Religion – should it be taught at school?

Unless you extend that discussion through a number of subjects; there is relevance in many..

The school in question will be a free school, so is free to choose its own curriculum to a point.

When I was at school, we had a lesson known as ‘EOT’ – Every One Thing, which was basically 1/2 hr per week to discuss different philosophical ideas, and to read books which painted a different view to the norm. At the time, we thought it was mad, but on reflection… We did however have a healthy dose of religion thrown in, as we were next door the the cathedral, and attended twice a week, err, religiously!

Bruce

With respect, Bruce, I doubt that the time available in the current school curriculum would even scrape the surface of the complexities of philosophy. Children up to 16 can only absorb so much and religious tenets are far easier to grasp than studying existence, reality, knowledge, values, logic and so on through rational argument.

Charlie,

No it isnt, but it does allow the individual to make up their own mind about how they wish to live their lives. Fundamentally, all religious teaching is philosophy, to a greater or lesser degree.

Sorry, my head and throat is stuffed with a sudden bout of flu.

Sorry if this looks like a disjointed ramble. I started out with something in mind but the flu pills I’ve been forced to swallow are making my head swim and I probably should come back to this when it clears tomorrow (I hope), so consider this a work in progress (as in it will get edited down to a few lines with ‘prove me wrong’ at the end)

Ever thought of writing a book snafu?, The most interesting thing about your ramble, is WHO forced you to swallow tablets for Flu,:)

Jim.
Lincoln .7

Whilst the principle is intriguing, Bruce, I wonder, at secondary level, how the most immense subject known to man can be embraced. If it is religious philosophy they are referring to then that will take each of the main faiths and apply a rational defense for it’s teachings, I suppose. It’s still a mighty big subject, to which it is not easy to apply broad brush strokes.

I recently attended a school open evening, whilst looking for a secondary school for No 1 daughter. They dont teach RE, instead they are proposing to study ‘philosophy’. Personally, I think that’s bang on – an opportunity to learn the basic tenets of all religions, and how they affect the wider world – without pushing a specific belief system.

SNAFU – Broadly speaking, I’m with you; though the basic philosophy of most religions is very similar, and still relevant even in the modern world. The deity bit doesnt work for me, and its that part that is changing – and more in the UK than anywhere else.

Bruce

Snafu – I am convinced your ever extended posts are there solely to challenge my powers of concentration. Perhaps you’d be better staying away until your senses are clear. By the way flu is a virus so I’m not sure what pills you are taking…..
But as you correctly predicted I sped through your last post because I can quickly answer your original question. In response to that question some of us said yes, with degrees of reservation. At the end of your second diatribe you asked the question again, but phrased differently.
So I have nothing more to add, having dealt with Linc’s flawed comparison a few posts earlier.
I await your next few thousand words with baited breath!;)

After hundreds of words which I again regret giving up on part way through, you ask a question which has already been answered by many of our posts where some of us have defended religious teaching in schools.

Sorry, my head and throat is stuffed with a sudden bout of flu and my attention span is nil.

I thought this was a discussion forum. In my most recent post I was discussing some of the replies and giving input in my own particular style (ie long and boring).
I have no recollection of asking the same question, and looking back I still cannot see it – unless you are referring to the very last sentence? I have gone back (again) to see if anyone had replied in a positive fashion along the lines of ‘yes as a christian/islamist/buddhist/hinduist/shintoist/satanist I feel religious education is much more important than, say, history, etc etc etc’.
If anyone has posted from a positive religious point of view I have not seen it, although that might be because I have not wiped the flecks of foaming spittle off my screen…[/rollseyes]
Still, I think you might agree its amazing the things that can be inferred from posts that haven’t been completely read. And for my part I shall try to keep future query’s down to just one or two words with even fewer syllables…

snafu. Re your para regarding the “Likeness of a Copper”.
What about all, and you must agree, of those Vicars, and those higher up the scale in the same profession, who have committed a crime against some of their Choire boys, and you know what I mean, without going into graphic detail, some have been Christian, Catholic etc, Has their own so called beliefes caused them to do such things. See on here just how ones so called beliefs can stir up such feelings, albeit in or out of schools, or whether one believes in any form of religion.

Not sure what you mean by “Likeness of a Copper”. (Stick with it Charlie, it might just help you to sleep…)

There are crimes and there are crimes.
When you see police officers sitting in their car at the side of a busy street, apparently checking motorists speed despite the fact that the amount of traffic, the number of bus stops on a relatively narrow road, several pedestrian crossings and traffic lights on a junction all mean that you’d need a top line sports car to accelerate to the speed limit and brake in the space available just to get their interest. At these moments don’t you think to yourself…haven’t they got better things to do? Yet speeding is against the law, so shouldn’t those cops be there just on the off chance that someone might get a lucky break and actually get above 30mph?
My eldest sons friend got a ticking off from the police for walking his bike on the pavement, in the dark, with several of his mates (without bikes), for not have lights (although it may have been he did have lights but they were not turned on, those who passed on the story were very disgusted and upset) on his bike. Should the police officers not have been doing something useful, rather than harassing a pedestrian cyclist, even though he apparently should have had lights on display?
A police officer attacks a man walking home from work who is not breaking the law; the man subsequently dies and it takes the efforts of a newspaper and a very upset American, who had videoed the assault then later heard that the police had denied they were involved. Yes, there was a protest going on at the time but it was not close to that police officer and some might say he did what he did for kicks – shouldn’t he have been doing something useful instead?

