RE studies 'should cover atheism'

[KingPhoenix]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I agree.

I believe religion is a very personal thing and a choice that should be made in later life.

Being indoctrinated into a faith/ religion etc just because you are born into a family that has that religion is unfair and damaging.

I was "born" a Roman Catholic, and during school and younger life I was dragged to church which to anyone young is probably the most boring thing in the world. Catholic mass does not lend itself to the younger generation - I hated it. As soon as I was old enough to tell my parents I did not want to go to church or become a practising catholic I did.

I'm sure I am not alone in that story. I do not think schools should have any religeous links. They should teach all faiths about all faiths and also that it is ok to not have a faith if you don't want one.

Then you can make an informed decision about religion you want to follow, if any.

I completely agree with this, so all religeons, beliefs etc. should be taught in RE lessons, the only down fall that i see is that the teacher maybe biast towards their own beliefs, spending more time in that area or giving better understanding of their own faith which in turn would make the entire thing pointless.....

So i guess its catch 22, you could always have say 6 different teachers each with a different faith, but then upon interview and employment the school could be hit with a discrimation charge if they dont employ a catholic, as they already have a catholic RE teacher.......

I think that kinda makes sens :S

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Graham

Non-religious beliefs should be taught as part of compulsory religious education, a thinktank report suggests.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3486537.stm

Discuss!

And why not I say!

There are many of us who do not follow or believe in religion, I have no argument about children being taught religion in school but they should also be taught that many people have views that differ.

They should also be taught that people who do not follow any religion or a religion different to theirs are not automatically bad people, this I'm afraid though is often not the case in some churches/relgions.

[BBKing]

Atheism is merely not believing in a supernatural entity, all religions share a belief in a supernatural entity(s) therefore atheism isn't a religion, as I think we have agreed. By that fact it doesn't belong in religious *education* but does belong in the deeper field of theological studies.

I'm a bit worried that people think RE is a kind of comparison shopping site for religions. Schools are there to educate children, not present alternative ways of running your life. I always got the royal hump at school when the RE teacher brought in evangelical Christians to push their religion at us, and tended to get very sarcastic at them. I'd have been much happier studying the origin and evolution (haha) of Christianity than being patronised by these chaps.

Russ - Catholicism as a non-Christian religion? Not a very tolerant attitude, I'm sure my brother-in-law would describe himself as a Christian if asked, and since he went to Ampleforth and was married to my sister by a monk, I think he ought to know.

Mind you, I've just finished reading a book (Platform by Michel Houllebecq, not suitable for minors or the easily offended, or people who dislike the French, really) which suggests that modern Catholicism is a regression to polytheistic religions such as Greek/Roman, Egyptian, Norse and Hinduism, since there is not only a Trinity at the top, but a Blessed Virgin and a whole rack of Saints just below, each of whom has a specialist area and is prayed to on that basis, plus an infallible quasi-deified Pope. Intriguing idea, developed further to say that monotheistic religions tend to cause the most problems as they're more prone to absolutism and fundamentalism (because there's less to discuss and argue about, I reckon).

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Russ D

But what about us parents who want our children to be educated in school about it? Surely people need to be educated about religion, otherwise we'd become a nation of "Religion causes wars" types.

Instead of a forum of "Religion causes wars" types?

Most of the RE in my school life was based on the bible. It's only in the last couple of years that we got a new RE teacher that taught about different religions. I learned more about Religion in those two years than in the rest of my school life.

In all that time though, we were never taught that there possibly is no God (or supreme being), and I think that is wrong. I think the remit of Religious Education should include all religions, and also at least mention Atheism.

Well, I did wonder if, when I posted that first message I should have said "Discuss - *NICELY*!", fortunately this thread *hasn't* (quite) degenerated into a flame fest...!!

A couple of points: 1) Religious Education is a *required* element of the National Curriculum, schools *have* to teach it.

2) Parents *are* permitted to remove their children from RE classes.

See http://www.nc.uk.net/webdav/servlet/...vYc22VM76mHQks for more information.

My personal opinion is that Atheism is a "religious position" but not a "religious belief" (as I've quoted recently from Philip K Dick: "reality is that which, if you cease to believe in it, still exists). If people cease to believe in a religion (don't quibble!), then that religion ceases to exist, but you don't have to *believe* in atheism! The fact that it's *not* a "recognised religion" (well, duh, of course not! ) shouldn't make a difference.

As such, I think atheism should be covered in any class that teaches *other* "religious positions", especially as there are, as has been pointed out, different sorts of atheism, eg from humanism to secularism to Buddhism.

Now none of these *preclude* or *exclude* a "moral structure", morality is not the sole perogative of religion, it's perfectly possible to be a moral atheist, so I think it's a good idea to teach that "it's a bad idea to do this because it harms other people" rather than "it's a bad idea to do this because God said so".

I think, overall, there should be teaching about "how to be nice to other people" (to put it in an *extremely* simplistic way!) but IMO that does not need to be done solely within a "religious" framework.

