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 would like to see RE replaced with a topic called 'Belief, Ethics and Philosophy' which looks at belief and other forms of thinking and decision making, how people come to decisions about morality and ethics, what affects that decision making etc.

Coalition - we shall have to agree to differ. I think that a full immersion in all of TS is utterly essential, as is learning all those things you outlined above. We should learn everything there is to learn, it can be presented in varying levels of complicatedness for different audiences, of course.

Do kids all need a course on cat psychology so they can understand a large part of Mr Eliots ouvre? (judging from another thread, it wouldn't be a trivial subject...)

Just to go off on a little tangent, one that could be a topic for a school ethics or philosophy course, titled "is tolerance necessarily a virtue?" or "does education increase tolerance?":

I "benefited" from a huge amount of religious education in my childhood, and then from a philosophy degree, and I would say the net result has made me less tolerant of religion than most people. Increased knowledge of religion, or of systems of ethics, or of logic, does not necessarily make you more tolerant.

(and really, I do know how to spell benefitted... )

Grimma - no, I think we may leave the cats aside, we don't want to overwhelm the kiddies..

there is, or can be if properly taught, a much greater depth to RE than what one originally thinks,
it also encourages independant thinking and tolerance and encourages one to question a great variety of situations. i do believe that 1 lesson a week of a non exam related subject is a good thing

I remember they did go on in later years about moral relativism etc, things about people on islands and all that.

It is very easy to teach and talk about the notion of tolerance under the system of Ethics, Beliefs and Philosophy.

I like that title.

Increased knowledge of religion, or of systems of ethics, or of logic, does not necessarily make you more tolerant.

True. However, understanding such things can perhaps make you more tolerant of people even if you utterly refute their beliefs.

HullyGully - We can't learn everything though. That hasn't been true since (I can't find the reference now but I think the 16th century, but it might be earlier. Or later.) a long time ago, and that was only if we measure it by 'having read all the books ever written' which even then was only true if a) you excluded all the books destrotyed b) you only included the thinkgs that people wrote down and c) you ignore the complete ignorance of other cultures in the world.

Education and knowledge is by nature selective. It is NICE to learn things, but we can't learn EVERYTHING and too many people are building their knowledge on dodgy foundations.

I think that RE should be taught as a minor part of a new subject. It would encompass what is taught in RE in a broader framework. For example:

1. Moral Philosophy. Most people are not religious so would benefit from being taught about how to make decisions from a non-religious perspective - moral particularism for example. Morality based on religion would then become one topic within a wider philosophical context.

1. Equality and Diversity. In terms of importance in law, religion is the least important of the equality and diversity issues. In law the order generally goes race, disability, gender, sexuality and religion. If this order of priority is not to be followed in the classroom, the different equality and diversity issues should at least be given equal time. Why is it more important to spend 12 years learning how to avoid discriminating against religious people than people with disabilities?

1. Cultural understanding. This would be more properly understood through teaching anthropology. The fact that people frequently say on MN that Britain has no culture demonstrates that people don't understand what culture is. Religion is only one element of culture.

1. Aesthetic elements. This would be better taught through a formal teaching of myth (of which religion is on only one example) , symbolism and so on. You do need to know about Christianity to understand Western Art, but you also need to know a lot about , for example, Greek myth.

1. History. I don't think RE does equip people to understand History. Every time there is any kind of conflict in the world, religious people say, 'oh, but religious fighting group X isn't really part of our religion, because they are not following the teachings of Islam/Christianity/Hinduism.' And they are probably right to say so, because the reality of religion to the non-religious people is actually about the culturally and historically situated behaviour of people, not some spurious link to the teachings of the Koran/bible/teachings of the Catholic church.

Yes we can, outlines at the very least.

With footnotes to fill in gaps

But what does it mean to be tolerant of a person if you find their beliefs repugnant? Or what if their beliefs are a constraint on your freedom to practise your own beliefs? Or if their beliefs offend you? Or if you don't want your children being exposed to their beliefs? how can you be tolerant of someone else's beliefs if those beliefs have an impact on your life?

etc.

The starting point should be 'what should we tolerate'?

Then discuss things that occur due to religion and question if they should be tolerated or not.

Rather than here, learn these big religions every year at school and respect without questioning.

I would change focus and starting point.

Essentially, because we live in a largely secular country in a largely secular age, people have lost sight of the huge, inextricable importance of religion in times past. You simply cannot study history/literature/anthropology etc without studying religion.

Part fo the problem lies in the artificial divides of knowledge into distinct subjects. We shuold all be taught an overarching story of the world from inception to present.

And Eliot.

Marshabrady - I agree, it starts too early and therefore goes on too long.

I notice most people here are are talking about A level and GCSE level RE, but most of it goes on in primary school where it is dumbed down to the point of pious meaninglessness.

The primary school RE syllabus (where I live, each LEA is different) is particularly pitiful. For example one unit of work in KS1 on religious books starts with getting the class to find out about the books that are important to their own family i.e. precious family photo albums etc.. the learning objective is to understand that many religions have special books and treat them in special ways to show they respect them. ..why they have to learn this at KS1 I do not know. When they are older they can learn about the the Bible, Torah, Koran etc...but by laboring the point so early they are just trying to incalculate early the underlying message that religious books (and therefore the ideas in them) should be accorded special respect.

Are there any secondary school RE teachers on here who would say they couldn't teach the topic effectively to a class of students who hadn't already studied it for 7+years. My guess is no, but the same would not be true in English or Maths. That strongly points to it being a waste of time in the early years, no?

I would be all for something like Philosophy, ethics and belief to replace RE at secondary maybe starting in year 8 or 9. No one would try to teach this at KS1. At KS2 you could have some logic and critical thinking, and then start into philosophy in KS3. I would see it more akin to a topic like economics that you just wouldn't try to introduce too early.

In terms of the importance of religion to history, and to people around the world it is a bit like agriculture... The majority of people throughout history and still around the world have made their living through agriculture, developments in farming have been hugely important to economic, social and political development. You can't understand much of literature, Thomas Hardy etc.. without some understanding of agriculture's place in rural life, but still most people don't need 12 years education in it. We get by with a bit in geography and science.

Fennel - some behaviours, such as you indicate, shouldn't be tolerated. But the more we understand another person's perspective, the less likely we are to be intolerant of them personally for just thinking differently in cases where they are not impinging on our own liberties.

Hully

I think MillyR should be given the job of replacing the RE curriculum. Sounds good to me.

HullyGully - If we HAVE to have an early 20th Century elitist, Christian, eugenecist, can we have CS Lewis instead? I'm especially fond of 'The Screwtape Letters'.

/exposes low brow preference for amusing prose over serious poetry

No, he's very dull and unchallenging. And he doesn't have any white leopards or juniper trees.

And pore ol TS was greatly misunderstood..

Learning the OUTLINE of everything isn't the same as learning everything. Even that I would say isn't possible anyway, as their are essentially an infinite number of 'things'. But knowing a little about a lot as well as a lot about a little is clearly very valuable.

It's nonsense and has no place on the curriculum of publicly funded schools.

The time would be much better used for MFLs and separate sciences.

The US doesn't need it, France doesn't need it, neither do we.

I don't like juniper trees anyway sniffs

Apart from their role in Gin production.