Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html en-gb 30 Sun 05 Jul 2015 00:37:26 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html doilookthatsilly http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=99#comment1131 Religion is simply one view of the world - it doesn't make it right and shouldn't be taught as being factual any more than the round earth theory,or indeed the ancient egyptian or roman or pagan gods - should they be disregarded simply because they have fallen from popular favour ?A simple series of lessons over, say, a single school term, to explain the various options and current beliefs so that children are aware of them and can be left to make up their own minds - not told what they must believe to the exclusion of anything else and with no viable proof of the basis of beliefs - School time is precious and needs to concentrate on subjects to fit children for the modern world - including the ability to think for themselves without undue influence by the nearest missionary. Tue 08 Jun 2010 10:31:57 GMT+1 braveraddish http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=99#comment1130 all boys at eaton are issued with a bible.Its not religious education but a social and moral code that most upper class folk live by. whether they know it or not. Principles such as decency, honesty,fairness are all there. I dont remember being taught anything in RE. The classes were a disaster, this was in a C of E school in 1987 before the national curriculum was introduced. Tue 08 Jun 2010 10:29:48 GMT+1 Peter Ravenscroft http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=99#comment1129 Children should learn about the world, and religion is an important part of the world. It drives many of the issues we are faced with and kids need to understand it.It should be taught objectively all religions given equal status, absolutely not as fact just information about what some people believe. Tue 08 Jun 2010 10:16:49 GMT+1 Robert Sinclair Shand http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=99#comment1128 As the greatest curse to have happened to mankind all religions should only be taught as to their mythic origins and their misuse by power-crazed politically heinous hegemonies. Tue 08 Jun 2010 10:07:27 GMT+1 exlabour http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=99#comment1127 1114. At 10:06am on 08 Jun 2010, John Smith wrote:Here's the thing. History has many examples of atrocities caused in the name of religion. What concerns me though, what REALLY concerns me, is that the tone of these religious debates on here when comparing the new breed of atheist to the (possibly also new breed?) of theist is that in future times if anyone is going to point their kalashnikov at me or burn me at the stake it is more likely to be the former than the latter. It is increasingly the atheists who are being intolerant of the theists these days, not the other way 'round.==========================================================After our religious leaders Blair and Bush sent troops into Iraq they overthrew Saddam Hussain and his regime.However bad he was he tended to leave the religious to get on with it, as far as I believe.Today we see Sunni killing Shiite and the other way round.We see Christians murdered, forcibly converted, driven into exile by Moslems of whatever variety.There were even different groups of pagans in the country who are now under threat.These people are not being threatened by atheists but by people who claim to be acting in the name of their own particular god or prophet.It's remarkable how religions of all kinds have sprung up in the former Soviet Union and its former territories, Uzbekistan etc.After all those years of suppression by an evil atheistic empire? Didn't the communists kill them all off? That is what you are saying.Personally I'd be worried about anyone with a Kalashnikov or other weapon in their hand whether they be atheist or religious but I've never been told by an atheist yet to believe in atheism. I have been told all my life by Christians what to believe though. Christians and others condemn non belivers to hell when they die. Where do atheists tell you to go? Tue 08 Jun 2010 10:06:59 GMT+1 BradyFox http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=99#comment1126 1111. At 09:53am on 08 Jun 2010, C Hillis wrote:(not going to paste everything you wrote as it's v long)......... .....I imagine you will reject this as nonsense as you continue to feed your soul the lie that helps your mind reject God and allows you to live a "free" life. You cannot fight against God and win. It is difficult for thee to kick against the pricks. Bring back Scriptural religion and teach our kids the truth, so that they might escape the final death. Now that is true love toward our children!.............What you are basically saying is that we should teach our children to live under an unquestionable dictatorship? And that they should love the dictator? How in any way is that teaching love to our children??? What kind of sick masochistic morals is that teaching??"You must obey or face eternal damnation" - That kind of logic is so pointless. By that logic you are saying that God is not all knowledgeable as "IT" does not know what I'm going to do nor does it know the future. It is therefore NOT all powerful.If you say that "IT" does know my future, and what I am going to do, then I have no free will. So it's a completely pointless and utterly idiotic game to make me live and then face eternal hell. Tue 08 Jun 2010 10:01:22 GMT+1 Ron http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=99#comment1125 • 1043. At 7:14pm on 07 Jun 2010, Bro_Winky wrote: 1027. At 5:57pm on 07 Jun 2010, Ron wrote: The last 3000 years or more have been shaped on a religion of some sort, what do we do? Re boot?