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by Graham

My personal opinion is that Atheism is a "religious position" but not a "religious belief" (as I've quoted recently from Philip K Dick: "reality is that which, if you cease to believe in it, still exists). If people cease to believe in a religion (don't quibble!), then that religion ceases to exist, but you don't have to *believe* in atheism! The fact that it's *not* a "recognised religion" (well, duh, of course not! ) shouldn't make a difference.

As such, I think atheism should be covered in any class that teaches *other* "religious positions", especially as there are, as has been pointed out, different sorts of atheism, eg from humanism to secularism to Buddhism.

Now none of these *preclude* or *exclude* a "moral structure", morality is not the sole perogative of religion, it's perfectly possible to be a moral atheist, so I think it's a good idea to teach that "it's a bad idea to do this because it harms other people" rather than "it's a bad idea to do this because God said so".

I think, overall, there should be teaching about "how to be nice to other people" (to put it in an *extremely* simplistic way!) but IMO that does not need to be done solely within a "religious" framework.

Your latter point is in fact covered in PHSE on the secondary schools timetable.Everything from vandalism,sex education to the British political system is covered.Citizenship is probably going to be added to the syllabus but comparative religion and ethical considerations tend to be part of the RE syllabus.The problem as I see it at the moment is that PHSE is a non exam subject.This results in the students not giving PHSE(except when sex,contraception and drugs are taught) any respect and they tend have less enthusiasm during lessons.Indeed the hardest subject to cover with them is....politics.
I certainly believe that in RE,atheism,agnosticism and the lesser known religions should at least get a nod of acknowledgement if only to provide a more rounded knowledge base to allow the students to make informed choices.A frank discussion of religious(and non religious) cults wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Incog.

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Your latter point is in fact covered in PHSE on the secondary schools timetable.

Interesting, I am of course, somewhat out of touch with current schooling!

The problem as I see it at the moment is that PHSE is a non exam subject.

Yes, I can entirely agree with that. It's like General Studies was at A Level, ie mostly an excuse to doss around!

I certainly believe that in RE,atheism,agnosticism and the lesser known religions should at least get a nod of acknowledgement if only to provide a more rounded knowledge base to allow the students to make informed choices.A frank discussion of religious(and non religious) cults wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Incog.

Hear hear!

[Russ]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Russ - Catholicism as a non-Christian religion? Not a very tolerant attitude, I'm sure my brother-in-law would describe himself as a Christian if asked, and since he went to Ampleforth and was married to my sister by a monk, I think he ought to know.

I live with a life-long Catholic, so let's not start with the "Not a very tolerant attitude" stuff. Catholics may consider themselves Christians, but it's widely believed they're not and the Bible backs this up. There are a number of criteria one needs to establish to be 'saved' - you ask a Catholic if they've done this.

Romans 10:9 says if you confess with your tongue and know in your heart that Jesus is Lord, you shall be saved. This means you need to verbally confess you are a sinner, you acknowledge Jesus died on the cross and you ask him in to your life. From experience, most Catholics are not aware of this.

John 3:3-7 says because we are born in to sin, the only way to be saved is to be 'born-again': that is, to leave your old life behind and start anew in Christ. The vast majority of Catholics are born in to Catholicism, that is their parents decide for them. Unfortunately the Bible doesn't work this way: you must chose God for yourself, not by proxy.

It is this and other reasons why I feel RE lessons are so important. I don't wish to sound arrogant or smug but I'm sure a lot of people on this site were not aware of the above. Of course you don't need to know it if you have no real interest in religion but it shows how there are many misconceptions about the differing faiths which can affect people's judgements.

There are lots of other ways in which it would appear they have failed to match the required 'criteria' but in the interests of not dragging this too off-topic I won't go in to them all. It's important for me to state that there are (and have been) many many Catholics who have done a lot of good work for God AND humanity (Mother Theresa perhaps being the most prominant), and this is NOT a dig at the faith in general.

[xaq141175]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Not only is it 'ok' but IMO 'essential'.

Intolerance is just as essential.

Since I became a Christian I've experienced things which IMO demonstrate there is only one God and only one saviour, Jesus Christ. I could go around shouting about Islamics, Muslims, Jews etc being totally wrong but where would be the sense in that?

Depends on the issue.

I'd be undoing the good work I'd learned through Christ's teaching. I certainly don't agree with most of the beliefs of these other religions (especially when it comes to Big J) but I respect their right to believe and worship whatever they see fit, just as I would expect the same from them.

what if another's value directly contradicted your own and that other refused to compromise ?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by xaq141175

Intolerance is just as essential.

Is it really? Why?

Originally Posted by xaq141175

Depends on the issue.

I'm talking like-for-like discussion - a Muslim cleric saying "We believe Jesus is not the saviour" and then I or another Christian saying "You're stupid for believing that, THIS is how it really is".

Originally Posted by xaq141175

what if another's value directly contradicted your own and that other refused to compromise ?

That would be up to them. As I've said all along, no-one has to believe and I'd never try to force anyone to do so.

