"Religious education is a priority and MUST be saved"
111 replies, posted
[B]MPs have set up a new group to safeguard the teaching of religious education to pupils in England.[/B]
The all party parliamentary group on RE [B]wants the subject to be treated as a priority[/B].
Last year [B]115 MPs signed a motion demanding a debate on including RE GCSE [/B]in the English Baccalaureate.
A government spokesperson welcomed the new group but said "[B]the English Baccalaureate will not prevent schools offering RE GCSEs[/B]".
Stephen Lloyd MP who will chair the group said the group would provide a real insight into the value of RE.
"In today's world where our children can be open to an enormous amount of misleading information I believe[B] it is absolutely essential they are taught about different cultures and religions by trained, experienced RE teachers[/B], allowing children to make informed choices," he said.
Mr Lloyd, a Liberal Democrat, tabled last year's early day motion on RE after the government left it out of the English Baccalaureate award to teenagers who get five good grades in key named GCSEs.
The subjects in the award are English, maths, science, a modern foreign language and a humanities subject - either geography or history.
[B]Supporters of RE want to see it included in the humanities category.[/B]
John Keast, chair of The Religious Education Council of England and Wales, said: "Recently the RE community has felt under fire and this represents an important step to give the subject a strong profile amongst parliamentarians."
The spokeswoman at the Department for Education said: "RE remains a statutory part of the school curriculum for every student up to 18. [B]It is rightly down to schools themselves to judge how it is taught.[/B]"
"[B]We have been clear that pupils should take the GCSEs that are right for them and that we look to teachers and parents to help pupils make the right choice[/B]", she added.
[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17068153[/URL]
-snip totally misunderstood, quoted but whatever-
[QUOTE=Zambies!;34757021]Hey, assholes. Thanks for making good Christians look like dicks.[/QUOTE]
Um this article makes it sounds like they inform students about multiple religions.
Don't they have something actually [B]RELEVANT[/B] they should teach the students instead?
Instead of some [I]ancient science fiction[/I].
Besides leaving it up to the schools to decide WHAT they teach about religions is just a awfulbad idea.
IF they really wanna implement this, then it should be standardized and it should teach the students about ALL religions from a neutral point of view, and with a strong emphasis that it's only for historic purpose.
I think teaching real computing and eliminating wishy washy subjects like media studies would be the correct step forward given the current climate.
[quote]In today's world where our children can be open to an enormous amount of misleading information[/quote]
Yeah like the bible.
I do think RE is important though, I mean you should always learn about other cultures but the problem is it always ends up being about Christianity and you only learn about the other cultures in your younger years. If the courses were more balanced then I would completely agree but it's so ridiculously one sided towards Christianity that what's the point of being taught at all?
[QUOTE=Van-man;34757043]Don't they have something actually [B]RELEVANT[/B] they should teach the students instead?
Instead of some [I]ancient science fiction[/I].
Besides leaving it up to the schools to decide WHAT they teach about religions is just a awfulbad idea.
IF they really wanna implement this, then it should be standardized and it should teach the students about ALL religions from a neutral point of view, and with a strong emphasis that it's only for historic purpose.[/QUOTE]
That is pretty much what RE is in most comprehensive schools in the UK. My RE lessons ranged from various religious groups such as Islam and Hinduism to debating ethical issues such as euthanasia.
Although I don't think they should call it Religious Education since the name tends to make kids think they're trying to force religion on them.
If it was standardized and spoke on multiple religions neutrally, I think it would be good overall.
Combating ignorance so that the BNP and crap like that has less of a leg to stand on and all that
How about before posting about duh ebil kristins, you should read the OP, this is actually about teaching children about religion, not only christian religion, and it's not one of those things where they tell you that christianity is the one true belief and all others will burn in hellfire.
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;34757038]Um this article makes it sounds like they inform students about multiple religions.[/QUOTE]
They don't, when I took RE as a GCSE the full range of religions covered was baptist, catholic, protestant and Judaism. If they had the class cover several major religions instead of just the Abrahamic ones I'd support it.
cultures yes, religions no
RE didn't make me more tolerant of religion. Not being a complete cunt did.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34757075]That is pretty much what RE is in most comprehensive schools in the UK. My RE lessons ranged from various religious groups such as Islam and Hinduism to debating ethical issues such as euthanasia.
Although I don't think they should call it Religious Education since the name tends to make kids think they're trying to force religion on them.[/QUOTE]
I'm still concerned about the more backwards retarded areas where there happens to be schools.
That said it's nice to know at-least [B]SOME[/B] schools handle this subject like they really should.
Even though I don't follow any religions, i'm in no doubt that it's still a huge part of people's lives in this world. I think kids really do need an education on ALL religions. It should hopefully make kids more tolerant towards others when they're older.
