Can a school make Religious Studies GCSE compulsory? Can one withdraw?

[ParentOfOne]

One of the state, non-faith secondary schools we like makes GCSE in Religious Studies compulsory. This is in England.

It is not a deal breaker, but we would like to understand what the rules are.

At the open day, the school said that it's a national requirement. But that's not what the gov uk website says https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum/key-stage-3-and-4 , and indeed not all schools even offer RS GCSE. So did the school just lie to us? Not a great sign!

So the question becomes: can a school make RS GCSE compulsory, or can parents object?

I am all for kids learning about religions, but my reservations are:

• It may be more useful to take other subjects at GCSE; it is still possible to study RS in earlier years without using up a GCSE subject for it
• No one can know if our child will grow up to be religious or not, but she is the kind of person who brooks no bullshit. The teaching of RS can be dogmatic in some schools.
• It is fine to study other cultures and religious theories and preferences, but we should also call out what is backward and scientifically unfounded - e.g. when the Catholic Church said that the HIV virus can still pass through condoms, or when some fundamentalists think that evolution is wrong.
• My concern is therefore twofold: I worry that some of this nonsense might be taught as valid, rather than as un unsubstantiated theory, and I worry that, with her attitude, she would react very badly to the teaching of this nonsense. These concerns are based on the experiences of some friends, in non-faith state schools elsewhere.

That's strange. Westminster Cathedral say it's at Y10 onwards/at least 14.

https://westminstercathedral.org.uk/confirmation/

"Just out of curiosity, what words would have been acceptable to you?"

To repeat ... if you had said "a 10-year old ... is unable to reach an informed conclusion and make an informed decision about confirming their faith" I would probably have agreed with you.

I don't agree that all of their parents "pretend" that they can. Some of them believe that they can. For others it's just a cultural ceremony that is part of their heritage, like Christmas.

Southwark says at least twelve. I know of children who have done it younger than 12.
https://www.rcsouthwark.co.uk/faith/sacraments-of-the-catholic-church/confirmation/
In the US, some children get confirmation before the age of 10, even!! https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-correct-age-for-confirmation

But the general point doesn't change much: a 14-year old isn't that much more mature to confirm something so important.

"If something is wrong, it is wrong regardless of whether it is part of a certain culture and heritage"

There are shades of wrong and right. Some things are more "wrong" than others. Luckily our rich language gives us the tools to explain exactly what we mean when we say something is wrong. That is why the GCSE questions ask candidates to give their reasons for their views. If they give their reasons as "its utter bullshit" they will not get any marks. You are putting yourself in that zero mark category by using those words.

"So are you claiming that ... when all of the above happens, it is still incorrect to claim that the Catholic Church said it, because it was only a priest?"

It wasn't "only a priest". It was a Vatican representative. If there was a GCSE question about this you would lose marks for incorrectly stating/implying that it was the Church's formal statement, just as you would lose marks in a history exam for incorrectly attributing a quote.

@sprucinup If they give their reasons as "its utter bullshit" they will not get any marks. You are putting yourself in that zero mark category by using those words.

I wasn't aware my posts were going to be graded like in a GCSE paper.

In the Catholic community, it is common for children to receive the sacrament of Confirmation, whereby they confirm and strengthen their belief in the Catholic Religion and Church, at any age between 7 and 14. This can be understood in the historical and anthropological context of the societies of millennia ago, where children were considered adults at a much earlier age and it was important to have rites of passage marking their official entry into their community as adults - e.g. similar concepts apply to the Jewish Bar and Bat Miztvah. However, many feel that what was standard practice millennia ago clashes with modern western values, because in most Western societies children are not considered legally mature enough to make autonomous, meaningful decisions till much later, typically 18.

Happier now?

@sprucinup
It wasn't "only a priest". It was a Vatican representative. If there was a GCSE question about this you would lose marks for incorrectly stating/implying that it was the Church's statement, just as you would lose marks in a history exam for incorrectly attributing a quote.