[xaq141175]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Atheism is merely not believing in a supernatural entity, all religions share a belief in a supernatural entity(s) therefore atheism isn't a religion, as I think we have agreed. By that fact it doesn't belong in religious *education* but does belong in the deeper field of theological studies.

Atheism is a belief related to god though. i think it has a place in the proposed new subject for the cirriculum because it is critical of the concept of god, it's something to contrast with religion.

I'm a bit worried that people think RE is a kind of comparison shopping site for religions. Schools are there to educate children, not present alternative ways of running your life.

If kids are gonna learn about religion, then it's essential there is contrast and comparison between them, to generate awareness of what religion is. this multilateral awareness of religion is going to be essential if we are to have a multicultural society.

[Xaccers]

Perhaps RE should be re-named Theology?
Sounds cooler too, much less fuddy duddy

[xaq141175]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Is it really? Why?

Because any society needs to follow it's own standards. Intolerance for people who harm, seek to incite hatred etc etc is absolutly essential if society is to function. Take your own body for example, it there is a cell in one of your tissues that is acting in a way thats disrupting the function of the cells around it, first it attempts repair, if that is unsuccessful then something called necrosis (cell suicide) is attempted, if that fails then your bodys own immune system will kill it's own cell, through apoptosis. This is Intolerance. Bear in mind too, Tolerance only applys in the first place when something is stressed, therefore it is only ever temporary. Hence the phrase 'wearing down my tolerance'.

I'm talking like-for-like discussion - a Muslim cleric saying "We believe Jesus is not the saviour" and then I or another Christian saying "You're stupid for believing that, THIS is how it really is".

Oh yeah, arguments and division over theocratic discussion should be unlimited, as it has no physical affect, other than elevated adrenalin

That would be up to them. As I've said all along, no-one has to believe and I'd never try to force anyone to do so.

Hmm, that doesn't really answer my question, but, I couldn't be that tolerant if a cultural value were affecting economic practices that resulted in higher social segregation, such as class division. Or introduced high levels of segregation between men and woman. Or ended up denying a certian class of people access to education.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Romans 10:9 says if you confess with your tongue and know in your heart that Jesus is Lord, you shall be saved. This means you need to verbally confess you are a sinner, you acknowledge Jesus died on the cross and you ask him in to your life.

Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

Or: Romans 10:9 'That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.'

Excuse me, I don't want you to think I'm "attacking" you or your faith, but I don't actually see anything in there that says anything about "asking him into your life". As to the rest, well I think most Catholics believe in the resurrection (or are, at least, informed of it!).

John 3:3-7 says because we are born in to sin, the only way to be saved is to be 'born-again': that is, to leave your old life behind and start anew in Christ. The vast majority of Catholics are born in to Catholicism, that is their parents decide for them. Unfortunately the Bible doesn't work this way: you must chose God for yourself, not by proxy.

Whilst I certainly don't agree with people being co-opted into a religion from birth...

It is this and other reasons why I feel RE lessons are so important. I don't wish to sound arrogant or smug but I'm sure a lot of people on this site were not aware of the above.

... I'm sorry, but I have to say that I *do* consider this to be sounding more than a little "arrogant or smug".

*Your* version of Christianity says that "this is the proper interpretation of these words", but I don't see anyone else's interpretation as being invalid because of that.

I also don't see how RE lessons will make this "better". If they don't teach what *you* consider to be the "right message", are they "doing it wrong"?

Surely they should teach that, as you say: "it shows how there are many misconceptions about the differing faiths which can affect people's judgements" and that just because *one* interpretation says this and another one says that it doesn't make either of them wrong.

It's important for me to state that there are (and have been) many many Catholics who have done a lot of good work for God AND humanity (Mother Theresa perhaps being the most prominant), and this is NOT a dig at the faith in general.

Just at those who are, to your lights, "doing it wrong"?

[Russ]

Excuse me, I don't want you to think I'm "attacking" you or your faith, but I don't actually see anything in there that says anything about "asking him into your life".

Chosing J to be your saviour is, IMO, "asking him into your life".

As to the rest, well I think most Catholics believe in the resurrection

So does satan.

*Your* version of Christianity says that "this is the proper interpretation of these words", but I don't see anyone else's interpretation as being invalid because of that.

What do you mean "my version"? I'm going on what the New Testament says.

I also don't see how RE lessons will make this "better". If they don't teach what *you* consider to be the "right message", are they "doing it wrong"?

An RE lesson, when teaching the works of Jesus will teach what he said.

Surely they should teach that, as you say: "it shows how there are many misconceptions about the differing faiths which can affect people's judgements" and that just because *one* interpretation says this and another one says that it doesn't make either of them wrong.

No, because the NT says what the NT says.

Just at those who are, to your lights, "doing it wrong"?

Nice try Graham, I'd love to find out exactly what it is you think of me.....but that would be pointless!

I made that statement to say I am not attacking Catholics, just the way they seem to think that doing things 'the Catholic way' as opposed to "Jesus' way" is somehow better. This certainly is not something I (or many others, Christian or not) feel very comfortable with. It's as if they are are saying "We can change scripture to further the Catholic cause."