Should religion be taught in school?

As a parent of a daughter who attained good enough Higher Grade passes to enter the course at Glasgow University's Faculty of Education to undertake a degree in Primary Education but was denied the opportunity at the first "filtering" on the basis of the fact she was not Roman Catholic, didn't attend a Roman Catholic school or had expressed a desire to teach in a Roman Catholic school, I am horrified by their very existence.

Laws exist in our society whereby you can be arrested for "sectarian offences" yet schools are allowed to exist where religious division at Primary One is the norm. Worse still, I part fund these schools as a tax-payer.

If I had the money, I would take the Roman Catholic Education System to the European Court of Human Rights as the policy adopted at Glasgow University has denied my daughter the opportunity of furthering her education on religious grounds rather than her qualifications.

I hate the concept of religion in schools unless it is of a wide and varied nature to educate children about ALL major religions. Taking it out of the syllabus would only serve to create more religious intolerance in my opinion.

Single faith or faith-oriented schools should be closed with immediate effect.

quote:

Originally posted by long-time-dead:
Single faith or faith-oriented schools should be closed with immediate effect.

Yes, I'll second that. Education and indoctrination aren't the same thing. Schools should cater for the former, the latter should be illegal.

EW

quote:

Single faith or faith-oriented schools should be closed with immediate effect.

I agree. Teach it all or none at all . Single faith or faith-oriented schools are divisive at best and down right sinister at worst.

quote:

Education and indoctrination aren't the same thing. Schools should cater for the former, the latter should be illegal

Totally agree.

But what has this got to do with banning religous education or faith schools?

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by long-time-dead:
Single faith or faith-oriented schools should be closed with immediate effect.

Having attended several myself in the west of Scotland I couldn't agree more. Divisive and poisoning. Scrap them now and let the kids appreciate that we are all the same.

And more generally we should not teach religion in schools at all.

Ian

Another Troll religion thread - whether deliberately or accidentally, I don't know.

Firstly, petty pedant point - teaching religion and teaching faith are two different things!

This is one of those subjects that comes up often and will generate more heat than light on this Forum.

Much of the comment in the many, many similar threads shows itself as being wholly ignorant of the history of education in this Country, and particularly the Church's pioneering work in the sphere of public education over the centuries.

I wonder who amongst the ranters has actually been in a school recently to see how religious education is actually delivered in practice - even in the faith schools? This includes an agreed syllabus covering the six largest world faiths and issues of tolerance, respecting others, conscience and non-belief; in addition, the actual requirements, not the tabloid version, for daily act of collective worship (which are frequently ignored in practice anyway); and the right to withdraw pupils from both RE lessons and daily acts of collective worship.

ALL schools, community or foundation, have admissions policies. These come into play in the case of oversubscription. Oversubscription occurs primarily in 'successful' schools - which in modern terms means - bottom line and let's not pretend otherwise - success at public examinations.

If a school is oversubscribed, how is it to decide who may be admitted? Proximity to school perhaps? Ask Brighton about that one...

When a school is oversubscribed because it is successful the question needs to be asked, 'what has made that school successful?' - staff and ethos. Selection? Presumeably there are thick Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Anglicans or whatever clamouring for those faith places, or are they all clever?

In rural areas, the exclusion from an education with 'choice' is also profound - it's a case of 'like it or lump it'! Because THERE IS NO CHOICE, there is only one school ... and so your child who is gifted in languages and humanities has to go to a Technology College just the same.

Yes, we can ALL find something to be bitter about in our education system.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JWM:

Firstly, petty pedant point - teaching religion and teaching faith are two different things!
/QUOTE]

Yep and we should teach neither in schools in my opinion.

Ian

Well,

I consider that we have a duty to educate our children and that includes educating them about religion and faith. This is not the same as trying to indoctrinate them into one form of faith or another .

The arrangements outlined above by JPW with regard to current religious education in state schools seem perfectly reasonable and rational.

If faith schools were (are?) fully self-funded (ie not supported in whole or in part by state taxes) then I would find them acceptable providing they were legally obliged to conform to the curiculum of state schools in general and in religious studies in particular. I would simply expect them to enjoy a daily act of collective worship according to their faith - and this would have to be free of any form of extremism.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Ian G.:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JWM:

Firstly, petty pedant point - teaching religion and teaching faith are two different things!
/QUOTE]

Yep and we should teach neither in schools in my opinion.

Ian

Beyond the pulsating obsession that teachers and school are pumping children full of indocrination (wrong), think what you're saying. You will be denying young people a full education - 'leading them out' into life...

