Whenever you start a conversation about religion...

[MrsThierryHenry]

...you always get the same old people flying in with their vitriolic attacks either for or against, yadda yadda yadda thanks for passing by. Maybe I've even been guilty of this at times, but I can't help thinking that it contributes absolutely zilch to what can be a deep and meaningful discussion about a huge and significant subject.

SO can we have a conversation about religion without flying insults?

Okay, here goes:

In a country with a wide range of religious and non-religious beliefs, how can we best express our cultures in a way that is both inclusive and inoffensive? I'm thinking of education, public celebrations, etc. E.g. - some people say that to avoid offence you should have no religion at all in schools, but is 'no religion' really a neutral, 'inoffensive' stance? It seems more like the polar opposite of religion rather than a happy halfway house - it is still a choice in favour of someone's (an atheist/ agnostic's) beliefs about religion.

Is the answer to change our behaviour? Or to change our attitudes towards all religious choices? Or both? Or neither?!

onager - I'm not stipulating anything about what religions have to teach, you asked about my response to my children - I would be the one teaching them kindness, compassion etc and while the religion they chose would not worry me, I could not accept them disregarding that teaching and acting like eejits.

("acting like eejits": adjective? possibly? - - Carrying out an act, or the deliberate ommission of an act which has a predictable effect of causing someone else distress or harm either directly or indirectly - as defined by the UmmAdam textbook of good manners" - - )

I don't think there are acceptable and unacceptable religions if you want to put it like that. I do think there are acceptable and unacceptable actions and if people carry out unacceptable actions (ie acting like eejits - see above ) then as a society we should stand up and be counted and say that it is unacceptable no matter what their motivation.

Oh I understand about the "UmmAdam textbook of good manners" because I have a similar book that I have written and edited over the years.

Really all I am getting at is that the OP asked if no religion at all in schools was really neutral. I think it's the only way to be neutral. The alternatives would be:

1. Allow all religions even if they preached hatred, murder, incest, and the non return of library books.
2. Allow only those religions acceptable to a committee (which then would not be inclusive would it)

non-return of library books??? now that is just evil!!

I don't think the curriculum can be genuinely inclusive, and still leave time for subjects like reading and maths, let alone PE and playtime. I don't think it's the school's job to teach children about every religion. I would like to see my children taught enough to understand that there are many world-views - including atheism. As for the specific religion (or non-religion) that the families practice, it is up to the family to teach the child, or else send them to a faith school.

I was in private school in California.

In High School we did:

1. year of Old Testament
2. year of New Testament
3. World Religions
4. Sacred Texts

It seemed to work.

Oh, and this was a Catholic all girls school.

I agree that there are too many religions to teach children about all of them, and think therefore that the major ones (ie with the greatest number of at least nominal members) are probably the most sensible ones to teach about. I think that would be Islam, Christianity, Judaism, the Sikh faith, the Hindu faith, Shinto, Buddhism (if I have left out a major world religion then it's not an intentional insult.) But RE should also include the fact that many people are free from religion otherwise it's teaching children that the default position is to have some sort of belief in some sort of imaginary friend.

Many people define 'major world religion' by number of adherents. But by that criteria, Judaism is an extremely minor fringe religion. I think less than 1% of the world's population consider themselves Jews.

I think its relatively simple - and what many schools already do to some extent. Teach facts. So, you teach the facts about a selection of religions (major current ones, as above) but history lessons also teach about the dead religions of Greece and Rome. Teach the facts about what various groups of people believe, and their customs. Teach about their customs and celebrations - and by all means participate and enjoy them. These phenomena exist - teach about them.

It would be good if non-faith world views could be covered, they are rather at a disadvantage (at primary age anyway) by not having any jolly ceremonies or interesting myths. I'm not quite sure what a KS1/2 lesson would contain.

Of course other subjects must also teach their facts. Biology must teach the evidence base of evolution, and geography illuminate the vast spans of time in which it happened.

If you only teach the facts I have no problem with any religion being covered. In practice teaching about religions usually ends up as teaching the class to follow a religion. In a previous thread we considered getting a hindu to teach about christianity and so on to avoid that.

Pretty, Yes, Judiasm may be a small percentage of the population. There are obviously reasons for this, but it's an influential religion and Christianity, at one stage, was a cult of Judiasm!

From a populatiom stance, would Hindus be the most popular religion? I don't know.

Justabout: ooh, that's a good idea. I think kids learn about Greek/Roman/Norse religions at some point and I think it would actually be a great idea to teach about these in RE as they have all had a major influence on contemporary culture at least in Europe.

Hinduism?

