Whether you like it or not, faith/religion has played a major part inh shaping world and national history, and still is.

I don’t see how you can teach history without including the massive Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/other influences. They’re not mutually exclusive from a lot of historical events.

Feel free to enlighten me – I’m fairly sure that “evolving” in humans involves reproduction.

It would appear to be me that doesn’t understand the word “evolving”.

I meant evolving spiritually, obviously.

I think we all agree art, english literature and music exist and you can have an opinion on it

So does religion.

Who said anything about ‘glorifying’ history?

Too often, the focus is on the ‘Glorious British Empire’, and ignores the real reasons why Brtiain became wealthy. Highlighting things like the introduction of railways to the colonies, and ignoring the effects of colonialisation. How many British schoolchildren are taught about the Bengal Famine, for example?

Why don’t we turn this into a little more positive thread;

Religious people you fancy and don’t know why.

I’ll start off with Aishwarya Rai (Hindu)

Yum.

I would scrap RE altogether and replace it with philosophy. You could cover the teachings of the major religions without the subject being bound by them.

RE is wrapped up in culture – in a global environment kids need to understand the factors that shape different cultures whether we/they agree with them. That’s education

OK and after that hours lesson can we move on?
Not sure it has to be compulsory to GCSE level – is i treally that important?

you don’t need faith to study the method

Why would i need to study the method if i have no faith?

So does religion.

it exists in the sense that folk believe in it but many dont – no one thinks there is no art or no english literature though we may disagree as to what it is or what is good.

Nothing in education is comparable to teaching religion as its is just not true – by whihc I mean there is no objective evidence t support it

Can you name another subject we do this with?

Why don’t we turn this into a little more positiveyeat another pervvy thread;

FTFY

Why not just get your own banned thread 😉

I would scrap RE altogether and replace it with philosophy. You could cover the teachings of the major religions without the subject being bound by them.

+1 for that…

Religious people you fancy and don’t know why.

Why would i need to study the method if i have no faith?

to broaden your mind… 🙂

Religious people you fancy and don’t know why.

Now there’s a thread I can get behind, ifyouknowwhatimean….

Jesus gots good abs eh?
Hanging on that cross must be good for the core! To be seen at your local crossfit gym soon.

wrecker and grahamS are naughty, naughty boys

I thought this thread would get closed, but I was wong on the reason 🙂

it exists in the sense that folk believe in it but many dont

No; it exists in the sense that entire civilisations have been built up around it, and that it has played a part in the political, social and economic organisation of just about everywhere on Earth. Simply ignoring it or refusing to discuss it, is denial of fact.

This exists:

So does this:

And so does this:

Venus, hubba hubba:

In my opinion an education system has to provide pupils with a wide range of knowledge and experiences. Of course this is augmented and enhanced by parents, but 30-40 hours a week gives you scope to cover a lot of ground. As religion is important to many people, it seems rather obvious to cover central aspects. In this example, why would you want to be ignorant of one side of the debate? Knowledge is power…

wrecker – Member
Jesus gots good abs eh?
Hanging on that cross must be good for the core! To be seen at your local crossfit gym soon.

venus.jpg

I’m offended by that image, for its religiousness, and the fact that beardy on the left appears to be sporting a semi.

beardy on the left appears to be sporting a semi.

Wouldn’t you?

Wouldn’t you?

I have as big a thing for naked redheads as anyone, but dudes blowing into conches? Loads and loads of naked boys? Dolphins?
Total bonerkill.

Yeah I’m staying out of this other than to say Jaffa Cakes are not biscuits.

Isn’t that the lass from the t-shirt adverts?

I have as big a thing for naked redheads as anyone, but dudes blowing into conches? Loads and loads of naked boys? Dolphins?
Total bonerkill.

Perhaps you’re not the target audience?

Why not just get your own banned thread

Like this one was going any other way…….

I have as big a thing for naked redheads as anyone, but dudes blowing into conches? Loads and loads of naked boys? Dolphins?

Total bonerkill.

Seriously, don’t knock it until you’ve tried it (not the naked boys bit, obviously, I’m not a pervert)

IBTB!

I don’t give a monkeys what my daughter will be taught. Rational, calm discussion around the dinner table will counteract the hysterical warblings of any nut jobs. Especially textiles teachers; they’re a whole different kettle of fish….