Whether you wish to believe or not (which, as I said in my previous post, is an entirely different matter) an education without a religious education element means denying the up-and-coming and future generations an understanding of the world as it has come to be and is today and an understanding of the peoples of the world today. This in itself would be disasterous in working towards world harmony, as understanding is a prerequisite for dialogue. But how about also the global heritage of culture, history, literature, art, science, etc., etc,. which have stemmed from religious faith over the centuries. Or perhaps, like the Taliban, we should blow up religious iconography? (though at that sad event, most world opinion was that it was gross cultural vandalism of world importance).

If Blair had his way all schools in the UK would be like this. Coming to a town near you The Emmanuel Foundation btw - they weed out the thickos so they get the best exam pass percentages which makes more and more parents compete to send their children there which means the best and brightest get brainwashed and fast tracked into the best jobs - its way way worse in America.

Where does Bush get his staff?

JWM,Don,

My opinions were formed by my experience of the divisions in communities having 'faith schools' causes in the west of Scotland and NI. I grew up knowing essentially NO catholic children (30% of our town) and they were hated dispite being unknown. This shameful state of affairs persists to this day in these communities. It has nothing to do with religion per se and all to do with tribalism engendered by separation and ignorance.

For ME this is enough on its own to outweigh the 'full education' argument which I don't buy too strongly anyhow. There is plenty of time for youngsters to judge and learn about religion for themselves once they have developed the faculties to make such judgements.

Ironically one of the most religious countries in the west (the US) forbids the teaching of religion in Schools.

Ian ( who rarely rants or pulsates )

quote:

Divisive and poisoning.

What about Football Academies?

How horrible it must be for those who cannot play soccer to watch these elite creatures be indoctrinated that if they kick an inflated pig skin around that they stand to make a fortune and be fawned over by millions of brainwashed fans...

Close down these dens of iniquity I say!

quote:

This shameful state of affairs persists to this day in these communities. It has nothing to do with religion per se and all to do with tribalism engendered by separation and ignorance.

You and your neighbours have my sympathy.

I grew up in a town that had a range of faith schools (although they were all Christian) and a couple of state schools. I went to one of the state schools but we all got on with each other, even in football matches. Indeed, the District football team was drawn from the best players regardless of school and nobody seemed to care or bother which school you came from.

My view is that we need to educate our youngsters (and in many cases their parents/grandparents), about the concept and practice of religious tollerance (and non-faith tollerance). And this won't happen by chance or by separation. It needs determined effort and I think the best way to achieve this is as part of the school curriculum.

Religion isn't going to go away, but we don't have to tollerate intollerence........perhaps I was unduly lucky ?

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
If Blair had his way all schools in the UK would be like this. Coming to a town near you The Emmanuel Foundation btw - they weed out the thickos so they get the best exam pass percentages which makes more and more parents compete to send their children there which means the best and brightest get brainwashed and fast tracked into the best jobs - its way way worse in America.

Where does Bush get his staff?

If you hadn't noticed, Erik, Blair isn't PM anymore

As you well know, it is mischievous and alarmist both to suggest that this is the model or aim for the establishment of new schools in this Country, and to trundle out the name Bush or extreme American sects every time religion is mentioned...

Nor have you demonstrated how schools 'weed out the thickos' - unless they are selective in the first place as part of their admissions policy (just like state Grammar and Grant Maintained schools and Independent schools). However, generally in admissions policies, even where selection on grounds of academic ability is an element, this cannot be the only criterion. It will account for only part of the cohort. Not least because - for example - it is a legal requirement that all 'looked after children' (those in some form of care) and children for whom the school is named in a Statement of Special Educational Need be given a place before any other child. Not all, but the majority of such children (certainly the 'looked after') will come from backgrounds of social and educational disadvantage.

And despite the popular myth, faith families are not all nice intelligent white middle-class... So the tired social stereotyping doesn't work there either.

The admissions policy of any newly-developing school is closely scrutinised by both Local Authority and Government department.

In order to set up a school, you don't just say 'here I am with enough cash'. For a start there has to be a sufficiently detailed argument put forward to the DfES (or whatever it's called today!!!) - including demographic studies, evidence that it is actually wanted locally, ongoing funding considerations, staff recruitment, syllabus and yes, establishing a basic need for a school, full stop. A nationally standardised format is used.

And even if central funding is then offered (and then always conditionally, and of course foundation proposers have a 10% liablity for building and all future capital costs) there is further scutiny to go through at a more local level. A fairly lengthy Statutory Public Notice has to be given to allow a formal public consultation. Public response is addressed to a neutral Local Authority scrutinising body, comprising persons who represent a wide range of expertise and interest. The public response is taken into full consideration - and yes, public response HAS stopped bids for news schools going through (and far from just so-called faith schools).

In short, you cannot start a school without (1) establishing a need; (2) closely-argued detailed documentation to show that it is genuinely sustainable; (3) local support - through both the Statutory public consultation and Local Authority body (Childrens' Services).

