Church of England wants better RE

[MuswellHillDad]

"Church of England attacks Michael Gove over state of religious education"

www.theguardian.com/education/2013/oct/05/church-attacks-gove-religious-education-schools

As an atheist, I'm delighted that RE is being squashed out of the curriculum and that kids leave school seeing religion as a "mystery".

Why can't churches keep out of school? I don't want Scientologists there or the Pope.

Discuss

[ErrolTheDragon]

My parents had some classic Ercol dining chairs, so that gives me a nostalgia trip so I wouldn't mind

[alemci]

good, I have a lovely ercol table given by in laws so glad you don't mind :)

[pointythings]

I've just Googled Ercol tables and am feeling a bit . Just beautiful.

[alemci]

I'm coveting the in laws matching elm sideboard too

[MuswellHillDad]

Now we get the ultimate questions and answers in life. What type of sideboard to have.

Why don't they teach this stuff at school?

[pointythings]

But at least we are not having any major schism over the right kind of sideboard, MuswellHillDad - we all respect each other's choices in sideboards.

[ErrolTheDragon]

So long as its good hardwood...Treske ash, myself, hope that's not heretical.
So, now we've got our virtual teaparty tastefully furnished ... where were we?

[MuswellHillDad]

Hang on. You weren't about to put that drink down without a coaster were you!

[alemci]

probably get flamed on another thread for having the wrong decor

its all that dragons fault I'm telling ya (joking)

[pyrrah]

alemci,

There are a couple of references in the writings of the Romano-Jewish historian Josephus which are widely accepted as later and false additions to the original texts. In any case, Josephus was born in 37CE, so was not a contemporary and no traces exist of the documents from which these additions purported to come from.

The first gospel - probably Mark or Matthew - was written in around 70CE - so again not contemporaneous.

Provincial governors such as Pontius Pilate kept meticulous records... yet no mention of a Jesus such as that of the bible. Roman censuses were - like our own - carried out on a particular date and wherever you happened to be. The idea of returning to your birth town as per the bible is pure fiction.

The whole virgin birth/messiah/son of god/died and rose on the 3rd day is a carbon copy of the myths about Mithras - the Roman military religion. As with Christmas conveniently replacing Saturnalia, it seems that a bit of enthusiastic borrowing was going on amongst the early founders of the Xtian church.

It's one of the things that most infuriated me about the old-style RE that I was taught back in the 70's/80's - no-one ever pointed out the contradictions and anomalies and despite being an atheist for as long as I ever remember (was expelled from school at 6 for being a nasty little heathen and bad example to the other children by the extreme fundie HT - not in the UK) I believed that Jesus as a historical figure existed.

In terms of teaching reasoning skills and developing questioning minds, I think these sort of things could be very interesting to tackle in RE lessons.

FWIW, anyone who wants to be actively involved in RE, you can apply to be a representative on your local SACRE. I was the Humanist Rep for several years on mine and received a very warm welcome from all the religious reps - who seemed rather relieved to have someone giving the non-believers a voice!

[blessedhope]

"The whole virgin birth/messiah/son of god/died and rose on the 3rd day is a carbon copy of the myths about Mithras - the Roman military religion. As with Christmas conveniently replacing Saturnalia, it seems that a bit of enthusiastic borrowing was going on amongst the early founders of the Xtian church."

No it isn't a "carbon" copy. There are similarities, but that's it. Jesus' Messiahship is based on His fulfilment of the Messianic predictions. "Mithras" is man-made and possibly demonic, as Satan is the father of all lies; Jesus of Nazareth was God the Son as well as Son of God [not "god"] in the Flesh. I have looked into all this before of course, as a born-again person from a secularist family. I am totally unconvinced by the "scholars" at places like the Jesus Seminar with their fallacious "Jesus of history vs Jesus of myth" dichotomy, which is a handy one to have if you want to call yourself Christian whilst agreeing with your avowed atheist friends in high academia and believing Jesus was an only-human man who is now dead (the naturalistic anti-Christian position.)

OTOH, I am supernaturalist, accepting the reality of the Divine, and know that they are teaching "another Jesus", a counterfeit, which Scripture warns has them under the curse along with those who preach "another Gospel" to the authentic one.

2 John gives the same message to those who believe "science" can invalidate miracles and see Christ as just another historical figure, good moral teacher or otherwise: "If any man bringeth not the doctrine of Christ, receive him NOT". Accepting Jesus for who He is- Virgin-born, sinless, fully man, fully God, Risen and one day returning- is the orthodox test of Christian fellowship, in fact. (The way some anti-Christians speak, you would suppose it would be a desire to do creepy things to little boys and kill gay people in the public square.)

