RE studies 'should cover atheism'

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

(Sorry for the late reply on this thread but we've been at Centre Parc's this w/e )

Interestingly, I am in complete agreement with you on this one.
As far as I can see the only question here is: Should aetheism be taught in RE or in some subject like Philosophy? (which afaik French kids are taught, and they are probably richer for it)
On one hand, as has already been stated here, atheism is not a religion, so it shouldn't be taught in RE....but it does seem the ideal place to put it, sort of 'goes with the territory'. I propose that schools teach a new subject : Philosophy, that could incorporate all the types of atheism that Russ linked to at the beginning of the thread.
.....not that we have a hope in hell of another subject being introduced in this schooling climate , no matter how worthy.

Originally Posted by Incognitas

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

...and from what I remember of my schooldays, if a subject is not examined then it isn't taken in/attended in the first place. May as well not bother teaching it.

[Chris]

[QUOTE=Ramrod<snip>I propose that schools teach a new subject : Philosophy, that could incorporate all the types of atheism that Russ linked to at the beginning of the thread.
.....not that we have a hope in hell of another subject being introduced in this schooling climate , no matter how worthy.<snip>[/QUOTE]
This is an interesting idea, but I can see a couple of problems with it.

First, Religious Education is still being used in British schools as a prop for a kind of institutional Christianity. The Law is constructed to ensure the content of an RE syllabus is predominantly Christian. Adding Atheism in any form to that syllabus would, rightly or wrongly, be construed as an attack on Christianity by the same body of public opinion that prevents any significant change to the Law.

Second, I have no confidence in contemporary British philosophers to advise on a syllabus that gives a fair and even handed treatment of religion as well as atheistic positions. In many of our higher education institutions, it is practically a 'given' that the answers to the ultimate questions are not to be found in any of the world religions. This is not a 'neutral' position, it is clearly tilted in favour of atheistic answers and I fear that religions taught as courses within the subject of Philosophy would not receive nearly so fair a treatment as atheism treated as a course within RE.

Personally I'm torn on this issue. As a Christian, naturally I don't want to support anything that reduces people's opportunity to study the foundations of my faith for themselves. Adding atheism to the syllabus leaves less time for everything else. On the other hand, I like Russ am no fan of 'institutional' Christianity as understood in the UK today. Christianity is rightly understood as a way of life and a relationship with the Divine, whereas in its institutional form it has become a set of religious observances confined to certain days of the year. I would love to see an end to this.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

So does satan.

So do you...

Originally Posted by Russ

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

You are going by what your interpretation of what the NT says.
Many other people have read the same books and interpreted the message in their own way.
This is the thing with religion, it is personal, it can only be personal, even amongst organised religion.

Originally Posted by Russ

No, because the NT says what the NT says.

And people interpret it as people interpret it, different to each other.
Certainly there are some blindingly incorrect interpretations/lies.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by towny

Personally I'm torn on this issue. As a Christian, naturally I don't want to support anything that reduces people's opportunity to study the foundations of my faith for themselves. Adding atheism to the syllabus leaves less time for everything else. On the other hand, I like Russ am no fan of 'institutional' Christianity as understood in the UK today. Christianity is rightly understood as a way of life and a relationship with the Divine, whereas in its institutional form it has become a set of religious observances confined to certain days of the year. I would love to see an end to this.

You are torn on this issue?! I'm an atheist, and I'm torn!
I believe that Christianity should be taught in UK schools (we are predominately/originally a Christian society after all). At the same time I see a need for other religions to be taught because, well, they exist so we need to know about them. On top of that I am an atheist so I (sometimes) think that religion should be kept out of schools completely This is all very difficult, I think I need a lie down...

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by towny

First, Religious Education is still being used in British schools as a prop for a kind of institutional Christianity. The Law is constructed to ensure the content of an RE syllabus is predominantly Christian. Adding Atheism in any form to that syllabus would, rightly or wrongly, be construed as an attack on Christianity by the same body of public opinion that prevents any significant change to the Law.

I was lucky, we had 2 RE teachers, I had Mr Elphick (related to Boon apparently)
He's a devout christian, and as such he felt that RE was to be used to teach understanding and tollerance of other religions, not to concentrate on christianity or try and push it down our throat. As you can imagine, he and I would often had very interesting theological conversations.
The other RE teacher however pushed his christian views like there was no tomorrow, and from the things he said he didn't believe there would be many tomorrow's left!
If he found you were not a christian, he penalised you.
I would have loved to have asked him how he could justify worshiping a genocidal tyrant, but never got the chance, and I have no doubt he would have attempted to get me a detention.
Not someone who was open to discussions.



