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....

"Why are there no historical documents denying anything that is recorded in the gospels about the life of Jesus and what he did?"

We don't know if there were or not. The last 2000 years has not been kind to documents that disagreed with Christian orthodoxy - or indeed to 99.9% of documents in general.

In any case the Gospels are not contemporaneous accounts by eyewitnesses.

The most the Gospels can prove is that some people told some stories about someone they called Jesus.

SVC - well I guess the grin was because you don't often hear the faithful explaining it in terms of unicorns - apt as that may be to an unbeliever.

As to understanding faith, and the pointlessness of trying to disprove it to a believer - I think do understand pretty well, I used to be a Christian.

Scram - you said "you can't prove athesism" and then talked about impossiblility of disproving a negative.

Atheism is the statement that god does not exist (to 99.99999% certainty)

It is not the statement that faith does not exist. Faith quite clearly exists.

You've move the goal posts.

We can appreciate the Norse myths, Roman gods, Sistene Chapel, Rumi, good-heartedness of our churchgoing next door neighbor whatever without ever taking serious, or pretending to take seriously the idea that they myths that inspire them are true, or have any moral validity by virtue of being faith-based.

I don't think as an non-believer you can ever truely understand what it means to follow a religion, however well informed you are (and as a believer you can't understand another religion). Its like trying to imagine what it is like to be a bat and see with sonar, we can only approximate.

I don't think that believers view well-informed outsiders (e.g.RE teachers) as people with the legitimacy to tell them how to criticise aspects of their religion (after all you can't see the unicorn, you've only read about it in a book. Its why there is no point for atheists getting into Leviticus arguments with fundamentalists.

That's why if the religious bodies that sit on the SACREs guiding RE were serious about dealing with extremism in their ranks they'd be doing it themselves.

Brass I think you believe I use the term 'ignorant' as one of abuse. It is, in fact, one of fact. Ignorant means "The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed" or any such combination of those words. If you refuse to teach your children anything about religions, then they will be uneducated, unaware or uninformed about them. It is not ignorant to want to learn about more things than you immediately seem to need.

I can tolerate lots of opinions different to my own, thanks. After all I have spent years teaching RE which is full of opinions I do not agree with. I am currently studying for a science degree. I believe in a broad foundation of knowledge. Like I have said, I do not have any empathy for people who wish to close their eyes and ears to ideas of which they do not agree or trust. Everyone has the right to their opinion, but should be prepared for their opinion to be challenged. I like to be challenged :)

Himalya RE teaching is not just a question of whether a god exists, but a question of what other people think about the idea of a god. RE teaching is not about judging the truth of those religions (though students are free to come to their own conclusions) but the focus is on how those religions view their truths. In this respect, it is its own separate subject and not part of philosophy or history.

To not teach RE in schools is like closing your eyes, putting fingers in your ears and going 'na nahh nahh nahhh not listening'. Religion has shaped the world around us, and is still shaping it today. There is good and bad RE teaching. There are interesting and dull RE courses. These need to be challenged and developed. Excessive religion in state funded schools (assemblies etc) needs to be addressed. More emphasis on alternative, secular morality and ethics should be included in RE lessons (and probably a new name for them). But RE is not a big waste of time.

Actually Ican Himalaya: I only started to beleive in 2007, so absolutely (I am 37 btw so a fair few eyars!).

I have openly admitted on MN many times that I am quite aware my faith may be a crutch through rough times; that idea doen;t bother me.

I don;t think I moved the goalposts but tehre you go!

As for the unicorn- yep I get it now! Views like that don;t bother me; people are free to belive as they wish.

As for extreemists- well I know what you eman but there ARE a great many people working within faiths dealing with extremists. I have yet to meet an extremist Quaker though: wonder what that would look like!

And YY to Slug etc- Gospels after Christ; we pretty much know Jesus existed. The rest- who knows? Charismatic wandering mendicant with a knack for a good word, or son of God...? I know what I think (probably not what you expect me to) but that's my choice isn't it? I wholeheartedly believe in personal choice, and
to me faith is just that.

I am anti faiths schools (my kids attend one only for geographical reasons- if I could get them elsewhere they would not), anti formal worship in schools, anti anything that represents any one way as 'it'; but RE is at it's best a wonderful, vibrant combination of ethics, philosophy and 'people studies'. I am curious about people; that's what draws me to RE. I want to know what makes them tick (hence I also did psychology) and I find it exciting.

I am not closed to Atheism; I was one, am married to one. An d I know Rumi, Vivekananda etc are to be enjoyed by all. But tehy also chllenge accepted ideas of what God / faith / belief are and that's worthwhile so I discuss them. I find Vivekananda as inspiring as the Bible, and I had a Gibran reading at my ds's naming ceremony; all a mix of beleif systems (and their absence) but sahring a positive approach to humanity, and I guess that is what I choose to share with my children, and if there's anything I am evangelical about ti's that. I used to describe myself as a Humanist, now it;s a (very abstract) Quaker: it makes me feel safe and that's enough. For me. I don't feel I need to prove it to anyone, even if I could.

It is a brilliant subject today- particularly at A level- moral philosophy is useful to everyone.
Being able to articulate your opinion( which the subject facilitates) is such an essential skill, as is understanding how someone's beliefs affect their view of the big questions in life.
I don't think the OP is really aware of how it is taught today and some of you on here seem to have RS LESSON ISSUES from the past.

Some of the brightest students aiming for Oxbridge used to take it at the school i worked in.

CB I am educated, aware and informed thanks. As are my children. That's why I've come to the conclusion that I don't need my children to endure RE at school. They are not ignorant about religions as we have friends and family whom we interact with who observe very different lifestyles.