Also as like others have said, my RE lessons really were quite good and interesting. We covered several religions and there were a lot of morale debates.
Yes, teach them in history class as you would any other subject, just don't preach it.
[QUOTE=Occlusion;34757136]RE didn't make me more tolerant of religion. Not being a complete cunt did.[/QUOTE]
It's about teaching kids what other religions actually believe so you don't get a load of Generations whose only knowledge of other religions is through tabloids and the dailymail.
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;34757038]Um this article makes it sounds like they inform students about multiple religions.[/QUOTE]
They do. Religious education over here is just that. It isn't trying to indoctrinate you into a religion unless you are going to a Catholic school, or your teacher is a shithead. It informs you of religions, what their followers believe, and various stances on religious beliefs including atheism. It's not that bad, boring as all hell, but it does encourage acceptance of other people more than say, not teaching it at all. We are not told a religion is "correct" or "wrong", we are just informed about them and left to decide for ourselves if we agree.
I thought RE was already considered a humanities subject anyway? And I'm pretty sure it's already a mandatory subject for GCSE (not a full GCSE though so it's worthless, at least it was at my school).
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;34757038]Um this article makes it sounds like they inform students about multiple religions.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I totally misinterpeted it.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;34757117]How about before posting about duh ebil kristins, you should read the OP, this is actually about teaching children about religion, not only christian religion, and it's not one of those things where they tell you that christianity is the one true belief and all others will burn in hellfire.[/QUOTE]
This is what RE [I]should[/I] be.
If you don't teach people about different regions then how can you allow them to make up their mind about what if anything they believe? Forcing no religious teaching upon people is just as bad if not worse than forcing a religion onto children.
[QUOTE=Rents;34757127]They don't, when I took RE as a GCSE the full range of religions covered was baptist, catholic, protestant and Judaism. If they had the class cover several major religions instead of just the Abrahamic ones I'd support it.[/QUOTE]
Must vary by school then. Mine covered the Abrahamic religions as you'd expect, plus Sikhism, Islam, and a few others I can't remember now.
If only religiousness was something else, and not so awkward and intrusive like it is today, it would be a great subject in education.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34757208]If only religiousness were something else, and not so awkward and intrusive like it is today, it would be a great subject in education.[/QUOTE]
They should call the subject Culture and Ethics to over come this awkward bump.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;34757193]Must vary by school then. Mine covered the Abrahamic religions as you'd expect, plus Sikhism, Islam, and a few others I can't remember now.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, this part
[QUOTE=matt.ant;34757005]It is rightly down to schools themselves to judge how it is taught."[/QUOTE]
Is the main problem with it at the moment.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34757245]They should call the subject Culture and Ethics to over come this awkward bump.[/QUOTE]
Or call it "Being a human" but that's just me.
Yet another boring and useless subject. No wonder elementary takes so much and yet teaches you nothing useful. Just because you explained that different people believe different version of the same fairy tale won't make them any more/less tolerant.
For an entire year one of my RE teachers was basically spending every RE lesson we had trying to convert us and was a hardcore catholic (on one occasion he even outright said "You should all be Catholic" and went into a big long rant about why. I did challenge him on it multiple times and even brought it up to other staff but nothing was ever done about it). Keep in mind this was in a non-religious school. Based on that experience I really wouldn't say that it's a lesson that's devoid of misinformation and as is the case with teachers of all lessons RE teachers aren't necessarily going to be good at their jobs just because they're qualified for it.
On the other hand however, I did have a few RE teachers in my time at school who were really cool, unbiased and were willing to hear everyone's opinions and teach us about the major religions of the world in equal measure and to be fair it was quite an enjoyable lesson. Is it a lesson that should have as much priority as Maths or English (for example)? No, I don't think so. However, I do think that it does have its merits and I think it's definitely worth keeping around just as long as it's taught in an unbiased fashion.
Religious Education was always biased towards Christianity when I was taught. What a load of shit.
Unless the course is interesting where you learn about different philosophies and symbols, then it's pointless.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;34757340]Yet another boring and useless subject. No wonder elementary takes so much and yet teaches you nothing useful. Just because you explained that different people believe different version of the same fairy tale won't make them any more/less tolerant.[/QUOTE]
You have to teach people about religions or you are going to end up with a generation of ignorant people who have no idea what they are talking about spreading hatred.
And nobody actually reads the story and just takes the opportunity to bash religion.
They're being taught religion as cultural study and let's face it religion is a major part of culture.
Also just something to point out: atheists being hateful sons of/bitches about religion are no different than any other religious zealot.
So are they wanting to teach Religion as "General-facts-and-information-about-different-religions," or are they wanting to teach it as "REPENT-NOW-OR-YOU-WILL-BURN-FOR-ETERNITY-IN-HELL?"
The article doesn't really elaborate on that? :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.