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

Education and indoctrination aren't the same thing. Schools should cater for the former, the latter should be illegal

Totally agree.

But what has this got to do with banning religous education or faith schools?

Interesting question - your implication being that religious and faith schools don't indoctrinate? I suppose I to some extent take your point - I gather in a lot of cases the kids have to furnish proof of their faith in order to get a place, ergo they've already been indoctrinated by their parents. I also gather, however, that part of what goes on in these schools involves making absolutely sure that the kids believe what is, let's not forget, a bunch of toxic arse.

Today, proper education and faith and religion are fundamentally incompatible. An education that prepares young people to live and work in the modern world must teach critical, scientific reasoning - a type of reasoning incompatible with religion.

EW

EW
This is about to get to circular argument stage (remarkably quickly for one of these threads )

Even if you believe (as you do) that divinity has nothing to do with the way the cosmos works -- and in which case (as no-one here has ever done) please answer the question 'why' rather than mere detail of the 'mechanics', what existed before the Bang (or whatever is the current theory); or why understanding how DNA works suddenly undoes the divine; etc, etc -- the inescapable fact is that religion(s) has(have) shaped the world in which we live...

"Whether you wish to believe or not, an education without a religious education element means denying the up-and-coming and future generations an understanding of the world as it has come to be and is today and an understanding of the peoples of the world today.

"This in itself would be disasterous in working towards world harmony, as understanding is a prerequisite for dialogue.

"But how about also the global heritage of culture, history, literature, art, science, etc., etc,. which have stemmed from religious faith over the centuries."

Whether you believe - on balance - for good or ill, it is impossible to deny that religious faith has inspired and shaped all of these things. And it is equally impossible to understand any of this without some understanding of the belief systems and people that have shaped and inspired them.

Without such an understanding, much of art, music, literature, history, anthropology, etc, etc, would be rendered meaningless. You cannot understand something - or what makes people and peoples tick - without understanding what shaped/shapes inspired/inspires them. In the human story, religion has been the single greatest engine and catalyst for innovation and creativity. We cannot understand the world without understanding religion.

I'm finding the parallel thread 'Was Einstein wrong?' very interesting. About science (and of course the first scientists were men of faith seeking to understand the mechanics by which the Divinity creates and sustains the world) and limits of understanding. It is a very convenient argument - but of course entirely fallacious - simply to plaster over the gaps and cracks saying 'we don't understand that yet, but one day we will'.

Bugger religion, morality world-wide not just in schools would be good.

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:
"Whether you wish to believe or not, an education without a religious education element means denying the up-and-coming and future generations an understanding of the world as it has come to be and is today and an understanding of the peoples of the world today.

Teaching kids about religion isn't the same as teaching religion. Of course, religion is key to an understanding of culture and civilization. The problem is - and I'll stand corrected on this - my guess would be that faith schools do not teach that the fundamental tenets of religious faith have been shown to be false. Religion comes in various flavours and with varying levels of toxicity, but at the end of the day you have to believe that life, the world and the universe is the creation of an invisible being out there somewhere. Well - it isn't. However, my guess would be that kids at faith schools aren't taught to recognise this.

Beyond that, the fact that something cannot necessarily be falsified doesn't make it true, nor does the fact that science can't explain everything mean it's okay to suggest there's something "divine" in the void in our knowledge and understanding. I think it's important that education is based on respect for truth and reason.

EW

Edited clumsily for typos!

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
...An education that prepares young people to live and work in the modern world must teach critical, scientific reasoning - a type of reasoning incompatible with religion.

Critical and scientific reasoning are not such fragile flowers as to flourish only in the absence of religion. Many of the world's greatest scientists - notably Isaac Newton - have been deeply religious, and that remains the case today.

On the other hand, it is not necessarily the case that the teaching of science subjects fosters critical and scientific thinking, as the apparent need for this petition illustrates.

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:
"But how about also the global heritage of culture, history, literature, art, science, etc., etc,. which have stemmed from religious faith over the centuries."

Whether you believe - on balance - for good or ill, it is impossible to deny that religious faith has inspired and shaped all of these things. And it is equally impossible to understand any of this without some understanding of the belief systems and people that have shaped and inspired them.

I agree to the extent that it is sometimes difficult to understand the histories of art, science and culture without understanding the significance of religion in their development. It is quite another matter, however, to suggest that one must understand anything at all about religion to understand science.

To my way of thinking, the religious indoctrination of children in school is unacceptable both in principle and in view of the social divisiveness that it sometimes fosters.

As for the idea (which is often implicit in such discussions) that we should respect or "tolerate" other people's beliefs even if we consider them irrational or offensive, it strikes me as being being a dangerous step down the (cultural) evolutionary ladder.

quote:

...... The problem is - and I'll stand corrected on this - my guess would be that faith schools do not teach that the fundamental tenets of religious faith have been shown to be false. Religion comes in various flavours and with varying levels of toxicity, but at the end of the day you have to believe that life, the world and the universe is the creation of an invisible being out there somewhere. Well - it isn't.

