.

I don't believe in tarot cards or fairies or the virgin birth - but I do not ridicule people for holding those beliefs. They have their reasons. I think they are wrong, but I believe they have a right to hold those beliefs as long as they stay within the confines of UK law - and I am interested in what they have to say about those beliefs to see if I can learn anything from them.

It is wonderful when children's minds are free from religious superstition, it is a shame the school system is so quick to tell them all about it.

If people want to do that in their homes then fine.

I don't ridicule people for those things either. But I think it is important that I know where I stand, and that my children know where they stand too.

And, living in a family which has a heritage of multiple strands of belief, we don't find it particularly difficult to stand back from it all.

Of course a 5 year old's brain is wired to understand philosophy. Rational thought is a basic human skill which we develop through philosophy. You can start teaching philosophical ideas to young children, and most parents and primary school teachers do so to some extent. RE is not the basis of philosophy and does not serve as an introduction to philosophy for most children.

What is grating is the notion that religion should be offered special respect over everything else. It is incapable of respecting anything outside of itself labeling it as ignorant.

I don't need someone who believes in the tooth fairy or santa claus (for religion has the same classification to me)to inform how I live my life morally, ethically, respectfully. I am capable of doing that on my own.

CB in all your posts you insidiously imply that non believers are ignorant because they don't want to know about religion. All the human debates to be had can be achieved without learning about how santa rides a sleigh pulled by reindeer and comes down the chimney so therefore we must all be peaceful and kind to one another!

We need to be tolerant because its a beneficial goal in itself for all life on earth not because studying religions has unlocked this secret somehow.

Take RE out of the core curriculum. There are other ways to skin a cat.

We should not respect religious beliefs. We should not respect any beliefs. We should not teach our children to do so. We should respect people and we should respect reason and THAT is what we should teach our children.

Brass - I am a non believer - I do not imply non believers are ignorant: just the people on this thread who refuse to think that RE should be taught in schools.

Milly - I agree, children can understand philosophy but in a similar way to economics, it is not taught to young children as that particular academic subject. It is taught in a different way. I don't think many people would sit down with 5 yr olds and teach them kantian ethics. But teachers can tell them stories from the Old Testament.

Brass - do you withdraw your children from RE lessons then?

Why does it have to be stories from the old testament? What a load of tosh. Talk about right and wrong in simple terms and leave stories from the bible out of it.

'Brass - I am a non believer - I do not imply non believers are ignorant: just the people on this thread who refuse to think that RE should be taught in schools.'

Ha you're funny! Did you meant it to be? If you don't understand an opinion you label it as ignorant. That's what you've done all the way through this thread. Do you see that others feel the same way about you? I think you are ignorant because you seem to think it is beneficial in a unique way that can't be delivered elsewhere in the curriculum.

No they're not withdrawn but we all agree it's a waste of time.

I think there is a lot of value in teaching young children philosophy as a discrete subject.

I think I may actually get some books on philosophy for children, and start teaching it to my kids with a lot more focus than I have done in the past, as it isn't taught in either of their schools.

I saw a clip of it being taught to 3 year olds, and it has really impressed me. They were looking at make-believe, and the children were all trying on hats and saying how it was right to call someone bob the builder, santa, or the king if they were wearing the right hat, but it was wrong to call them that if they were simply wearing a badge saying that is who they were, because they were still themselves.

I was really interested in how they were all coming to the same conclusions, and how that morality comes to be. It is getting them to think about how morality applies to identity, the importance of imagination, the feelings of others in how you define them, and the difference between how identity is defined by material culture and language.

I would say for atheists and for the religious people I know well, it is actually our reason and common humanity that forms the basis of our understanding, and religion is then laid over that as a filter to create additional layers of meaning and purpose to that thought.

Of course there will be other religious people who base their morality primarily on their texts or the edicts of their religion, but I think that is fairly uncommon in the UK.

Milly are you a teacher? DS read The Philosophy Files by Stephen Law and that spawned exciting debate in our house!

He would relish more material like this.

No, I work in HE, although I have taught kids abroad for the last two Summers. I might go into Secondary school teaching in the future, although I don't know if I'd get a job as my subject area would be one of the most over-subscribed ones which has high levels of teacher unemployment. Sorry, rambling now.

I will look at the Philosophy Files and try it out in our house. DS is very much of a rational, scientific outlook, but DD has a very different way of looking at the world. She has a lot of interest in the fantastical, the supernatural and the symbolic. So I think they get a lot from each other as they have such different perspectives.

CB ..