I fail to see your obsession about this: this is not a GCSE exam, so why obsess about "if it were" when it obviously isn't?

If it were a GCSE exam and if it were relevant to the question asked, I would point out, like I have, that:

• the Cardinal tasked by the Catholic Church with dealing with these matters made scientifically false claims
• these claims were never retracted and the entire document is still available on the Vatican website
• the Cardinal in question did not ger reprimanded nor removed from his post
• the Church did not issue a correcting statement to clarify that it was wrong and it's not the Church's official position
• Catholic apologists claim that this was never the Church's official position
• Critics point out that the Church implicitly legitimised the lies by not issuing a correction, by not clarifying its official position, and by not reprimanding the cardinal responsible.

Happier now? Anything else you want to be pedantic about?

If someone asked about leasehold vs freehold, and I pointed out that most leaseholders do not have a say on the appointment of the managing agent, would your reply be that this answer would be insufficient if this were an exam paper of real estate law (which it isn't)???

"I wasn't aware my posts were going to be graded like in a GCSE paper."

You are hopefully learning that ignorant and lazy arguments signal a poor education and attract contempt - even when people agree with your broad position. That is why RE lessons are important.

"If it were a GCSE exam and if it were relevant to the question asked, I would point out, like I have, that:"

You looked those things up after making the statement, not before. You have learned something about expressing yourself more carefully, armed with facts, which is good. Again, that is what RE lessons will teach your daughter.

OP, you claim to be an avowed atheist, yet you obviously feel there’s something profound, meaningful and significant about the rite of confirmation in the Catholic church to be so riled about it 🤔 If atheism is true, then it shouldn’t make any dice if a few kids wanna larp around and get confirmed into their belief system if it’s all empty and meaningless. Maybe catholicism does has a point, and that condoms, while not literally having holes in them, don’t provide enough guardrails against the negative consequences of sex… they split, slip off, guys do stealthing, they don’t protect against all STDs, and the classic quote from Neighbours back in the day “there’s no condom that will protect you from a broken heart”. (Not a RC btw, so I have no skin in this game, but I rather suspect that this thread was started for 🥄 purposes)

@DogandMog I genuinely do not understand your point.

I am not riled about adults confirming whatever beliefs they want in whatever way they want.

I am riled by the pretence that young children can make an informed decision about confirming their beliefs, whatever these beliefs are. I would be equally riled if some atheist extremist came up with an atheist confirmation rite where pre-adolescent children confirm their adherence to atheistic beliefs and values.

Catholics have a point when they claim that condoms are not 100% safe. They do not have a point when they lie about the HIV virus passing through them. That's a lie, and it must be called out as such.

@sprucinup you are wrong. I remembered about a cardinal making these false statements, and I remembered the details well because I had had heated arguments with some family members. You are welcome not to believe me, I couldn't care less.

I also remained convinced that, in the context in which I had said it, my choice of words was accurate. It would have been inappropriate to add a wall of text to clarify that it was not the Pope but the Cardinal tasked with dealing with family matters, that it was never an official position but that the Church never confirmed nor denied it, that the document remains on the Vatican website etc. Again, you are more than welcome to disagree, I don't care.

Oh, and the only thing I learnt from you is how pedantic and annoying you are. Goodbye.

"Oh, and the only thing I learnt from you is how pedantic and annoying you are."

It can be humiliating when people point out the flaws in your arguments. That's why it's important to learn how to discuss emotive subjects intelligently, and listen respectfully to other people, not just wade in with insults, poorly contextualised and half-baked "facts" that can easily be undermined.

I agree with you in principle but with a child in year 7 (and having taught in the state sector on and off for 15 years), you have to choose your hill to die on.

And as the RS GCSE is generally educational and can in fact be of assistance to atheists (useful to know in detail what the other "side" may believe), this isn't the hill I'd choose to die on.

