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....

"respect each other's right to make their own informed choices" != respecting those choices.

PepsiPopcorn - YES. It's called rational debate.

PP -

RE curricula for non-faith schools in England (and Wales?) are set by local Standing Advisory Councils for Religious Education (SACREs) made up of teachers, LEA reps, and representatives from CoE and other religions. They also set the rules on collective worship.

You have to ask if the main selling point for RE is to counteract extreme views children get from home ( and mosque and church etc..) (and I think this is the only argument put up so far that stands up) why aren't these clerics and the institutions they represent doing that job themselves, rather than through the school system?

And why are there not the same requirements for faith schools, given that they are likely to have more children from religious homes?

PP - yes of course. I'd rather know what people think than have them act polite and dishonest.

If you agree to differ then your respect that agreement, but it doesn't come as standard just because the topic is spiritual in nature.

There is a time and a place. In the pub, on MN etc.. ok, at a funeral or wedding, no.

Not saying that teachers should point to kids 'no you are wrong' but that's not how they teach in other subjects either.

PP, if we lived in a country that gave children the freedom and education to learn about disability, gender, race and sexuality in an ordinary, reasoned way then I couldn't object to the same amount of lesson time being given to RE as is given to each of these issues.

The only place I know of in the curriculum where students learn about disability, gender, race and sexuality is RME.

I9, exactly, and that is what I would like to see changed.

It would be interesting to see how different the approach is between RME in Scotland and RE in England.

Well, you're welcome to visit

As an athiest, from a Catholic background, with a Religious Studies degree, who wasn't educated in the UK, I'm appalled that RE is forced on children at school. I was quite successfully taught ethics, philosophy and morality in school without the overriding construct of religion. I would argue that it is important to teach our children how to debate properly. Introducing religion into the curriculum shuts down debate. Once you get as far as "it is written" you can go no further.

As for the respect issue, my argument has always been I will respect when they respect me. Given that most world religions treat women as second class citizens at best, that day is a long way away.

It's depressing how many of you think it is ok to be disrespectful to someone because of their belifes. Yes, you have a "right" to tell someone they shouldn't belive in "mumbo jumbo" sky faeries or whatever, but it doesn't make you a nice person.

Do you really go around telling people that they are deluded etc, or have you just made sure that you don't have any friends who's beliefes differ from your own?

Hopefully people with a strong education background, including a religious one, whould get that.

HH, how many of us is that then? There doesn't seem to be very many people saying that on this thread.

Teaching someone about religion doesnt make them empathetic, you can have empathy for someone regardless of whether you know their religions viewpoint on abortion...
And how does the world have empathy for the less popular (though still thousands or even millions of followers) religions? I learnt about hinduism in RE, but not wicca. I have no less respect for someone who is wiccan, even though I dont know the ins and outs of their beliefs!

The RE exam I sat, not too long ago, contained a lot of "compare two religions views of x" if you follow any religion, thats half marks instantly. I went to CoW primary, and decided aged about 8 that I didnt believe in God. I didnt go to RE lessons in Year 11 as I believed they were a complete waste of time, and came out of the exam with an A.

Personally, I think that History and RE both need an overhall, possibly also included with Geography and turned into World culture and history. Too much of the history lessons prior to GCSE are focussed on English history (with a splattering of Romans)

As a side thought, if RE prevents racism, why are there young racists in Britain...?

My point exactly, Coalition. It works both ways.

"It's called rational debate."

Completely agree, HannahHack.

I dunno Hannah. I wouldn't have thought people would go around claiming that at least sport is something for the thick kids to do, but there you go.

Everyone is offensive sometimes.

There doesn't seem to be very many people saying that on this thread.

I didn't think so either, so searched for the terms 'mumbo jumbo' 'sky faeries' (and sky fairy) and deluded - they appear only in HHs post.

Himalaya god = deist entity, God = specific figure from a religion. I thought you would understand that. Just because you see no evidence for a God, as documented in religious texts, doesn't mean that He does not exist for many people.

You are confusing religious studies with a pursuit of facts. RS is important to understand people who have a religion, not just to encourage critical thinking skills.

I don't have a religion. I don't have a god. In RS lessons you allow students to make a value judgement on religions IE which they agree with personally and disagree. But you can do that within the margins of respect for people.