"The existence of a god is only one aspect of RE. And I think that not being able to say robustly whether god exists or not (and justify that opinion) is a very very valid standpoint!!"

Why should that be? If you specify your definition of god robustly enough (does he intervene, is he good, all knowing, does he live on top of Mount Olympus, create the universe, deliver pronouncements on stone tablets, cause thunder etc...) if is a fairly straightforward matter to say whether that account is internally consistent and accords with the evidence we see. In the same way you can test astrological predictions and characterisations etc..

There is no evidence to support a well-specified version of god that looks and acts anything like any one of the world religions.

There is less evidence against a non-interventionist deist kind of god, but this bears no relation to the descriptions given in the world's holy books, and is in effect unknowable.

Whats so hard about that?

"give children as much practice as possible at thinking mushily but respectfully about religions, and going along with the idea that religions offer insights on moral questions- What is wrong with that as a foundation level of understanding that can be achieved by most students - within a context of other ethical and belief systems?"

Because it offers no thinking skills. Your religion tells you that men should rule over women, whites should rule over blacks, slavery is ok, animal cruelty is alright, disability is the consequence of past life misdemenor, genital mutiliation etc..is ok 'that's ok thats a valid point of view'? Your god speaks to you and tells you what to do and not to do, you are afraid of doing xyz because you think you will go to hell, you think your sexuality is a perversion 'that's ok thats a valid point of view?'

...and using the law as the boundary of what is right or wrong is just not helpful (..slavery, apartheid etc..)

TheCoalitionNeedsYou - "We should not respect religious beliefs. We should not respect any beliefs. We should not teach our children to do so. We should respect people and we should respect reason and THAT is what we should teach our children."

Yup, thats about it.

The very fact that RE teachers come from many faiths and non surely makes the idea of some kind of "agenda" seem daft.
As Nooka has pointed out, the OP's citing of a teacher wanting kids to take their subject and think it's important, is hardly some sort of sinister plot.
I have found RE to be one of the most subversive subjects in school, rather than a conformist one. Anything that gives you space to think for yourself will always present a challenge to the status quo.

'The very fact that RE teachers come from many faiths and non..'

What are these many faiths? I have only ever known them to be from some Christian denomination.

Seriously Brass? Well no reason why you should know lots of RE teachers I suppose!
Let's think - Christians (of different types), Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic. I personally know an RE teacher from each of these standpoints.

But if you take that view, why should a religious person be respectful of an atheist's way of life? I don't think you can have it both ways. Surely it's better for everyone to respect each other's right to make their own informed choices, and how they live these out, than for no-one to respect anyone?

"But they should not expect anyone to be respectful of their religious traditions or belief in public, IMO."

Another point worth making is to consider what it's like in countries where some/all religion has to be carried out in secret, due to persecution or danger if you carry out your faith in public. Is that really what anyone here would want?

There is an enormous leap between reducing RE in schools and persecuting people. We don't teach an enormous amount about marxism in schools but we don't persecute marxists.

What I'm saying Milly is that we are privileged to live in a country where we have the freedom and education to learn in an ordinary, reasoned way about religion. A balanced education in school can go some way to cancel out any more extreme views that some children may encounter at home.

I9 - I am not saying it's sinister I am just saying it's worth being aware (and self-aware) of the different interests of those setting the agenda for RE and arguing for its importance. People have argued that RE is valuable as a place to discuss moral issues. So it's not irrelevant to point out that in most LEAs the SACRE committeees that set the curriculum don't give places to humanist or atheist representatives.

PP - acting respectfully to people, respecting people's judgement, respecting their right to freedom of choice and speech (within limits of not harming others) and respecting the contents of peoples beliefs are different things.

I try to act with respect to people (not calling them insulting names, being aware if someone is upset etc..) and I respect their right to freedoms within limits,

But if they put forward a view that is poorly argued, or not backed by evidence, or I think is plain wrong I don't feel the need to play act respect for their belief by not criticising it or pointing out logical fallacies and errors (if it's that kind of conversation..).

And to be honest if they put forward a lot of these views I tend to loose respect for their overall judgement (aka - think they are a bit flaky)

To pussyfoot around people's beliefs is not to respect them but to patronize them,

I hope people respect me enough to tell me when I'm wrong.

But if they put

oops!

So you'd be happy if a religious person took the same approach to your views, Himalaya?

"if they put forward a view that is poorly argued, or not backed by evidence, or I think is plain wrong I don't feel the need to play act respect for their belief by not criticising it or pointing out logical fallacies and errors"