Yes, there are vicars who have used their position to ‘interfere’ with choirboys, etc; so have Scoutmasters, teachers, and so on. Yes, these people were in trusted positions of responsibility and they abused their position – obviously. And just as obviously there have been vicars and Scoutmasters and teachers – and police officers – who have not abused their position. But I believe that it is the police officers who are the important ones here (that is not to say that I condone vicars, et al, abusing their positions, especially where children are concerned) but as the upholders of the law the police need to be seen as squeaky clean (when was the last time you heard of a vicar sacked for speeding at work or knowingly passing a bad cheque? We trust everyone not to shoplift, but if vicars, Scoutmasters and teachers, etc, get caught it merits a few lines in the local paper and probably a fine, whereas if a cop does it it’s a bigger story leading to losing his/her job and probably a prison sentence).
The crime which you are upset about does involve a breaking of criminal law, but it may be argued that there could be a moral angle to it (disrupting the drones might prevent death thousands of miles away); yes, I’m sure that there will have been a few vicars, priests, clerics, etc, who will claim that god made them abuse children but both you and I know that kind of thing is WRONG, that we’d expect them to know inside themselves that the claim is just an excuse because they knew they were doing wrong (unless, of course, they really want to side with the kind of people whose mental condition is so fragile that they really do believe that god wanted them to strangle the kittens…).
I guess that Rev Hebden would claim a philosophical argument about trying to prevent death means his arrest and fine is a moral victory because he was actually doing something to that end; maybe he would have, if he had the knowledge, gone and murdered an Austrian ex-corporal 80-90 years ago to prevent future deaths, who knows.

I need to read this back to see if it makes any sense; I’m guessing Charlie gave up reading after line 7… I shall wring out a few hankies too.

Ok, do you believe that what Rev Hebden did was on a par with all those child abusing priests, etc, who colour our judgement when it comes to religion?
The answer, I am sure you must agree, is no. (I can patronise too ;o)
Breaking into a military base through a cut fence just does not compare with the decades of abuse the average perverted priest had to carry out their abuse. Agreed?
You feel that Hebden abused his position, or role, in setting a good example to his community – although we can assume that he didn’t abuse their trust where others of his ilk have, can’t we? His heart must be in the right place because he does not want civilians in Afghanistan to be killed – who does? It is not good PR for the west and adds to the Taliban’s control, yet your original post denigrated Hebden and his intensions – obviously you don’t want civilians killed, here or in Afghanistan, but your view appeared to be the opposite of his.
At this point I shall hold my hand up and admit that I was thoroughly unconvinced by the arguments put forward to justify the invasion of Iraq and just what we were expecting to do with the Afghan Taliban if/when we won (hell, they were our Taliban, we bankrolled them, armed them, taught them, fought with them, we should have known what they were capable of, and we should have read the history books since no one has gotten the better of the Afghans on their home soil). So I said ‘not in my name’; it was easy and involved me being able to claim the moral ground over more warlike workmates when no weapons of mass destruction were found, that sort of thing. No, I wouldn’t have broken into an air base and I wouldn’t have condoned those who tried either, but seeing our government ploughing on and ignoring international law on the basis of claims that were later proven to be sheer fantasy means I can understand that some might do whatever they can to stop needless killing.

Sorry if this looks like a disjointed ramble. I started out with something in mind but the flu pills I’ve been forced to swallow are making my head swim and I probably should come back to this when it clears tomorrow (I hope), so consider this a work in progress (as in it will get edited down to a few lines with ‘prove me wrong’ at the end)

It shouldnt be called religion, it should be called ‘Faith’ , one hour a week throughout the entire education process wont hurt them! Then we can all, and i mean all! know a little about each others faiths and beliefs, it doesnt have to be shovelled down their throats and there should be no getouts, everyone sits in the lesson. whether youre black, white ,brown or green with yellow spots.

As it has been since Saville got found out, they are gradualy being dug out of the woodwork, thank God,………..if he exists on another planet.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Paedophiles with opportunity, Linc, like scoutmasters, swimming instructors etc….don’t read into it more than there is.

snafu. Re your para regarding the “Likeness of a Copper”.
What about all, and you must agree, of those Vicars, and those higher up the scale in the same profession, who have committed a crime against some of their Choire boys, and you know what I mean, without going into graphic detail, some have been Christian, Catholic etc, Has their own so called beliefes caused them to do such things. See on here just how ones so called beliefs can stir up such feelings, albeit in or out of schools, or whether one believes in any form of religion.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

After hundreds of words which I again regret giving up on part way through, you ask a question which has already been answered by many of our posts where some of us have defended religious teaching in schools.