English is my second language so I know all about ignorance and tolerance thanks.

'Like I have said, I do not have any empathy for people who wish to close their eyes and ears to ideas of which they do not agree or trust.' You are talking about yourself - do you STILL not see that?

I have yet to meet an extremist Quaker though: wonder what that would look like!

Brass, dear. I am not closing my eyes and ears to what you are saying. What you are saying is that religion is a load of tosh and you do not wish your children to learn about it. Absolutely your decision, but not - I think - the correct way to run a national education system.

Lalamum -

I'm all for moral philosophy and articulating your opinion.

But there is no reason this has to be done through a supernatural framework. In fact I think the relativism that goes along with modern RE positively handicaps kids from critical thinking.

A levels in anything are fine since they are a free choice. But before you get there you have 12 years of compulsary RE.

Could it not be that some of that time could be used better?

LOL@ 'dear' - clearly you're tired and starting to slip into condescension.

I think a debate about different faiths which people might choose to follow has a place in education BUT in another subject called something else (NOT RE) which also discusses morality, ethics, philosophy, atheism, spirituality etc etc etc including religion.

I don't think it needs to be a subject on it's own and I certainly don't think it's necessary to study holy texts or particular rituals to appreciate why people from a faith might think a certain way.

Surely this thread is actually a perfect example of why RE should be taught in schools. People enjoy discussing and debating religion and it is something that happens in the real-world-adult-life (if Mumsnet can be classed as such )

I don't slip into condensation :) at the best of times! Am pleased we agree.

I tend to agree with the op and question what educational value a GCSE in Re actually gives in terms of university entry. That is what I am concerned about. I would prefer my dcs to spend more time studying other subjects, be they acedemic ones such as a humanity like history. Or a subject of choice eg textiles.
Either way I think tolerance etc should be taught outside of religious confinements.

I am another poster whocannot remember a single thing (other than very commonly known things such as Easter is a Christian celebration)about Re despite having it rammed down my throat at school for years.

Also as well as re my dcs are forced to partake in lessons called learning for Life. My dd actually enjoys these lessons. Those are 2 compulsory sub jects which surely could be combined into one lseeon. Then time freed up for either acedemic subjects such as science, languages etc OR creative lessons. As it is ALL DT lessons are undertaken in one lesson so my dcs only spend one term on each dt subject.

I am getting a little weary of hearing about the 12 years of RE the wee dears have crammed into them, especially if followed up by someone saying they should be given a basic grounding in a variety of religions, but that's enough. How long do you think it takes to explain one religion to any reasonable standard, to children who need lessons to be interesting, fun and challenging? It's not a lecture. 12 years of something around 50 mins a week is actually not enough time to give a grounding in even the 6 biggest religions. All the moral issues and critical thinking aspects that many people on the thread do think are useful would certainly have to be left out.

i9 RE fans on this thread have argued that it is a fun and engaging subject because you can debate contemporary issues and moral philosophy.

But it turns out that you can debate these issues just as well if not better without a religious education framework.

( seriously, can anyone explain the moral lessons to be had from Adam, Eve, Noah, Job, Isaac, Abraham- I'm baffled.)

The trouble is, as you say that whats left after you take out the basically secular stuff are the religious teachings, which are quite boring (although the festivals are fun).

I don't see that dragging the boring stuff out makes it any more interesting. And certainly whatever you learn in RE in secondary doesn't really depend on the 7 years that came before.

The trouble is, as you say that whats left after you take out the basically secular stuff are the religious teachings, which are quite boring (although the festivals are fun).

I'm not sure I'd agree they are all boring, but beyond a certain level they are arcane and of no practical value to a non-adherent.

Given the constraints of the timetable, a proper treatment of ethics and critical thinking seems to me far more valuable than learning much beyond the basic facts about the major religions.

I think the things that could (maybe are) covered within a good RS course are valuable and interesting. I still have a problem with the name of the subject, and the inherent prioritising of religion as the medium for addresssing these topics. As if you can't have critical thinking or debates about ethics if you drop the religious aspect.

I think our local comp offers Ethics instead of RS at GCSE level, as an option but not compulsory.

Good grief. Have just checked my emails and there's one there from a teaching agency asking me if I want to do cover as an RE teacher for the rest of the term. Oh the irony.

slug - Mumnset moves in mysterious ways!

To be honest I can't remember any of the chemistry or maths or physics i learnt at school-it is the process of learning that is valuable and RS actually offers a very interesting dialogue in which students can engage. It develops their muscle to argue and examine arguments critically- religious views provide great material for this because the beliefs held result in strong opininios which students get the opportunity to be critical of.

When it is taught well it is very useful- look they have 5 times as much maths and really unless you do something mathematical I really don't think that is the best use of time.

Lalamum

there are some differences between maths and RE;

• if you don't do any maths in primary you wI'll have trouble catching up in secondary.
• even bright kids have to revise to get an A at gcse maths
• you need numeracy skills for work
• you need numeracy skills for life
• you need numeracy skills for other subjects
• you learn concepts and skills in maths that you couldn't pick up through other means

You can debate issues without it having a religious framework. In fact I don't think the religious framework is what makes for interesting debate.

Eg on abortion the faith based answers
'because the Pope says it's wrong and he is infallible'
'because ensoulment happens at conception'
are to dead-end answers - you can't engage with them outside of the belief system

the interesting answers about women's autonomy, when
does the foetus have rights, when is killing justified etc..
are philosophical answers that you can engage without having to share the same metaphysical beliefs.