Yes, the Early Church did indeed baptize pagan traditions by reorienting them to celebrate Truth rather than falsehood and superstition. Christmas and Easter are examples. It was no secret at the time or now.

[blessedhope]

I'm not sure how seriously I should take someone who is obviously perfectly happy with teachers engaging in anti-Christian practices, seems to not understand why parents like me choose private faith schooling, and is even "entertained" rather than seriously provoked to consider questions of ultimate meaning by my calling out of Eastern religion as contrary to Christianity [it is- and whoever taught you that they were compatible is better suited to entertaining than doing work on theology.] "Anti-Christian" does not mean "wanting to do physical harm to Christians"- I'll gladly give you Buddhists are peaceful. It means "in opposition to the tenets of Christianity." Which do NOT include pan(en)theistic spiritualities based on oneness, mystic global interconnectedness and denial of Jesus Christ as God in the flesh.

There are things in life where two sets of concerns must be very carefully balanced- but here, the concern of people of faith that they not hand over their children for dozens of hours a week in their formative years to an establishment which specifically contradicts their very worldview outweighs community-cohesion concerns so much that the scales break.
I am unapologetically for proper pluralism and multi-culturalism, a salad bowl NOT a melting pot, distinctive faith communities NOT an "interfaith" community. A country where discrimination at work and in public service is illegal, the state keeps order and moderates within faith communities deal with their extremists before violence is perpetrated- but people are not judged by haughty outsiders for a degree of separatism in their personal, family and social life. For example the ultra-orthodox Jews who mostly keep to themselves in one part of London are just as good citizens in my eyes as the cosmopolitan Jews who may be seen a few boroughs away mingling with a broad mix of people, holding hazy theological convictions if any, and live-and-let-live moral "standards". The right to mix socially with one's neighbors is not some sort of binding duty and separation without hatred or supremacism is not an evil in itself.

Where people treat each other respectfully as human beings without subsuming their worldview or relativizing their tradition, where calls to adopt a mushy post-modern line about "my truth" being relative and different to "your truth" are thoroughly drowned out by proud people of whatever faith encouraging honest discussion,which may or may not lead to proselytising. People like me and my Muslim and Hindu friends who object to the same tactics in state schools, seek the same solution, but ardently disagree with my theology- so it should be. We follow our books, the Book in my case, alas false religious books in theirs. We are agreed in the reality of God, the resistance to fluffy "all the different world faiths are celebrations of love'n'peace" trash, the rejection of San Francisco values.

I am especially offended by atheist "ultra-inclusivist" interpretation of a Truth they have rejected! Such people (ex. pointythings) forever focus on the inclusive aspects of the life of Jesus when dealing with Christians, utterly ignoring the EXclusive elements of faith. These people think it fair to put everyone in together on THEIR lowest-common-denominator terms. No thanks. Not my children. We are called to be separate philosophically from the world, while showing goodwill to all men, as Jesus did. He showed love to the outcast, the poor, the sinners and the tax collectors- but had He married and became a father, He would not have sent an innocent, spiritually and intellectually maturing child off every day to be taught by those who reject or compromise His message.

So long as people in a society hold different beliefs there is the possibility of conflict. That risk is a necessary consequence of freedom of religion; how we manage it is a complex question, but "cooking off" fundamental difference in a state-funded secular humanist melting pot is not even approaching a reasonable solution.

Sorry for long post but I felt the ideology which privileges "community cohesion" above practice of faith and values transference needed a properly thought out response, so you could see where I stand.

[CanucksoontobeinLondon]

What does "San Francisco values" mean? Just curious.

[ErrolTheDragon]

San Fransisco Values

[MuswellHillDad]

I need some historical help here. Didn't Christianity force itself upon people and nations for centuries? I don't think that was the salad bowl approach. More like the scorched earth and reseed approach.

Can't help finding the contemporary complaints about the state religion being eroded slightly hypocritical and out of date in that context.

That said, I agree that we should respect each other's views. I just prefer the Russell/Einstein Utopian ideal where all tools for division are removed (war happens between countries and religions). It is the melting pot idea at its natural secular conclusion.

[alemci]

of course it did Muswell but that was politics and human nature, when the church gets entwined with the state and it was awful. The church adding in non biblical scripture and making it up as it went along. I probably would have been a heretic in those days. To me this is also like the N Ireland situation to some extent with people hiding behind religion to commit atrocities.

Hence people like Martin Luther, John Calvin springing up and the reformation. I don't think Jesus would have wanted it to be like that

it is a bit like how it is now in certain countries when religion dictates how people live their lives

[alemci]

I like the salad bowl analogy. The melting pot is a bit naff.