--------------------------No, we evolve.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I was merely asking how do we teach the last three thousand years without reference to religion, if we are no longer to teach religion. Tue 08 Jun 2010 09:49:56 GMT+1 Carl Pierce http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=99#comment1124 My concern about teaching RE is that people who hold religious views might use it as an excuse to indoctrinate, we all hear stories of small kids coming home and saying 'Jesus loves us' (but only if we believe in the right religion or of course we go to hell). To present made-up iron-age fairy stories as fact is dishonest (the bible says stuff like 'Eve' was made from a rib - if that isn't madeup I don't know what is). I'm also angered by the flimsy ofsed report, seriously lacking in evidence it just makes statements and presents religion as a positive thing without any alternative view that some of us think teaching LIES is wrong. Tue 08 Jun 2010 09:48:51 GMT+1 john http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=99#comment1123 They's shouldn't teach religion. it is not the state place to indoctrinate. If parents want to take way a child right to grown up and chose for themselves, that's up to them. it should not be a role for government.All Schools should be religious free. Tue 08 Jun 2010 09:45:35 GMT+1 BradyFox http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=99#comment1122 We do not need religion for moral guidance. Humans survived perfectly adequately for a long long time before any of the Abrahamic religions came along.You should not terrorize children with visions of hellfire and heaven in order to shape their morality, it's pathetic and lazy parenting. By all means teach religion as a detached informative lesson about it's history/beliefs/traditions/politics, but never as if any of the beliefs are without question true. It has to be impartial. Tue 08 Jun 2010 09:36:04 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=99#comment1121 1112. At 09:57am on 08 Jun 2010, JK wrote:So my church in Reading that has grown to 250/300 people in 8 years is empty is it?(25% of whom are university students, with the vast majority educated to degree level)thank you so much for clearing that up for me.I mean, i thought my church was thriving on the Gospel, but since you've backed your argument up so well I'll have to admit defeat!!--------------------------------Good for you. I have been dragged to church myself occasionally (often have to leave part way though but thats irrelivent) and look around at the poor children. Some of them believe and want to be there, told they need to go to get into heaven (sinful bribes) and others are just dragged.My partner is intelligent. She was brainwashed as were her brothers by parents who are nice except they are very catholic (grandparents are worse!). We moved away and so far my partner has only been to church once, maybe twice. I asked why she believes and get varying answers which dont make sense. Basicly she cant justify believing in god beyond it being crammed down her throat.Her brothers have hope. The eldest avoids church like the plague (its a family trip every saturday night) but must attend at main events. So he came here for easter because we wont force him. Unfortunately the youngest is still forced yet doesnt believe. Hopefully soon he will have choice.I dont mind people going by choice but the only ones who seem to do that turn to religion at an older age. Brainwashing kids and forcing them to go is evil. Tue 08 Jun 2010 09:35:38 GMT+1 Superclue http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=98#comment1120 I suppose it all depends on what is meant by Religious Studies. Is it a subject in its own right (as Physics used to be before it was subsumed into Science)? (Likewise Domestic Science - now seen merely as an afterthought within the all-embracing Technology). Or is it merely a chapter heading in History, of no more importance than the French Revolution?Instead of worrying about just RI should we not be concerning ourselves with a complete review of the relative importance of all matters clamouring for inclusion in our schools curricula? Tue 08 Jun 2010 09:26:56 GMT+1 MrWonderfulReality http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=98#comment1119 3. At 05:15am on 06 Jun 2010, PaulRichard2 wrote:Should religion be taught in schools? Yes absolutely I think so and I say that as a staunch Atheist. To deny education on a subject simply because we might disagree on that subject or not share that view is something akin to censoring free speech in my view or at least suppressing information. So as long as it's taught in an informative way, covers as many beliefs and view points as possible within the time frame (including Atheism) and isn't restricted by dogma then most definitely RE should be taught as a subject. Teach the children about beliefs and let them make up their own minds about what they choose to believe. I do think it should be an optional subject though, not a necessity.