This talk of atheism has reminded me of the golden rules.

Didn't Jesus say "do unto others what you would like them to do unto you"?

Well the athiest's version is "don't do unto others what you would not like them to do unto you"

[xaq141175]

No we weren't originally Christian, we were Pagans. Christianity didn't come to the Britons in any force until the 6th century AD. Even then it had to adopt many pagan rituals. It didn't supplant the indigenous culture, it supplemented it.

Sorry, just being an awkward git

[Nor]

First I've heard that Catholics ain't christians. Ooo get away get away, you can't be christians too.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

You are going by what your interpretation of what the NT says.
Many other people have read the same books and interpreted the message in their own way.
This is the thing with religion, it is personal, it can only be personal, even amongst organised religion.


And people interpret it as people interpret it, different to each other.
Certainly there are some blindingly incorrect interpretations/lies.

The single biggest problem with postmodernity is that, sooner or later, it leads you down a blind alley. On the one hand, it shies away from declaring one thing 'right' and another thing 'wrong' by saying 'everyone has their own interpretation, it's impossible to say one is better than another, so let's accept everything is personal, everything's ok'. Then on the other hand, it struggles with the logical conclusion - that there is some kind of moral equivalence between a life of sainthood and service as in, for example, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and the death and mayhem wrought by David Koresh at Waco in Texas.

This, I think, is why you find it impossible to make the first half of your post without checking yourself by finishing off with 'Certainly there are some blindingly incorrect interpretations/lies.' How can one interpretation be declared 'blindingly incorrect' without implicitly accepting that an alternative is 'correct'? (don't worry, that's a rhetorical question ) And as you can't make absolute statements without reference to an absolute standard, are you not then implying that you know what that absolute standard is?

I'm not trying to lay a philosophical trap here, just getting diverted by the fallacy that answers are somehow impossible to come by.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So do you...

I know, I'm just pointing out that saying Catholics believe in the ressurection does not make them or anyone a Christian.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

You are going by what your interpretation of what the NT says.
Many other people have read the same books and interpreted the message in their own way

You read Romans 10:9 and tell me how YOU interpret it.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

And people interpret it as people interpret it, different to each other.

When you see something as clear as "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", how can it be misread?

Jesus says the way to forgiveness of sin is to confess them to Him, and no other way. So Why do Catholics teach that the only way is to confess them to a priest who then gives you 10 Hail Marys? Don't fall for the "ah, but the priest represents Jesus" line because J says, confession ONLY goes through Him. No priest, no Hail Marys. He makes this very clear.

Catholics say to miss a sunday service without good reason is a sin. Where in the Bible is this stated? To walk in front of their altar without bowing your head, that's also a sin. Where does it say that? Where does it say we are to pray to Mary? Sure she played an important part in Christ's life but she has no special power or influence. Catholics also pray to the saints. Why? Prayer is only to go to God through Jesus. No saints, no Mary.

This is not down to interpretation. The NT is quite clear on the above.

I have no doubts that Catholics are loyal followers of God, but to call then Christian in view of how so much of their teachings contradicts clear scripture is stretching it a bit far IMO.

[ZrByte]

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

ISnt the New Testament just a reinterputation of the old testament anyway though? wich was also an interputation of the original scriptures (many of wich are supposed to have been poorly translated)
1 example of a bad translation... I dont know how true this is becuase I havent done the research myself, okay
The belief that christians & Catholics have alike that Beeing Gay is a sin is based on one passage, I cant find the quote I had of the original passage (It was in another language anyway ) this one passage when translated today is actually only reffering to homosexuality when used in temple rituals, it makes no comment on homosexuality in general, yet somebody interputed it to mean all gays, this is just one example of a misinterputation.

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

what he Allegedley said Mr Tollerant. Sorry :pp
I know what you meant but it is exactly this type of wording wich I have a problem with in schools.
When I was at school we spent year 7 - 9 learning about christianity, this happened, that happened, etc it was always stated as fact. only through year 10 did we learn about aother religions, and it was always worded "Jews believe this" or "Muslims Claim this happened" etc.
It seemed to me that the only reason other religions where allowed to be taught was so that all the brainwashed christians the school had made could laugh at how misguided other religions where.
The Jewish Yamaka (spelling??) was always reffered to as that funny little cap.