[MuswellHillDad]

In keeping with my Utopia, I have set up a round top table in the middle of our virtual tea room laden with cakes and tea for everyone to share.



.... secret part of post only available to like minded people

look under the table. The Sloe Gin is there

[pointythings]

We follow our books, the Book in my case, alas false religious books in theirs.

Can't you see how patronising that sounds? None of my Muslim, Hindu and Christian friends speak like that. If they did, they would not be my friends. I would not want my children educated in an establishment that taught them to look down patronisingly on those of other faiths. Of course I completely respect your choice to do so.

I don't believe I've ever focused on the life of Jesus in any way - since I do not believe in God, I am hardly in a position to do so. What I do focus on is a society that functions, and that means not enshrining privilege in law for people of particular faith where it leads to disadvantage for people of other faiths. So no discrimination against gay people by anyone. Equally, no ban on religious symbols in public life unless there is a clear and real danger to wearing/displaying these. If a nurse on a hospital ward asked to pray for me, I would not be offended but I would politely ask him/her not to do so. That's basic human courtesy. However, if said nurse then started praying for me in my presence after I had expressly asked them not to, I would feel that was rude and disrespectful. None of that is about atheist inclusiveness, it is about common decency.

Lastly, I am prepared to accept that God may exist. After all I have chosen not to believe in him. However, until I meet him face to face and have proof of his existence, your belief in him is just as much of a belief as my belief in his nonexistence is. The fact that you have made a leap of faith and chosen to accept his existence as truth does not change that. It's not an objective truth, it's your truth.

Anyhow, back to RE - I think it can be a hugely valuable subject, but it must not be allowed to become RI again under pressure from the church.

[pointythings]

Errol I am an unashamed embracer of San Francisco values. But you knew that already.

[ErrolTheDragon]

I think blessed is conflating neutral RE with relativism. They are entirely different things. I'm not a relativist - I don't think many scientists are.

The difference may sometimes be quite subtle and teachers - being only human - may get it wrong.

It |isn't that 'there is no right and wrong answer' (on some ethical/moral questions there pretty clearly is) - it is that it is not the job of the RE teacher or curriculum to dictate what that right or wrong answer is.


Being presented with information about a variety of religions doesn't contradict anyone's world view, unless it is a rather peculiar one which fears people having knowledge and thinking for themselves.

[MuswellHillDad]

Errol
"... unless it is a rather peculiar one which fears people having knowledge and thinking for themselves."

That, of course, was the problem with my initial post - I wanted people to forget about religion in order to achieve my utopia, which was a dumb and unrealistic position. Much better to fully inform and teach people how to think for themselves - that's why I'd like to see Philosophy/Critical Thinking replace RE and have RE "encompassed" in that class and in History lessons.

[pointythings]

Well put, Errol. People who don't want their children exposed to information about other religious and want RI instead of RE are - like blessed free to seek religious private provision. However, the debate is about RE in the state sector.

Relativism in the sense of 'there is no absolute right and wrong in anything' is an utterly abhorrent philosophy. However, absolutism in the sense of 'this is what is absolutely right and absolutely wrong' is just as abhorrent. It occurs both in religious belief systems (the Crusades and the Inquisition historically, the prohibition of education for girls, the assault on the sacred sites of other faiths, the settlements and land thefts currently) and in 'secular' systems such as the cult of personality in North Korea. Personally I see this as just another belief system, as Stalinism was and as indeed the veneration of Simon Bolivar was, but they are not conventional religions.

It's important that our children learn to think critically and don't accept the moral codes of others without question and good RE is vital in this.

it is not the job of the RE teacher or curriculum to dictate what that right or wrong answer is.

This is the key to it all - unless a young person arrives at an understanding of morals and ethics through their own hard work and critical thinking, they can have their mind changed by literally anyone. I have no problem with people accepting a deity into their lives, but they have to do it of their own free will. Jonestown, Waco and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints tell us the dangers of having it otherwise.

[pointythings]

I still like your utopia, MuswellHillDad, but I agree that it was an unrealistic idea.

[ErrolTheDragon]

Its good when a debate actually results in someone reviewing their position.

I was thinking about blessed's particular objection to children engaging in practices linked to eastern religions... if they were analogous to children being made to pray or participate in a form of worship, then they shouldn't have been included as part of the regular school day. (It could be an optional extra-curricular activity, in the same way that schools can have Christian Union meetings etc.). OTOH if they were simply some sort of physical/breathing exercise with no 'spiritual' aspect at all then the correct domain might be PE or PSHE.