Good grief. Sorry, it’ll be a long one, so here goes…

Religion isn’t a science.

Try telling them that when discussing intelligent design!

Religion in this country, which is what we are discussing, is predominantly Christian based, and enshrined within it is a set of moral and ethical codes which forms the foundation of how the majority live their lives.

But for how much longer?
And why should we need a book which is best described as a fictional biography to tell us how to live our lives? Do you really need to be told that you have to be nice to other people?

Re 7

Charlie, you are correct. This country lacks a clear sense and knowledge of moral and ethical imperatives, demonstrated in just one of many ways by recent discussions concerning the lack of care and compassion within our society.

Religion used to be the medium by which these values were taught. If, through some misplaced sensitivity we no longer trust religion to deliver then we need another method.

Islam knows only certainty and has no such sensitivity and has sensed a vacuum into which it is moving with great speed.

It was the carrot and stick approach: you either did what you were told or you were threatened with going to hell (not the one in Norway) for eternity, and in those days each man clung on to whatever morsel of hope he could find. These days I cannot threaten my eldest with being sent to his room without him coming back at me with the fact that he has rights and I am infringing them – imagine trying that in other parts of the world and the ways they might try to re-straighten his ‘moral’ compass.
Yes, an absence will be seen to require filling and there will be some religions which will actively seek to exploit what they see as a failure by our own religions, since obviously we cannot have shucked off those shackles ourselves… This would be where there would be conflict since it has taken us a great deal of time to get to this stage and we really don’t want to be dragged back several centuries.

If you have seen the film `The Rite` there is a very thought provoking scene. The film is about a priest who decides to leave the church because he does not believe in god.
On his way home from resigning a girl is run down in the street and is dying. She calls out to the priest and asks him to give her the last rites.

Not seen that film but I have listened to a series of radio plays called Bad Faith, starring (of all people!) Lenny Henry (a comedian I usually can’t stand, but here in a very straight role) as a police chaplain who has lost his belief. Very enjoyable.

The ultimate question. Would you deny a dying person (mother, father, son, daughter) that comfort, peace of mind even if you didn’t believe yourself?
BTW I don’t believe although I try to believe in something. Ceasing to exist doesn’t appeal.

The ultimate question? It would be their belief, and if it provides them with comfort then it is fine by me – as long as they do not expect me to participate, go skyclad, sacrifice a goat, whatever.
Ceasing to exist is what happens to all of us, though. We might be remembered somewhere – a gravestone, a book, a plaque on a bench – but physically we fade to dust, even in the minds of others. Think about the millions who existed in the world before the start of the last century; there are very few left who knew them personally, a few more who may have seen photographs of a relative few, more who have seen paintings of those who could afford the artist, some who will have read whatever records may have survived the centuries, but the vast majority are totally forgotten, unknown to us all. Believe in something preserving your character if it makes you feel better, but logic says you’re wasting your time.

Today at Lincoln Court, a Keith Hebden and 5 other were fined, because as a protest against Drones being used in Afghanistan, “Were Killing” Civillians, they cut the perimeter security wire at RAF Waddington.
Oh, forgot to mention, I should have said, the REV Hebden. Good example to kids re Religion?.
CLASSIC.

I’m guessing your own view is opposite to the protestors, yes? If you agreed with them your opinion would surely be the exact opposite!
There have been many instances of people with belief protesting against things which had the chance to cause controversy to the public – slavery, child labour, slum dwellings, etc.
A good example? Who knows – how much publicity did it get?

Because it’s the same as a Copper committing a crime. it sets a bad example to his “Faith”.

Eh, what???
A cop committing a crime is a crime, because the cop is supposed to be an upstanding member of society who sets an example and any transgression would cause the cop to no longer be a cop any longer. A church person who trespasses on RAF Waddington as a protest is, at least, not out to deliberately hurt anybody or (hopefully) self immolate themselves – he might be chanting ‘thou shall not kill’ in the hope that this convinces all the airmen he encounters to convert to pacifism, but at least we are not expecting him to uphold the law.

Come on, are there no god botherers on here who are prepared to defend organised religion, in or out of education?

Linc – indeed but they were obviously prepared to take the risk.

Tolerance and respect is all that is required.

Perfect answer, sadly too many power trip religions don’t see it like that.

There are good points to most religions, but sadly their main aim is power and control over the flock.

I see a distinction between one whose job is to uphold the law, breaking the law and one whose job is to represent Christ’s teachings, committing an offence in protest against something he believes is wrong or immoral.

There is a long history of churchmen protesting against things they believed were wrong and/or immoral. I don’t see the connection – quite the opposite I would have thought.

That may well be the case, In a way I can understand “why” they were protesting, but there are other ways of doing it, they were lucky the Stn Guards didn’t let the dogs loose on them.
Jim
Lincoln .7

Certainly, why not ??

Planemike

Because it’s the same as a Copper committing a crime. it sets a bad example to his “Faith”.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

There is a long history of churchmen protesting against things they believed were wrong and/or immoral. I don’t see the connection – quite the opposite I would have thought.