But onager, can teaching no religion really be considered 'neutral'? Isn't that a bit like the idea of objectivity in life: nice idea in theory but in practice it's impossible for anyone to be truly objective?

(Glad to see this discussion has moved on beyond posts 2 & 3; when I read those posts I kind of gave up on it!)

Well I'm not suggesting we don't teach them that religions exist. Just that we don't teach them that religion (or a particular religion) is true.

R.E is like history (and could almost be taught in history lessons really) There was a battle at waterloo and there are people who believe or believed in Jehovah, Siva, Allah, Thor etc. These are facts and they need to know about them.

To ask a religious person to teach the facts about religion without preaching that it is true is probably asking too much. Religion is too important to someone who has faith to seperate it entirely no matter how hard they try.

I'm assuming they would try to stick to the facts, but some would feel it was their duty (to their god or to the children) to bring them to their god. That is not just a problem for atheists such as myself, but for someone with a different religion too.

I don't just mean tell them that religions exist. That would be a short lesson. I mean that you could teach them that religious people find comfort and comradeship in their religion. You could discuss how many religions emphasise that material things are not all important. That many/most religions encourage charity and good works. There is so much to discuss and it's all educational.
Having given them the basics their parents can then choose to tell them that their particular god is the only true god etc after school or in church and there is no conflict between the needs of the different religions nor with atheism.

I think that school teaching of religion should stay well away from suggesting that any religions are 'true' (because if you teach that one is 'true' then you surely have to teach that they are all 'true' - including non-belief, or you're discriminating, and that's going to be pretty confusing) - merely 'This is what some people think, this is what other people think'. Obviously privately-funded faith schools would be a different matter, but state funded schools should not be in the business of teaching myth as fact.

I like the idea of religions / belief systems / mythology being taught in schools without any religiosity. I went to a nondenominational school and we learned about all kinds of Religious belief systems, and also this included Humanistic (Jungianism etc) and Materialism: Scientism, Marxism in our "Religion" class.

I follow a Buddhist path and Dh is an Athiest, our Dd goes to a nondenominational private school - all state schools are Christian here (Ireland). There are plenty of different kinds of students and religions represented in our Dds school, but the fact remains that in effect Europe is Christendom, and their Winter Play - is called the Christmas play and it includes a nativity sequence.

I mention in passing to our DD some types of Buddhist practice at home, but nothing very much at this stage as she is only 4, and that's too young for any religious / belief system 'training' including Atheism, Marxism etc etc IMO.

Sometimes it does make me raise my eyebrow when DD comes home from her nondenominational school talking about the dead in Heaven, etc (There was one little catholic boy whose Granny had died, so he was talking to her about it)

I firmly believe that the ancient myths of Babylonia and Mesopotamia, the Scandinavian sagas and the Abrahamic religions have shaped Europe, the Levant and Northern Africa and its Diaspora (US, OZ, NZ, and colonies beyond), and these myth systems needs to be learned in school as a part of history, and civics as our systems of law and jurisprudence are derived from these.

The South American and African derived myths and major Religions are also very interesting and should be covered including the blood thirsty Aztec, Maya, Inca religions, Santeria (Voodoo crossed with Yoruba (Nigerian)), Kali, Animist, Paganism (Roman, Greek) Carthaginians (sacrifices to Baal and Moloch), Ancient Egyptian, Shamanism including (Tibetan)Bon and Wicca.

I agree that the public and private space divide must be maintained, and respect must be afforded to all, especially when we live cheek by jowel in urban areas distant and distinct from the countryside with its obvious seasons, and natural rhythms.

It's easy to fall into a huge debate about the intolerance of the major religion within any region, but we have to face facts that Europe is in effect Christendom and we live within that framework, and there is a huge emotional need in people to have ritual, and that includes having Saint Nicolas / Father Christmas / Father Frost, and other Good Will and neighbourliness Archetypes alive and kicking in the dark cold midwinter.

Here's a list by population of the religions of the world, with numbers of practitioners, for those who are interested

onager makes a good point. I think religion can be taught from an objective stance - i.e. 'this is what Muslims/Christians/Jews believe...' much the way history is taught (or should be taught!)

You can teach all you want about different religions....the end point is 'what is the truth'.

The new testament teaches there is only one way to God via Jesus.

The Koran teaches that other religious books are superseeded by the revelation inside the Koran.

The Talmud/jewish books teach that the Messiah has not yet come and the truth is to be found in keeping torah.

All these three faiths claim to have the absolute truth.

you can be as ecumenical as you like but when it gets down to brass tacks most religions will say thiers is the truth.