-------------------------------------------So, why not teach Mein Kampf in schools, or does your free speech and suppressing of information exclude certain historiacl writing.I personally would put the bible and Koran into a same group of fictional books along with Mein Kampf, because so much of all 3 books are just purely fiction interspaced with biased lies and spin/propaganda to support the writers position.So, you think we should teach about gobblins and fairys, or how about gods of thunder and wind and gods of war or for every other thing as was previous before this one great amalgumation into just one super duper god.Thing with the bible and Koran, they are NOT written as informative educational belief guides, they are written as a matter of truth and statements of fact, they have ALSO been re-written over the centuries so are NOT EVEN a complete truth in ANY way.How can you teach about a historical book/belief when that book has been re-written and translated into meanings etc which suit those who re-wrote it. BY the same reasoning it would be like teaching about Picasso but via showing a new updated version of his pictures with cars and other modernisms added into them.Teaching the "modern" bible, is in itself a distortion of the truth, so WHY lie to children.If the Koran and bible are to be used for education purposes then they basically need to be re-written, with a foreword stating- please do not kill anyone as is commanded Tue 08 Jun 2010 09:25:04 GMT+1 rogg http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=98#comment1118 I think there seems to be some confusion between religious education and religious instruction. Religious education is not about indoctrination, it's about understanding the various religious beliefs in the world. You cannot hope to understand a people and their culture if you do not understand what they believe. Religious education is therefore very important. Tue 08 Jun 2010 09:23:38 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=98#comment1117 1110. At 09:52am on 08 Jun 2010, Andy Den Haag wrote:Society has become more secular. With some other concerned parents here in The Hague, we are looking at establishing a new school with more catholic teaching.If you read Professor Dawkins' book "the god delusion", you would actually see that a good atheist like him does not dismiss the fact that God might actually exist.Science does not provide all the answers - we know more about the moon than we do about the oceans. Almost all of the universe is unknown to us - science is only theorising about what it cannot see - which is almost all of it.Finally a word from James: "I will show you my faith by what I do." If you do not believe in God - show your faith or trust in goodness and let everyone know it not by what you say, but what you do - this should be taught by all.------------------------Of course science doesnt have all the answers. Yet it has as much chance of being right as you. Or muslims. Or any of the many religions. When you say teach more catholicism are you going to be promoting nazis? Catholic church did. Genocide (follow gods example)? Rape? Women subservient? etc.If not then you are not teaching about god or catholicism. The crusades were also a major part for you guys too. And to teach that christmas is on the wrong day (same day as a pagan festival). Tue 08 Jun 2010 09:21:32 GMT+1 InDespair http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=98#comment1116 Religious "education" (of any flavour) is highly divisive, and is nothing more than manipulation of the gullible for either self gratification, incitement to violence, or monetary gain, and should be discontinued immediately.Too often, people are presented with myth as though it were true, not told the whole truth, or even deliberately lied to, in the pursuit of religious dominance.Churches, Temples, Mosques and other monuments to religious "education" should be phased out, and our children left alone to reach their own conclusions. Tue 08 Jun 2010 09:18:33 GMT+1 Wrinklyoldgit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=98#comment1115 How should religion be taught?The question should be "Should religion be taught?"Religion and government do not mix. Tue 08 Jun 2010 09:14:15 GMT+1 TimListfield http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=98#comment1114 Schools shouldn't be teaching religion. Religion is a personal thing that should be left to the individual. Tue 08 Jun 2010 09:14:03 GMT+1 Living By Logic http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=98#comment1113 "1107. At 09:23am on 08 Jun 2010, exlabour wrote:1104. At 08:04am on 08 Jun 2010, John Smith wrote:"When you say: "I accept your argument that the sword won't kill me or the gun but in the hands of a motivated zealot they may change their minds." I couldn't agree more - just remember that zealotry is not necessarily religious; this is my very point. People will justify their actions on any grounds - the worst you can accuse religion of is providing a handy scapegoat for the fearful to use to justify their harmful acts.However, when you go on to say "People kill for reasons and one of the best reasons is because it is the will of the gods." I'm not sure I can either agree or disagree with your observation that blaming gods