@sprucinup You are welcome to feel smug and believe that it is a flaw and a half baked fact to summarise "the Catholic Church made scientifically false claims about HIV virus passing through condoms" instead of getting into the details that it was not the Pope but the Cardinal tasked with dealing with Family matters, that the document was never retracted and is still available on the Vatican website, that the Pope never confirmed nor denied what his official position on the matter is, that the Cardinal tasked with dealing with Family matters was never reprimanded for saying falsehoods on the very matters he should have dealt with, etc.

Like I am welcome to believe that this posturing reflects a mix of pedantry and bad faith. You do you.

Of course the obvious next question is what qualifies as an official Church position and to what extent something said by the Cardinal the Pope tasked with dealing on certain matters, and said on those very matters, without clarifying it's just a personal opinion, is representative of the Church position.

Yes, I agree. Like I have said multiple times, and like I said at the beginning when I said it wasn't a deal breaker, this is not a hill I'm gonna die on.

"Of course the obvious next question is what qualifies as an official Church position and to what extent something said by the Cardinal the Pope tasked with dealing on certain matters, and said on those very matters, without clarifying it's just a personal opinion, is representative of the Church position."

The official position of the Church on various matters is set out in Canon Law. That's how we can state for sure that they are against the use of contraception.

Like in any organisation, individual views are put forward that sometimes cause controversy, but they aren't the full picture. Other views matter too. For example, Pope Benedict XVI pointed out that when a male prostitute uses a condom "with the intention of reducing the risk of infection, can be a first step in a movement towards a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality." He said that the concern for others suggested by this action is laudable, but does not mean that either prostitution or condoms are in themselves good.

The Catholic Church shouldn't be allowed to get off so easily when the Cardinal tasked with dealing with Family matters says something which is scientifically false and no one does anything about it. There are controversial opinions, and there are scientific facts which are objectively wrong. No one, not even cardinals, are entitled to their own facts. You talked about individual views which cause controversy. This was not a view - it was objectively a lie.

You cannot crucify me for not clarifying that this statement was not canon law, but then fail to distinguish between a controversial opinion and an objectively, scientifically, inequivocally false statement. That is flawed and dishonest.

This kind of moral ambiguity is similar to the cheekiness with which a PM appoints an extremist minister, so on one hand the minister can appease extremist electors, on the other hand the PM can calm down the moderates by saying that that's not the government's official position.

"The Catholic Church shouldn't be allowed to get off so easily when the Cardinal tasked with dealing with Family matters says something which is scientifically false and no one does anything about it ... This was not a view - it was objectively a lie."

People did do something about it. The WHO released a statement condemning it, and it was widely reported.

He was being pseudoscientific and undoubtedly believed his own words. He was incorrect, but not lying, any more than the school teacher in your OP was lying.

But no one in the Catholic Church did much about it.
The document was not retracted - it's still on the Vatican website.
No statements condemning the lie were issued.
The position of the Church was not clarified.
The Cardinal in question was not reprimanded.

If you don't want to define saying something which is objectively and scientifically false as a lie, you do you,but most dictionaries classify it as a lie.

Eg the Collins defines "to lie" as "to speak untruthfully with intent to mislead or deceive"

"The document was not retracted - it's still on the Vatican website."

The document should not be "retracted" because it provides context and a reference for his views - see ref 43 in the screenshot.. From that, it is easy to see what happened - he was pseudo-scientifically describing an unproven hypothesis. If the document was removed or censored, we wouldn't have that context.

He repeated the claims in a Panorama documentary which challenged him very effectively. That hasn't been withdrawn either.

I can't help thinking this should be in the philosophical beliefs topic.

We seem to have strayed far from RE GCSE.

IME, unless it's a Catholic school, they're unlikely to get more than the bare-bones very simplified version of it. They may learn Catholics - and many other groups - are officially against contraception, but they're unlikely at GCSE level to get into the discussions around religions or other worldviews and HIV in most schools.

