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....

"i completly disagree. I hate the fact that children today are taught with more emphasis on the importance of business studies (capitalist grooming) over the importance of spiritual and religious fufillment. its everyhting thats wrong with the world. priorities are all wrong"

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

I have to agree.

I got top marks in all of my RE classes at school, but tolerance and religious education? Yes, to a certain degree. But that's after meeting people from different religions and learning about them that way, not due to RE. Not in the slightest.

Plus, I doubt I have that 'special kind of respect'. My family are full of strongly religious christians, they would punish me if I didn't go to church and I was forced to go until about the age of thirteen. Due to this, as much as I had to admit, I have a grudge on them. Another family we know, the father was a minister and tried to force his son back into religion after him not wanting to have anything further to do with it. This is only two examples though, I know there are lovely religious people out there, as I have met them. :)

Hugely disagree with OP.

I hope to teaach RE (and I don;t ahve a faith to push- if I ahd to quantify my own we'd be looking at a Quaker path and I don;t do evangelicism of any kind.

So why did I decide to follow this teaching path?

Well. I worked for a charity that in part enabled struggling aprents to get ito their communities. We were told we had a large number of asylum seekers allocated, not one of my volutary team would take on the role becuase of all sorts of misgivings and misunderstandings based on lack of education.

I firmly beleive good RE should be taught as a pholosophy: very much of the 'this is what X beleives, what do you beleive? how do we fit this in with different thoughts?' school. I think when done like that it is great and really can help children develop informed ideas about the very many issues in the world around them.

My degree is Religions (as in world) and Philosophy; I had the opportunity to study Theology at a much 'better' 9as in MN definition of better ) but wanting a more rounded base was one of the reasons I chose the course I did. I know some excellent RE teachers who have gone in via a Theology route but I won't lie that it worries me slightly.

HullyGully - You just refer to the footnotes

What a great idea!

I shall tell my dc to give up studying anything as they can just look up footnotes when necessary.

It may be just a tad piecemeal.

It is given too much weight, by virtue of the fact that it starts too early.

Forcing pupils to study a subject they have no interest in does not lead to a changed attitude in the child or a useful exam grade. It steals valuable slots in the timetable and adds to the general despair come exam time.

I didn't care for religion/theology when I was growing up and I certainly care even less now. I would have welcomed philosophical, political humanitarian debate in itself (on issues which might directly affect my life as a woman in an all girls school in inner city London) but RS was all about (can't actually remember what) and I knew even then that it was a waste of my time.

I have never had to draw upon anything I supposedly learned in RS and yet I have an O level in it!

' If you can't tolerate people and understand the context in which you exist and the context in which your multi-cultural friends exist then you are on the Autistic spectrum and need appropriate support.
'

As someone studying for an MA in Autism can I just point out that is not the diagnostic criteria at all; it's part of the presentation certainly (for many anyway) but ASD is a triadic impairment defined by the DSM or OCD criteria, not one personality deficit.

We did one class a week in year 5 for a year. That was it. Revisited ethics and morality in year 10 or something. So much better.

I am so surprised that ds will be dealing with it for so long.

I hate the fact that children today are taught with more emphasis on the importance of business studies ...

AFAIK my DD won't be doing any 'business studies' and its certainly not a mandatory part of every schools curriculum.

Brass then that was poorly delivered RS, quite possibly the norm then. Maybe even now.

Good RS / RE is a philosophical study that uses that to inform about religious knowledge. I'm not sure one can teach tolerance exactly but a good teahcer can make sure a student's understanding of the world is absed on fact and not hearsay / kind but erroneous drivel.

A big part of it is helpingt the children to make up their own minds: ask them what they have been told about

RE these days is bloody brilliant.

HullyGully - I am being SLIGHTLY facetious, but the reality is we don't live in a world where Religious and Classical knowledge can be assumed in readers - Shakespeare texts are annotated for this reason as most people aren't knowledgeable about the minutiae of Elizabethan life, language and society. T.S. Eliot early 20th century intellectual culture is every bit as alien as Shakespeares.

Suggesting that one should learn all of Christian dogma and History, the whole of the Western Cannon, classical literature, Hindu literature and mythology and esoteric traditions in order to read 'The Wasteland' is maybe asking a little much of people.

But I don't teach "facts" about religions, certainly not at secondary, that would be very low level thinking.

Well, this is a while ago now but I didnt bother with RS GCSE as it looked pants and unacademic - full of detail about the outward expressions of different religions, without the History of Thought type stuff which should underpin, IMO.

But the A level I did was pretty rigorous and involved close textual study of one of the gospels, as well as a 'Philosophy/Moral Reasoning' type paper. I know exam boards curricula differ though.

I went on to do Theology at Uni (as an atheist!).

We didn't have RE at junior school. We had it in senior school - but only for the first 3 years, unless we decided to take an O level in it (yes, I'm that old)

It has its place for sure and it would be sad to see it go, as (afaik) it is the only place where the different belief systems and religions are covered in any depth. As long as it isn't used as an evangelical platform for any religion, it should stay.

HullyGully - What is more saying EVERYONE should learn these things IN CASE they want to read 'The Wasteland' dosen't seem to me to hold water.

It may be there is a cse for the RE module being amended to one called RE, Ethics And Philosophy to deal with both some of the less good teaching and less up to dtae notions about what is taught.

brass by that then I shouldn't have had to do science, as I hated that. But I was forced to do it. And Shakespeare, hated that no relevance to modern society.

The framework is skewed.

It should not be a religious framework.

The umbrella should be morality/ ethics / philosophy etc

And then the students can look at each religions take on each issue, make it a sub section.

I wonder what afaik means...?

Relgious studies and philosphy are amazing subjects to be taught, everyone should be taught them. if we start saying oh its a wasted hour on a subject this child dousnt want to study then does that mean we should allow kids to pot out of maths if they dont like that aswell?

afaik - As Far As I Know

afaik = as far as I know

afaik = as far as I know

RE is as rigourous or not as the student makes it IME (after a certain level obviously, my lecturers noted for their hard markking thankfully).

We did an essay on a section of the BIble we chose ourselves; those wanting an easier ride did Creation, other of us chose complex bits. My own study was on the rape of Dinah and a detailed study of Hebrew culture and related ethics especially as applied to women.

My experience is that most Arts subjects are like that, as indeed is DH's BSc. There's a big element of personal choice.

Thank you !!! ive been trying to work that out for ages!

Knitted - there's a handy link 'Acronyms' at the top of the Talk page. Lists most of the ones commonly encountered on MN.