😉

Totally agree. ‘Faith’ schools shouldn’t even be legal; they are retrogressive and socially divisive.

For once I have to say that STW is being a bit highbrow about all this,governments of whatever political persausion are far more pragmatic.
They keep faith schools because they get good results.

to broaden your mind…

yes but then you run the risk of letting in any old crap 😉

No; it exists in the sense that entire civilisations have been built up around it, and that it has played a part in the political, social and economic organisation of just about everywhere on Earth.

Ah so you are arguing we study it in history lessons then or politics – ok no issue with this.

Simply ignoring it or refusing to discuss it, is denial of fact.

Again it is a fact it exists it is not a fact it is a fact[ ie true]

I refer you to the fallacy of equivocation here

They keep faith schools because they get good results.

Do they get good results because they are religious, or because they employ good teachers? Many faith schools are independent, and pay higher salaries than state schools, so can attract better teachers. The religion has nothing to do with the quality of education.

Again it is a fact it exists it is not a fact it is a fact[ ie true]
I refer you to the fallacy of equivocation here

I’m going to go away for a while, to try and understand this.

Never said it did.

muppetWrangler nailed it.

I would scrap RE altogether and replace it with philosophy. You could cover the teachings of the major religions without the subject being bound by them.

We’ve done this to death before but,

There is a difference between teaching Religious Education as a subjective / theory subject and as fact. Teaching about religion, what different belief systems have thought over the years, maybe a look at what some of the various texts have to say, is no different from other arty subjects. There’s arguably a value in discussing what some people think about the Bible in the same way that there’s a value in teaching what some people think about Tennyson. At this level, I think RE should be taught in schools, though I fail to see why it should be mandatory come Options time.

Where it becomes a problem for me is when a given religion is presented as fact, and it starts bleeding into other subjects like History and the Sciences. It’s not fact, not even if you really really believe it a lot.

There is a difference between teaching Religious Education as a subjective / theory subject and as fact. Teaching about religion, what different belief systems have thought over the years, maybe a look at what some of the various texts have to say, is no different from other arty subjects.

That’s how I was taught RE 20 years ago. Has anything changed?

There’s arguably a value in discussing what some people think about the Bible in the same way that there’s a value in teaching what some people think about Tennyson.

Tennyson having a rather more minimal impact upon the world, I don’t see much value in that comparison.

Tennyson having a rather more minimal impact upon the world, I don’t see much value in that comparison.

Poor example perhaps. Shakespeare?

Things like “art” and “poetry” have shaped lives, inspired people, provoked thought, brought comfort. They’ve been influential on our development just has religion has.

“Religious people you fancy and don’t know why.”

Ok so I resisted earlier I just can’t now…

The Fallen Madonna with zee Big Boobies

*clutches chest in a dramatic fashion*
*gasps*
Ma dickee ticker!

The Fallen Madonna with zee Big Boobies

For a full education you’d have to ensure that you also covered the pill in the till, the drug in the jug and the gateaux in the chateau.

Ah waz jost pissing

art, english literature and music exist

I think schools are broadly supportive of explaining to kids that while they may have to study one book, style of music, method or period of painting, in depth, to get a solid rational understanding, by and large they don’t say that this is the best or only way to write / play / create.

The big problem with RE in schools is it starts too early, Jesus is there from you very first primary school assembly, way before kids are ready for evolutionary theory.

I’d automatically pass any kid who wrote “it’s all rubbish” on an RE paper – so long as they got good grades in science, and in the interests of fairness – vice versa.

I don’t think I learned anything at all in RE, but it provided a useful gap in the school week where you could just forget about learning and do whatever the hell you wanted. I spent it mostly somewhere else.

Venus, hubba hubba:

Nekkid kids = child porn

I’m telling!

😉

back from the pub. We did RE at our CoE school, “our” stuff was taught as fact, “jesus did this, god did that”. We also covered a little bit about other religions, “these gullible idiots believed their prophet did this and laughably reckon their deity did that”

ok ok, maybe not quite that derisory but there was a definite thing of ours is the right religion and 100% true.

D0NK: very much my experience too and my school was (supposed to be) secular.