RE varies so much by school, and all it takes is a headteacher change or for an academy school, a change of CEO for there to be a significant shift in how RE and collective worship/assemblies work in a school.

I left the choice to withdraw up to my kids, even though legally I have the final say. I think they are best placed to determine if they are are having an issue with how it's being taught, and really, withdraw means they are out of the class, away from their friends and other peers, studying on their own. Some kids may find that great, but it can also be pretty isolating. My child who chose to withdraw had issues with how RE was being taught for over 2 years before making the request because the BS didn't outweigh the good she was getting from the topics discussed and having those discussions with her friends (including on things being BS) yet. It took some really major frustration that sitting on her own in the learning support room became the better option. I don't think I as a parent could have figured out that balance, I'm not the one who is sitting through either option.

"RE varies so much by school, and all it takes is a headteacher change or for an academy school, a change of CEO for there to be a significant shift in how RE and collective worship/assemblies work in a school."

Yes, this is true to a certain extent, but it's also why following a GCSE syllabus gives some certainty.

The AQA syllabus does cover contraception and homosexuality, and my kids certainly discussed AIDS and the views of the Catholic church (among others) as part of that topic.

RS at A Level is an excellent subject - a lot of our medics and law candidates do it.
The world might be a better place if more people studied ethics!

It’s not about indoctrination!

@TeenToTwenties You're right, we have strayed off topic.

My last comment to @sprucinup , other than wondering if they defend Catholic child rapists with the same passion, is that the facts are quite simple: a prominent Catholic cardinal lied about condoms, and neither he nor anyone else in the Catholic Church deemed it appropriate to issue a correcting statement to admit "sorry, we got that wrong, that is actually false".

These are the undeniable facts. Everything else is a clumsy and dishonest attempt at covering up and minimising.

The issue can be brushed aside now (who cares much if some Cardinal said something about condoms we all know to be false?) but, back then, it was different. It was a time when the Catholic Church was waging a war in many countries against contraception and the teaching of sex education in schools. It was a time when many prominent Catholics stated that we shouldn't teach that condoms reduce the risk of diseases, because the fear of disease should be a deterrent against the sin of premarital sex. Of course, the thought that people had the right to disagree and to do stuff they wouldn't have done never crossed their minds. If there is a god who punishes bad behaviour, these Catholics deserve to burn in hell amin unspeakable suffering, because they have caused unspeakable suffering and countless, easily avoidable deaths themselves.

@RamblingEclectic My child who chose to withdraw had issues with how RE was being taught for over 2 years before making the request because the BS didn't outweigh the good she was getting from the topics discussed and having those discussions with her friends (including on things being BS) yet.

Sorry to hear that. May I ask you to elaborate a bit? Was it state or private, faith or non-faith?

What do you mean about the BS? Was there not much open debate? Was criticism of certain beliefs frowned upon? These things are precisely my fear.

"a prominent Catholic cardinal lied about condoms, and neither he nor anyone else in the Catholic Church deemed it appropriate to issue a correcting statement to admit "sorry, we got that wrong, that is actually false"

Not exactly. If you actually read the section of the document you posted a link to, the thrust of his argument is that condoms shouldn't be relied on because they can fail (true). As a small part of that argument he referred to the AIDS virus potentially being small enough to pass through tiny holes in condoms, referencing some scientific papers which appear to be small studies on manufacturing issues with latex. This was summarised by the media as "Cardinal says AIDS can pass through condoms" leading to the scientific community rightly pointing out the flaws.

If viruses could routinely pass through latex, PPE in hospitals would be pretty useless. It's ok for a scientist to hypothesise that they might pass through damaged latex occasionally, and investigate it, but unless it's proven to be a widespread issue it obviously shouldn't be used to create alarm. The cardinal didn't "lie" - he just clumsily mis-used science, just as many other writers and philosophers and manufacturers unfortunately do.