The Da Vinci Code in an RE lesson?

[Martorana]

I only have 13 year old ds's word for this, but he tells me that they have been talking about the Holy Grail in RE and yesterday they watched a bit of the Da Vinci Code and discussed the Blood line of Jesus, the stuff about there being women in the picture and all the rest of it. Apparantly it was discussed in a "some people think" way, rather than in a "this is a load of bollocks" way. Would you be happy with this? I can see how it would make for some interesting discussion, and the "of course it is claptrap" line might come in the next lesson............

Some people do think it. Why is it any more deserving of an 'of course this is bollocks' follow-up than any of the other beliefs they'll be studying in RE?

Because "some people believe this" is what a good RE teacher says about established legitimate beliefs. Saying "some people believe this" without qualification about the Da Vinci Code conspiracy theories is like putting belief that the Royal Family are shape shifting lizard people on a par with Christianity.

seems about the right level to me tbh

There is slightly more evidence for some of the Da Vinci Code theories than there is for shape shifting lizards.

The Da Vinci Code was the first time many people learned that the apocryphal bible texts existed, and I think it useful for children to learn that there were bits left out of the Bible because they didn't suit the message of the time.

At 13 the children may also be questioning why it would be such a terrible thing if Jesus was married or had children.

Fiction can be used to open up discussions.

It could be an interesting "see how people twist things* for their own purposes" discussion.

• 'things' being a deliberately vague word. Insert descriptor of choice here - word of God, cannonical scripture, history, myth, folk lore, etc. We could even get on to "what is truth?"

the ideas set out in a simplified fictionalised version in the Da Vinci code had been promulgated decades before, and yes, some people believe it, just like some people believe that they are consuming the body and blood of a skinny bloke who may or may not have been nailed to a cross 2000 years ago in Jerusalem.

I would have a real problem with the Da Vinci Code being treated on an equal basis with any major religion. I would not have a problem with it (or the works of Erich von Daniken or similar) being used to make the point that the question one should ask when faced with something like this is not, "how do we explain this" but, "what is the evidence".

because they didn't suit the message of the time

Not entirely. Many were indeed left out because they were considered heretical. Some were left out because they were written much later than the books in the New Testament - at least two are thought to have been written in the 5th Century, after the New Testament canon had been settled. And some were excluded on the basis that they were not written by the apostles or their close associates but were still regarded as good for teaching.

That's how I feel, prh. I don't think all belief systems are equal-and I don't think school RE should treat them as such.

NigellasDealer I don't want to hi-jack the thread but even if you don't agree with other people's religious beliefs, surely you can try and be a bit more respectful about them?

(I'm not talking about the Da Vinci code btw but about your comment below:

"just like some people believe that they are consuming the body and blood of a skinny bloke who may or may not have been nailed to a cross 2000 years ago in Jerusalem."

i do not see anything 'disrepectful' about my post slackcabbage.

As a non-believer myself and having had my children forced into having lessons in religion of all types, it is actually most refreshing to hear of a teacher introducing other thought-provoking aspects into her lessons.

Why would that be disrespectful? Religious Education surely should embrace all religious beliefs, and also explore all arguments, whether for or against.

Well, I'm a Catholic (an easy going liberal one, not a literalist) but I winced at your description of Jesus and found it offensive. Honestly, just as it's not acceptable to disparage the main tenets of Judaism or Islam, it really isn't OK to mock Christianity either.

I don't want to continue to hi-jack the thread, or start a debate about the gospels and what's true and what's not, as it is the social justice aspects of my faith that interest me more frankly, but just for your information, aside from the gospels, there are three other independent historical sources that mention Jesus's life and death in Palestine in CE 64 ie Tacitus, Pliny, and the Jewish chronicler Josephus who describes him as undergoing 'exquisite torture' and 'suffering the extreme penalty ... during the reign of Tiberius [CE 14-37] at the hands of Pontius Pilatus'.

Evansovalpie I wasn't referring to that as disrespectful, but another poster's description of Jesus as a "skinny bloke who may or may not have been nailed to a cross 2000 years ago in Jerusalem"

it is the social justice aspects of my faith that interest me more frankly
I totally agree and sincerely apologise if my attempt at a sound bite caused you offence xx

No worries and thanks *NigellasDealer] (love the nn btw!!)

Mocking religion has a long and proud history in the UK, that I for one, would defend.

I remember being somewhat fascinated by certain aspects of the da Vinci Code when I read it, even if the writing itself is appalling. I didn't know that much about the apocryphal books, and thinking about what was in or out of the bible was interesting. Also, considering various other possible explanations for things written in the bible - the idea that they might have been metaphors with realistic scientific explanations - got me thinking about some concepts in ways I hadn't before, and doing more research afterwards. So while the book itself might be bollocks, it can stimulate thought, too, even if it's just to find out what evidence there was for any of it, and similarly, what evidence was there for the stuff that was in the bible, etc.

I agree with that actually turgiday - (and if you were with me and a few of my Irish friends after we've imbibed a few you would hear us mocking our own religion quick forcefully) I just wouldn't personally choose to mock someone else's I suppose (obviously over-sensitive today though!)

but it is my religion as well slackcabbage

Sounds like a great basis for discussion; I don't see why you would have an issue with it.

Well we should do a bit of mocking together on another thread then Nigella

Sorry - as I said - obviously over-sensitive today for some reason!

Religious Education surely should embrace all religious beliefs, and also explore all arguments, whether for or against

I broadly agree.

To elaborate on what I said earlier, major religions are belief systems (i.e. sets of mutually supportive beliefs). The Da Vinci Code is a conspiracy theory (and not a very good one with obvious, major factual inaccuracies). It is not in any way a religion or a belief system on its own (although it may be part of some people's belief systems) and should not be taught as if it was. However, examining conspiracy theories and looking at the right way to approach them is a valid thing to do so I have no problem with that.

When we did RE we had bits of Joseph's technicolour dreamcoat and Monty Python. I don't remember any of us getting confused about whether they were on the same level as the book of Genesis. Isn't it just a way to help children understand a complicated topic?

The book is a pile of crap, mind.

The key words are 'some people believe' I think, it opens the mind to how others interpret a religious authority.
(As an aside, the BBC had a programme called Vicars telling jokes which quite gently mocked Christianity. It was strangely funny