AIBU to think we'd have less religious extremism if

[BubblesInMyBath]

Schools actually taught history regarding religion, and not just the basics of each one?

Maybe it's changed since I was at school but all I remember was learning simplistic things like what various festivals were about

I feel people perhaps wouldn't take it so literally if they were taught in more depth about different religions and could see the similarities/differences and how interpretation has changed through history?

Yes I do now.

I was sheltered from such people growing up, other than to "witness" to them.

That is a big part of the problem. Religion is to do with people, its a way of life. I know loads of people who will say "oh yes i have several muslim, etc friends. The truth is in this country in particular, in westernised countries, people find it very hard to mix with people who are different. They may chat all day long at work, wave across the street, but they are never part of their inner circle of friends. When they have children, the children are guided towards the kids the parents feel more comfortable with, they go for the playdates but the quiete hindu lady in the corner is not the one they see mum chatting with or going for a coffee with after school is it? eventually the children also learn this behaviour. The sikh man is viewed as an enigma, the black evangelical lady is in a cult, the hindu woman is 'exotic'. The average british person really doesn't have a clue about people of other religions other than C of E and Catholicism.

Trying to make my point clearer

Hell as a topic and I am generalising

It has progressed through time in its interpretation from being burning in a literal eternal fire to seperation from God for eternity.

But when most people (not just extremist or people who take all of it literally) shared the view that it was an eternal burning literally - it wasn't that uncommon to burn people to death for their sins

Nowadays the people who interpret scriptures less literally usually view it as eternal seperation from God, society has sort of modified hell to be less offensive

But then you get those who believe if scripture it, it's meant literally

I think that's precisely why schools should teach what other religions believe.

Because it's very easy to be indoctrinated - without facts and history

But how do you decide what it literal and what isn't? who would be the authority on this? i don't think its strange a Christian should believe in a real hell fire, i do, i don't see anywhere in the bible where this is metaphorical, although the bible is rich with figures of speech.

Fact is most religions believe they are the right one. That is never going to change, so yes the God of the bible says He is superior, omnipotent, almighty, Allah says, "the most beneficent, most merciful" i'm sure Krishna has a lot to say for himself too, that doesn't mean hating other people, or killing them or thinking of ourselves as superior to them. Although i get on MN that this is what a lot of people seem to believe Christians in particular think.

Perhaps the question is what do we mean by tolerance?

"I think the curriculum is already full enough without adding the history of all the major religions of the world. That's a lot of information."

Hmmmisn't RE already a compulsory part of the curriculum up until the age of 14 (and a substantial percentage of pupils continue to do it at GCSE level too)? RE is already taking up space in the syllabusthe problem is that students are spending quite a lot of RE time doing activities which don't actually teach them anything about religion.

We could cover the history of the major religions of the worldthe basics, at leastquite easily without needing to use any extra curriculum time, if we simply used RE time more effectively. Some schools are already managing this:

"The Independent Schools Examination Board (ISEB), which sets the common entrance exams for preparatory schools, has a detailed RE syllabus providing a coherent and rich understanding of the biblical narrative and the core beliefs and practices of world religions."

thegoldencalfre.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/purpose-overload-inclusivity-and-inequality-in-re/

Agree with the op.
Things that should be taught include origins of a religion, social and political reality at the time, then how said religion develops through history - again looking at social, political and cultural factors, etc.
Islam in particular has a rich and interesting history that a lot of Muslims are not aware of - things like the Islamic Renaissance, for example.

Not sure it will prevent extremism, but it will be a step in the right direction.

Thank you leftovermonster!

You've conveyed my point far more clearly and concisely than i had

I see where you are coming from OP. I for one had never appreciated how similar Easter and the traditional Egyptian spring festival are (coloured eggs and all), and the similarities between Egyptian deities and the Holy Family's portrayal. It is fascinating and not very surprising when you learn the early history of the Church and the establishment of the first monasteries and churches in Egypt.

Also the history of veiling in Islam and the question of whether it was borrowed from Christian and Jewish practice (the answer is almost certainly yes), and things like rosaries which are common to Catholics and Muslims.

However, I can see that in practice it would turn into a complete minefield. When you teach the Crusades, how would you frame it? As a war to liberate the Holy city of Jerusalem or persecution of the people of the Holy Lands?

And would you have Christians or Muslims destroying the Great Library of Alexandria?

I just think that it would end up dividing more than uniting and each pupil would revert to his or her community's narrative of that event. I hope I am wrong.

I think the key to this is making people see others as fellow human beings before Christians/Jews/Muslims/Sikhs or any ethnic or racial background. There is so much common ground that we miss because we are trying to be culturally accommodating or go to opposite way and try to impose nonsensical "British" values on everyone.

Community events where people of all ages mix would be more useful here.

But, altered, would that mean not teaching about the Crusades (or other historical events) at all, because you can't put a correct political spin on it?

When you teach the Crusades, how would you frame it? As a war to liberate the Holy city of Jerusalem or persecution of the people of the Holy Lands?

Well that's easy because if you teach the Crusades in History, you are using a number of historical skills, such as using evidence, evaluating sources, understanding narratives and how time and place will affect the weight given to different narratives etc. You would look at both Christian and Muslim sources and weigh them up. There's no 'framing' involved but questioning, investigation, and argument.

• TJsWife Mon 09-Mar-15 22:07:20

I cant steer who my dc are freinds with! They want who they want over, they want who they want at parties, I have no idea whose parent sits in a corner and whose parents practise what faith and I have no interest in it either.

friendly agree thats exactly what a historian would do, you look at the evidence and you draw your own conclusions

sort of the point, the framing in that you learn over and over again how history is written by who and with what purpose and its this very questioning that is liberating

Indeed, AlPacinos, so in fact we need more and better teaching of historical skills (rather than a simple narrative of British history, say, which is what the UK Government for one is keen on) that by inference encourages students to think independently, question 'received wisdom', understand others' points of view, etc. etc -- in other words, that educates them.

If we could just take the same approach to all academic subjects then, blimey, we might have an excellent education system!

I teach both history and rs and religion is explained in terms of history and vice versa. But it is obviously more simplistic at primary level.

TheLeftovermonster, no I don't at all mean that any subjects should be off limits for teaching. I meant more that I felt anxious about the idea of teaching specific historical events as a clash of religions in order to highlight the dangers of extremism. As FriendlyLadybird rightly points out the teaching of history should be more about evaluating evidence and balancing perspectives than an overrriding theme or narrative. However that isn't really what the OP is proposing. I took her post to mean a separate class, neither history or RE, where historical examples are presented to highlight the dangers of religion. Something like the Crusades is much more complex than two sides motivated by religion and taking a reductionist approach IMO would do more harm than good.