for your actions is 'one of the best' techniques; but then, I'm not trying to assert that people should believe anything, disbelieve anything, or think the same way I do so I guess this precludes a need for such value judgements on my part.Regarding "Let people believe in whatever they want to except that they have a right to force others to believe it." I completely agree with the spirit of your words - it was my very point.Here's the thing. History has many examples of atrocities caused in the name of religion. What concerns me though, what REALLY concerns me, is that the tone of these religious debates on here when comparing the new breed of atheist to the (possibly also new breed?) of theist is that in future times if anyone is going to point their kalashnikov at me or burn me at the stake it is more likely to be the former than the latter. It is increasingly the atheists who are being intolerant of the theists these days, not the other way 'round. Tue 08 Jun 2010 09:06:08 GMT+1 Judas Clegg http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=98#comment1112 There is no place for religious indoctrination in any school funded with public money. The law needs to be changed to recognise this.Instead we are experiencing a growth of "faith schools" which would be more appropriately called "indoctrination centres." The influence of religion on history and literature can be taught as part of the lessons on these subjects. It does not justify so called "religious education." Tue 08 Jun 2010 09:02:40 GMT+1 JK http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=98#comment1111 "1063. At 9:29pm on 07 Jun 2010, th3_0r4cl3 wrote:britain is not a christian country, churches are empty and you cant find a normal teen that believes in religion thankfully."So my church in Reading that has grown to 250/300 people in 8 years is empty is it?(25% of whom are university students, with the vast majority educated to degree level)thank you so much for clearing that up for me. I mean, i thought my church was thriving on the Gospel, but since you've backed your argument up so well I'll have to admit defeat!! Tue 08 Jun 2010 08:57:06 GMT+1 C Hillis http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=98#comment1110 Oh yes, I see many of those leaving comments want RE kept to a minimum or done away with. Let us consider why this might be... Firstly science has not pushed back the boundaries of enlightenment. Science still cannot describe how the world was formed. You deny God because to accept creation and therefore a creator; it is to accept someone in control. Someone in control has a purpose and someone with a purpose then has created us for a reason. If that is the case then you are all not free to lead your lives as you please. So the reason God is denied or minimised is because we all like to have free reign to live as we please - live life to the max. etc etc. - without any thought of our end or our purpose. So it is a logical conclusion for our every less religious country to want our children to be left without scriptural guidance. Firstly those who deny God wanted all religion to be taught, because after all none of them are right (apparantly) and no preference should be given. Now you want it removed altogether. Many forum questions on this Have your say section of this website discuss the problems in the world today. The problem is that we are a Godless generation who cling to ANY thought (regardless of how silly the idea is - ie. the big bang theory) rather than the logical one. We would rather believe lies than believe what God says of himself in creation and in the Bible and cling to a few scientists hazardous guesses about something they have no knowledge about. Our kids should be taught from scripture - it is not about freedom of expression in choosing the right religion. Different religions worship different Gods and only one is the real God. We need to return to the truth that set our country free in the first place and made us a great nation. Our rejection of God has seen the fabric of our nation come apart, so that we are barely recognisable any more. When logic and God are set aside, then desire for more and more depravity prevails. God has every right to judge us for not teaching our children the truth and it is only mercy that stays his hand of wrath on this wicked generation. By the way - a commenter stated that religion was dying out. Well if it is false religion then that is positive, but I have news for you. The Bible says that before the end of time, God will drive back every false religion and ALL nations, tongues and people will bow the knee to Christ. So for all those who believe they are striking a blow for freedom by lobbying for no RE classes to help stop religion....your children will bow the knee and worship God, whether you like it or not. Maybe not this generation or the next...who knows but God? However it will happen and your current folly will be rejected by that generation. How does that fact make you feel - I imagine you will reject this as nonsense as you continue to feed your soul the lie that helps your mind reject God and allows you to live a "free" life. You cannot fight against God and win. It is difficult for thee to kick against the pricks. Bring back Scriptural religion and teach our kids the truth, so that they might escape the final death. Now that is true love toward our children! Tue 