You know I have a feeling I have made less sense than normal, Im feeling a tad dislexic today. you have no idea how many corrections I have made allready and I doubt i says what I wanted it to oh well, enjoy

[Russ]

Originally Posted by ZrByte

ISnt the New Testament just a reinterputation of the old testament anyway though? wich was also an interputation of the original scriptures (many of wich are supposed to have been poorly translated)
1 example of a bad translation... I dont know how true this is becuase I havent done the research myself, okay

Erm...yes I think I can tell you've not researched because the NT is not a reinterpretation of the OT. The NT is based from Jesus' birth onwards and includes stories of his ministry.

Again, this is what I mean - if people want to find out more about religion, or be able to form a valid viewpoint, they need to be educated.

what he Allegedley said Mr Tollerant. Sorry
I know what you meant but it is exactly this type of wording wich I have a problem with in schools.
When I was at school we spent year 7 - 9 learning about christianity, this happened, that happened, etc it was always stated as fact. only through year 10 did we learn about aother religions, and it was always worded "Jews believe this" or "Muslims Claim this happened" etc.

Ok if it pleases you, an RE lesson will teach what is written in the NT.

The Jewish Yamaka (spelling??) was always reffered to as that funny little cap.

I confess my ignorance on this subject - can anyone tell me what the significance of the Jewish skullcap is? I know they say at certain times a man should have the top of his head covered, I've just never found out why.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by towny

This, I think, is why you find it impossible to make the first half of your post without checking yourself by finishing off with 'Certainly there are some blindingly incorrect interpretations/lies.' How can one interpretation be declared 'blindingly incorrect' without implicitly accepting that an alternative is 'correct'? (don't worry, that's a rhetorical question ) And as you can't make absolute statements without reference to an absolute standard, are you not then implying that you know what that absolute standard is?

By blindingly incorrect interpretations/lies I meant where some cult leader has added something themselves, or twisted something so much that any sane person can look at that and say "woah, that's not right"

The interpretability of the bible is demonstrated by the number of variants of christianity. If the bible couldn't be misinterpreted, then you wouldn't have the hundreds of varients.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

By blindingly incorrect interpretations/lies I meant where some cult leader has added something themselves, or twisted something so much that any sane person can look at that and say "woah, that's not right"

This is where the danger lies.

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Erm...yes I think I can tell you've not researched because the NT is not a reinterpretation of the OT. The NT is based from Jesus' birth onwards and includes stories of his ministry.

I think you can also tell ive had less than 4hrs sleep but never mind.
while I was wrong about the OT, the NT is still translated from Scriptures, most of wich have been badly translated, though sometimes for the best

Again, this is what I mean - if people want to find out more about religion, or be able to form a valid viewpoint, they need to be educated.

That they do but I dont see excluding a point of view that contradicts yours completeley (Athiesm) is a good way of educating people. While some of the many theories wich are at the foundation of athiesm are covered in other subjects, athiesm itself is not. Since RE is religious education I find it just as important to find the reasons why people choose God as the people who do not.

Ok if it pleases you, an RE lesson will teach what is written in the NT.

Thats better :pp , you could even say what you originaly said, just without stating it so matter of factly.

I confess my ignorance on this subject - can anyone tell me what the significance of the Jewish skullcap is? I know they say at certain times a man should have the top of his head covered, I've just never found out why.

Dont know myself, this is probably also down to like I said earlier about other faiths not beeing taken seriously in my school. Everything I have learnt about other faiths I have learnt myself And I know a lot of my knowledge is incomplete or inacurate (Im only 20 though so still plenty of time to learn )

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

By blindingly incorrect interpretations/lies I meant where some cult leader has added something themselves, or twisted something so much that any sane person can look at that and say "woah, that's not right"

The interpretability of the bible is demonstrated by the number of variants of christianity. If the bible couldn't be misinterpreted, then you wouldn't have the hundreds of varients.

Many of the 'variants' you see are not disagreeing with each other, simply emphasising different aspects of doctrine. The Evangelical Alliance has a staement of faith which sums up the key beliefs of Christianity and you will find its individual and corporate membership drawn from a very wide range of Christian traditions in the UK.

Of course the Bible can be misinterpreted, but I still say you can't have it both ways - either you accept that eveyone's personal opinion is equally valid, no matter how dangerous or obscene, or you accept that ultimately, there is a 'right' answer against which all answers can be judged.