Strong words.

The fundamental tenet of religion, IMHO, is a belief in a creator. This has not been shown to be false. OK there are others of course, such as Jesus being the Son of God, or Joseph Smith having had a vision etc etc. Again, these haven't been shown to be false, but some are more widely ridiculed than others.

Science has benn allowed to developed over time. Some of the early tenets of science have been shown to be false. These have been replaced by more recent tenets. There are a few scientific extremists around who don't accept the Big-Bang or the expanding universe, or Einstein's various theories. This shouldn't stop us teaching science in schools and promoting the use of science for peaceful, sustainable life-improvements. It won't stop some people from using science for inflicting pain and death on others. We still don't know how or why the universe came into being, or what conciousness is and whether it exists.........but none of this shouldn't stop us from teaching science - providing we make it clear that what we are teaching might not be true. It would be silly to stop teaching science until we were able to prove that we fully understood everything and could guarantee that it was right!!!

Likewise religion. Our understanding has developed over the centuries, but the basic belief in a God is just that - a belief. There may be "circumstantial eveidence" to support this belief and some people might have had "experiences" that convince then of the existence/non-existence of God. Our studies of the early scripture writings of our ancestors and their interpretations of significant events have eveolved. But the underlying basic tenets have not been shown to be false.

I certainly would object to state schools teaching any religion as if it were a proven fact, or worse still trying to indoctrinate children into any form of belief in a divine entity. As for faith schools, I consider these should provide education about religion as per a state school (ie no indoctrination) and be allowed a daily act of voluntary communal worship according to their declared faith. I imagine the selection process for such schools would be from children whose parents held deep convictions about the school's declared faith and that the daily worship would be well subscribed. I also would insist that faith schools teach the science subject as per state schools, without any suggestion that science is some sort of modern, evil, voo-doo.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
...my guess...

Nuff said.

As I said at the top of this thing, people ought to actually have some idea of what really goes on in the majority of schools before spouting on so emphatically about 'religious education'... (that is a general point, not specifically aimed at EW... )

It ends up simply as yet another opportunity to air narrow-minded circular anti-religious thinking, utilising loaded words like 'toxicity'.

I'm still waiting for the killer punch from the atheist party to demonstrate without quibble the non-existence of the divinity. I won't hold my breath.

Jeremy D - I don't think I said that religion is part of the science lesson. I said that science began as men of faith exploring the mechanics of the divine cosmos (ergo religion and science are not de facto enemies - there are some who believe they make very fine bed fellows, as you yourself say).

Anyway, I'm outta here (spent too long already) I'll leave to the rest to argue themselves happy about what generally doesn't go on in schools. (Though you might also want to bear in mind the stuff I said earlier about the parental right in law to withdraw children from both RE lessons and daily acts of collective worship.)

quote:

As for the idea (which is often implicit in such discussions) that we should respect or "tolerate" other people's beliefs even if we consider them irrational or offensive, it strikes me as being being a dangerous step down the (cultural) evolutionary ladder.

As a promoter of "tollerance" in one of my threads above, let me expand on my point of view.

I do not consider we should tollerate the hateful views, beliefs and actions of others. We should be able to freely challenge and criticise views that we find irrational or offensive (*). However, just because we find other people's beliefs irrational, doesn't give us the right to kill them, torture them, imprison them or seek by forcful means to stop them promoting their beliefs.

(*) Offensive is a difficult one - needs a lot more consideration.

Cheers

Don

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ian G.:
JWM,Don,

My opinions were formed by my experience of the divisions in communities having 'faith schools' causes in the west of Scotland and NI. I grew up knowing essentially NO catholic children (30% of our town) and they were hated dispite being unknown. This shameful state of affairs persists to this day in these communities. It has nothing to do with religion per se and all to do with tribalism engendered by separation and ignorance.

Surely the community surrounding them who did the hateing is the community at fault or mabye the fact that their parents decided to send them to Catholic school is a good reason to hate them. At least N.ireland seems to be moving on.
George

James,

I think we should be alarmed by the Emmanuel Schools Foundation if you go to their website you will see the Grinning Tosser who is on record as supporting the aims of Sir Peter Vardy the founder and a Christian fundamentalist who promotes Creationism in his schools. All the teachers and Governors are Christian fundamentalists (with the exception of one governor chosen by members of the school PTA) and there have been complaints by the parents of children kicked out for not making the grade.

Interesting article here: Creationism: bad science, bad religion, bad education Personally I don't believe in Darwinian Natural Selection anymore than I believe in Creationism but I favour the former over the latter if only because at least it is remotely intelligent.