08 Jun 2010 08:53:21 GMT+1 Andy Den Haag http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=97#comment1109 Society has become more secular. With some other concerned parents here in The Hague, we are looking at establishing a new school with more catholic teaching. If you read Professor Dawkins' book "the god delusion", you would actually see that a good atheist like him does not dismiss the fact that God might actually exist.Science does not provide all the answers - we know more about the moon than we do about the oceans. Almost all of the universe is unknown to us - science is only theorising about what it cannot see - which is almost all of it.Finally a word from James: "I will show you my faith by what I do." If you do not believe in God - show your faith or trust in goodness and let everyone know it not by what you say, but what you do - this should be taught by all. Tue 08 Jun 2010 08:52:57 GMT+1 peter mendes http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=97#comment1108 I have nothing against believing in a 'GOD' and we should practise that belief freely. I do not believe that we should have religion taught in schools. We must remain a secular society and that means that the government must stay out of the 'religion' issue in state run schools. Schools that are private can make their own decisions regarding the teaching of a particular faith. Tue 08 Jun 2010 08:42:20 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=97#comment1107 1104. At 08:04am on 08 Jun 2010, John Smith wrote:Point 1, um 45% > 55%? How about we put the RE teaching issue on hold and start talking about maths for a minute? And point 2, I love these ironic observations where in the course of an accusation of theists misreprenting data they use as evidence one atheist scholar's misrepresentation of accredited census data.In the most recent UK census I am given to understand that the religion question was voluntary, and that 72% called themselves Christian.-----------------------Hmm interesting. From what I have seen an athiest will call a cat a cat and a dog a dog. So how come a catholic is a protestant? Say that in ireland and lose some teeth. It shocks me how 'christians' can be taken as unified yet are anything but.Thats almost as commical as the 2 muslim groups in saudi arabia. Both are muslims yet they war because the other is wrong. Saudi are liberals yet the wahabi are more strict.I had a look on the census and the statistics are different to what I had last looked at. Yet to label 71% christians (even with a far reaching assumption they are practicing) is like labeling the populations by skin colour. Yet I am an englishman not a scots man or french.Would be interesting how that breaks down to actual religion. The divisions not imposed by anyone but the members of that religion. Tue 08 Jun 2010 08:40:19 GMT+1 exlabour http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=97#comment1106 1104. At 08:04am on 08 Jun 2010, John Smith wrote:=========================================Quite right. But having gone through life without needing to call on the gods I do not look forward to the prospect of being forced on my knees at the point of sword or Khalashnakov to pray to someone elses idea of a god.I accept your argument that the sword won't kill me or the gun but in the hands of a motivated zealot they may change their minds. People kill for reasons and one of the best reasons is because it is the will of the gods. This was formulated in mediaeval laws of succession as one of the reasons a usurper was justified in taking the throne. He killed the king therefore he had god on his side. It was the will of god. And of course anybody who objects to that is going against the word of god and will suffer the consequences. Don't forget that the Tudors ruthlessly pursued and eliminated all claimants, however remote, to the throne. This led eventually to the destruction of the Church and the acquisition of all Church lands for the Crown. And of course the establishment of a new Church in which the king was next in line to god, not the Pope.Let people believe in whatever they want to except that they have a right to force others to believe it. If god or gods exist I'm quite sure they can take care of themselves without our interference. Let the righteous go to paradise when their time is ready and live for eternity in the knowledge that they harmed nobody else in the name of their religion.I don't even see it as a favour to myself to be burned at the stake because it is for the good of my soul. Tue 08 Jun 2010 08:23:22 GMT+1 Andy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=97#comment1105 I think we had RE at my school. But that's the thing - I can't even remember! By all means teach "right from wrong" or "good versus evil/bad" but leave it at that and let the churches teach the rest. Tue 08 Jun 2010 07:36:02 GMT+1 AtheistTeacher http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=97#comment1104 Several of the responses here, like the representative of the National Secular Society on the BBC coverage Sunday morning, seem to be far removed from what happens in a modern Religious Studies class room. Someone's beliefs are the guiding force in EVERYTHING they do, consequently the study of what contributes to and helps to form these beliefs is crucial in beginning to understand the decisions of others, whether someone agrees