RS is not always about looking at what views are valid and what aren't - it is about understanding people and living alongside people who have different views to ourselves, and not being ignorant of their views.

brass - I understand your opinion, but I think that someone who refuses knowledge of things they don't already have an understanding of - purely because they don't like the idea - is ignorant. Yes. I also think you should withdraw your children from RE if you strongly believe it's such a waste of time. You should actually do something about it, rather than rant away on here.

MillyR I fail to see how putting on a santa hat or a bob the builder hat has any more educational value than looking at religious stories and their morals. If that is indicative of philosophy teaching to 3 yr olds then it seems a bit of a waste of time.

if RE prevents racism, why are there young racists in Britain

RE does not prevent racism! But currently, lessons about racism are taught within english, history and RE because all these subjects have subject material about them.

You cannot teach children about racism merely by saying 'it's wrong' or 'here is what Martin Luther King did 40 yrs ago' or 'the Bible says this....' - education is about all those things working together. RS lessons are part of a whole.

PP - I don't think that was your point at all.
'
Rational debate means questioning each others assumptions, pointing out holes in logic and bringing evidence to the table.

As I said i'm happy for it to go both ways, and this debate has been very civil (despite the sky fairies HH has read into it)

I think what you were calling for was polite conversation - not digging too deep into assumptions, skating over holes in the logic and not pointing out when someone's beliefs are in contradiction with the evidence.

There is a time and a place for that, but its not in education (maybe in finishing school).

But the main argument for RE lessons I have read here is that RE teaches kids about diversity rather than teaching scripture? Surely the point of teaching diversity is to make people more tolerant of it? Which clearly isnt happening...?

Of course RE doesn;t prevent racism

But it might expose some children to the idea that they could think a different way. challenge a few preconceptions. After all chains get broken somewhere don;t they? My Mum and dad are hugely non racist; yet Grandad is the vilest rcist I now. breaking the chain is possible.

I think we can all learn so much from other cultures. I sat last night reading some Sufi poetry (Rumi for those who know it) and there's a lot of wisdom tehre: I am not a Muslim but there's much to consider. And I think that works for all faiths tbh.

And what is negative is also to be learned from of course- and i;d far rather there be a palce chidlren can discuss (as i've given one Islam example another, this time negative, is fair) female circumcision in an informed environment than it be buried or mentioned only be people who have heard hearsay tbh.

'PP, if we lived in a country that gave children the freedom and education to learn about disability, gender, race and sexuality in an ordinary, reasoned way then I couldn't object to the same amount of lesson time being given to RE as is given to each of these issues'
Well I'd likely agree MillyR; but then my degree equips me for that. I am told there's already recruitment issues for PSE though so who would teach it otherwise?

As for respect- I respect people's choices to choose their own faith and live their lives accordingly. I also retain the right to disagree with aspects of that belief system and to challenge when I see it leading to repression, cruelty and injustice. But then i follow a Quaker line of thought so I would feeel that way I guess. I think the Quaker value of challenging injustice is essential and that's most effectively done by informed individuals.

PS, I never meant teaching them "the bible says x about racism", I meant teaching them that there are many views in the world, not just theirs. Racism regarding religious views, not colour of skin...

Which clearly isnt happening...?

It is, just not uniformly. Racism is far less acceptable now than in the past. Whether this has anything to do with RE as currently constituted I doubt - it probably has more to do with people actually knowing people from other races nowadays. The best cure for racism may be properly integrated schools ... but thats a whole other thread.

Teaching diversity would be useful if that included the equally valid (IMHO) teaching of the validity of the non-religious viewpoint.

Many times students of mine, having found out I am an athiest, immediatly assume I have no morality. Now these boys (mainly) had been through 12 years of RE in English schools. How on earth did they come to that conclusion? The answer simply was that morality, ethics etc is, in the UK education system, intrinsicly bound up with religion. Remove the religion element and, logically to their mind, morality also is removed.

CB I haven't been ranting on here at all. If you look at my posts they are just my thoughts (quite brief actually) responding to the debate.

If you look at your posts, you will see that they are quite lengthy and what I would describe as ranting.

I haven't withdrawn my children from RE as I don't see the need. Whether they are sitting in RE or not it would still be a waste of time and it's my choice. I don't feel the need to justify it. It is what it is and we will ride it out.

Whether you understand that or not it's your learning curve. But seeing as the pro RE posters were the first ones to throw the word 'ignorant' around it shows that RE hasn't given you the skills to debate intelligently.

It is an opinion that differs from yours. Can you deal with it? Can you tolerate it?