with them or not. Nobody can possibly hope to have a full understanding of what it is like to be someone else, neither should all religious adherents be presumed to follow their faith in the same way, but by studying the general historical and philosophical principles behind belief, young people have a better understanding of the world they live in.Modern Religious Studies in a state (non-faith) school does not (at least certainly should not) aim to indoctrinate children or teach any faith as true and incontravertable. Instead it provides students with the framework to consider sensitively and critically the views of others, and to form educated views for themselves. I do aim to change the beliefs of my students, but I hope they will leave my classroom after 5 years with a better understanding of themselves; what they believe and why, through the experiences I make available to them. Tue 08 Jun 2010 07:14:34 GMT+1 Living By Logic http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=97#comment1103 Should religion be taught in schools? Yes, objectively (refer my comment 999).Re the rest of the debate - the whole atheists vs theists thing - I am fast becoming a believer having in the past maintained a healthy scepticism (albeit with a firm sense of spirituality). Why? Basically the huge proportion of narrow-mindedness, prejudice and, frankly, stupidity on the forum comes from the atheists. Consider:"• 1053. At 8:22pm on 07 Jun 2010, in_the_uk wrote: Odd. Last I checked the UK non believers was about 45%. Religious groups were around 55%. So the largest group are non-believer.I am sure Dawkins mentions in the US that there are again more non-believers. "Point 1, um 45% > 55%? How about we put the RE teaching issue on hold and start talking about maths for a minute? And point 2, I love these ironic observations where in the course of an accusation of theists misreprenting data they use as evidence one atheist scholar's misrepresentation of accredited census data.In the most recent UK census I am given to understand that the religion question was voluntary, and that 72% called themselves Christian."• 1071. At 10:02pm on 07 Jun 2010, thesubtleknife wrote: Pavel, your "Jesus Christ" person is just as fictitious as the tooth fairy. So stop preaching at us, please, it's getting very boring."I've often wondered about this one - atheists who doubt Jesus existed. Jesus is a reasonably well-documented historical figure whether you like it or not - any small amount of research in secular texts should establish that for you. The contention is about whether or not he was divine. The same holds for Mohammed or Buddha - denying their existence because you don't agree with their teachings or dispute their divinity is kind of like the three year old closing his eyes and putting fingers in his ears going 'la la la' in order to hide from something. Disputing the divinity is completely rational. Disputing the existence actually puts the onus of proof on you, as there is a lot of evidence that these people existed so your theory is kind of crackpot and betrays your ignorance.Finally, this whole 'religion has caused more wars' argument is just so patronising and idiotic it makes me mad. That's like saying that the gun is the evil thing when people are killed by it. Guns don't kill people, religion doesn't kill people, science doesn't kill people - people kill people. I would warn the atheists that when making sweeping statements like this the implication is that they believe the people are not responsible for themselves, that it is the religion causing the damage, that the religion is in control. If you really believe that the religion is in control you might want to reassess your beliefs - sounds to me like you would be better of with some form of religion yourself, preferably a nicely controlling cult one.If you are that passionate about the beliefs of others - whether frustrated because they believe or concerned because they don't - you might want to have a good hard look at yourself. How do you know you are right? Are you really so important that your views must be the correct ones?Honestly, I just despair of people sometimes. Tue 08 Jun 2010 07:04:16 GMT+1 Richard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=97#comment1102 ... The Office for National Statistics gives an even better picture of volunteering in the UK.Nearly three-quarters (73 per cent) of adults participated at least once in some form volunteering in the 12 months prior to interview in April to September 2007 in England.Nearly two out of three (64 per cent) performed some sort of informal volunteering which is giving unpaid help as an individual to people who are not relatives and could include giving advice, looking after a property or pet or providing childcare. Forty-four per cent of adults were involved in some sort of formal volunteering, giving unpaid help through groups, clubs or organisations to benefit other people or the environment. Given that church attendance in the UK is 7%, that's a lot of people who are not regular church goers who still give to their community. Tue 08 Jun 2010 07:00:03 GMT+1 Richard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=97#comment1101 Two sides to the argument and it seems never the possibility that they shall meet.The atheists see some of the religious as inflexible at least. I have found that there is no middle ground with the church - it's Christ or Nothing and other people's ideas are not to be valued. An Anglican priest once told me "You should not talk to people of other religion lest you encourage them into thinking their ideas have value and hinder their eventual conversion to Christianity". The idea of this being taught in school seems horrific! An RE teacher I met told me that he resented having to cover other religions but was sure to point out their deficiency with respect to Christianity.Note that a school that does not teach religion is not a school that teaches atheism as some have said. It is a school that teaches other things while religion can live at home. Complete removal of teaching about religion would be impractical because children will encounter it and need to know, but mandatory worship is seen as the cause of a lot of problems.On the other hand Christians here are blaming the rise in atheism for the evils of the world. Some seem to see atheists as immoral or amoral. "How can you have morals without an absolute standard?" "If you do not fear an afterlife what stops you going out and doing what you want?". "Look at all the bad things we see in the news. (implied: No Christian would do that)".It can be argued that religion could help people - but does it have to come at the cost of teachings like the first 2 commandments or the necessity to convert others? Is that only the more extreme cases, just as some Christians here are looking at more extreme problems they see in society and the press and blaming all atheists for that? A non-believer can be incredibly moral. It is my sense of morality, my feeling for the Other Person, that stops me accepting evangelical faith!We need more seeing of others' points of view if divisions are to be crossed. "Schools should bring children up as Christian" will not help at all.If you want to see a positive rather than a "Doom and Gloom" viewpoint of our country's life look at http://www.timebank.org.uk/mediacentre/research.php to see volunteer statistics. Volunteering, working in the community for community good, gives a great sense of belonging and worth. There have been examples of places that have had problems with youth crime that have turned to things like this and seen major change. Kids that have pride in their locality or even know what it takes to maintain it because they are doing it themselves take much more care. The experience of going out and doing community things is so valuable. I'd say that it's worth more than having a religion. (And I say that partly from a Hindu background which sees Seva (public service) as one if not a major way forward in its own right.) Tue 08 Jun 2010 06:56:29 GMT+1 mocambique1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=97#comment1100 very simple, give the students one book from each main religion as a set piece. they get questions on each of these in a main exam - they either pass or fail like they do in any other subject. in lesson they would have to prepare and learn - oh gosh, do they still do that at school? Tue 08 Jun 2010 06:49:58 GMT+1 Former_Canuck http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=97#comment1099 I believe religions should be taught in school but as part of a history or social geography program. The focus should be on educating students on the various beliefs of people across the globe and not on recruiting children to any particular faith. The program should be structured so that students understand religion is a personal belief with no foundation of truth or science. The teaching also needs to include the negative affects religion has had, and continues to have, on the world and its people. Religions are as much a part of history as any other cultural event and the more educated our society the better we'll be. Tue 08 Jun 2010 06:32:11 GMT+1 Daisy Chained http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=96#comment1098 #1095 chrislabiffShools most certenlee is....! Tue 08 Jun 2010 06:20:58 GMT+1 Murrayfield http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=96#comment1097 As a subject, Theology is great.Where we have a problem is single "faith" schools. Is Theology taught, i.e. the study of religion, how it "evolved", it's roots and beliefs? Or is it simply a case of "we are right and everyone else is wrong"?Are teachers who take these classes qualified to teach the subject, or is it a case of, it's your turn to take the RE class this year?Religion is a personal matter, it is for the family to encourage this, the writer who was appalled that the granddaughter did not know the Lord's Prayer should take it up with the son/daughter. That sort of thing is NOT the responsibility of a school, nor should it ever be. Tue 08 Jun 2010 06:06:22 GMT+1 Zek24356 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=96#comment1096 Without a Christian bias. Tue 08 Jun 2010 05:57:51 GMT+1 Pavel http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=96#comment1095 Religion and science interact with each other on the conscious and the subconscious levels. Scientists do their researches investigating and re-investigating the same problems till they find something new and extraordinary that was unknown before. After that the process starts again. Or, to say more correctly, it never ends because the desire for knowledge is unsatiable. But knowledge itself is unseparable from the process of acquiring it. That is why there is no theory that could not be put into doubt. And all theories are doomed to the same destiny to become sooner or later outdated by other theories. Those of them that are more comprehensive than others are simply more lasting. If the starting point of the acquisition of knowledge were not stable enough, there would be no stauch support for the mind, and all its reasoning would fall into chaos. Religion finds such support in the object of worship, it allows the mind to relax and to give more freedom to phantasy and imagination. Without it human beings would be like computing machines or robots unable to think creatively. The irrational side of human personality with its deep emotions and dark instincts can be even more powerful that the rational one, and because of that it needs to be groomed in no less degree than the other side. There are many clever people who can reason well, but there are few of those who may be counted as fully harmonous individuals. To limit education to science with its impassionate view on everything is to mutilate human souls. The same thing happens when religion is taught from the point of view of cold rationality as something secondary to other subjects. If all education is for the mind and nothing or too little is proposed for the soul, human personality becomes distorted. What can be the solution to this? Religion is a significant part of human life, and it is worth to be taught in accordance with its significance. Let the teaching of it take its due place in education. As minimun, it deserves to be taught on equal terms with other subjects. Tue 08 Jun 2010 05:54:46 GMT+1 chrislabiff http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=96#comment1094 Shools are about education not dumbing down. Tue 08 Jun 2010 05:38:13 GMT+1 Daisy Chained http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=96#comment1093 Memo to all the "God botherer" botherers?If it is that easy to indoctrinate children how come many kids cannot read, write, perform basic arithmetic and so on? And how come so many bleeding heart converts on here have managed the trick of seeing the error of their indoctrinations?Sorry "God botherer" botherers you are just another cult that is set to find itself, one day, alone in a self fashioned community where the leader says "Okay bothers and sisters, it is time". Tue 08 Jun 2010 04:59:23 GMT+1 Pavel http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=96#comment1092 1091. At 02:19am on 08 Jun 2010, Peter Hodge wrote:...it should be Bible based, examining the biblical claims of genuineness should be included, After all, how can we expect anyone to believe in the truth of Christianity if they do not believe the 'book' from which every aspect of the Christian religion is based. The Bible stands up to all honest investigation...The Bible, although being authoritative, does not represent every aspect of Christianity, which, if to consider all its apsects, is rather a synthesis than a monogeneous system. Being based on the Scriptures, it, however, has elements from Platonism and Neo-Platonism, Aristotelianism and ancient rhetoric as well as other interesting things. This is what makes it so fascinating.It was in the 1st century AD that Christianity was based on the authority of the Bible only, and at that time it was a sect or a branch of judaism. Later it found its own identity, its own place in the world and became a religion with its own well-developed theology due to the work done by Chistian apologists and by the Fathers of the Church. Some of them were well educated, especially in rhetoric, and were able to incorporate into it what they borrowed from the great ancient cultural heritage. The Christian liturgy has something from ancient drama. Early Church Fathers, such as Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil the Great, were taught rhetoric by pagan teachers, the greatest of whom was Libanius. They paid tribute to the ideas of Plotinus who was a great Neo-Platonian thinker. Boethius was both a Roman scholar and a great philosopher. Thomas Aquinas, who lived later, was an Aristotelian, and made his own great contribution in melding Christianity with philosophy. There are many other such examples showing how Christianity developed as the synthesis of many different ideas.It is in the last centuries that the authority of the Bible began to reassert itself in detriment to all other aspects of the faith because some fanaticised preasts demanded so. However, if the Scriptures were the only authority, Christianity could be simply a judaistic sect as it was at its beginning. There are many other texts that also may be authoritative, such as 'Exposition of the Orthodox Faith' by John of Damascus or 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' by John Calvin. In them all the basics are summed up, so that they are suitable for study. Tue 08 Jun 2010 04:12:11 GMT+1 Pavel http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=96#comment1091 1071. At 10:02pm on 07 Jun 2010, thesubtleknife wrote:Pavel, your "Jesus Christ" person is just as fictitious as the tooth fairy. So stop preaching at us, please, it's getting very boring.What do you do then? While preaching your atheism, you probably think that if you have a right to do so, others must have no right to preach what they believe in. Are you quite tolerant? I doubt that you are. Tue 08 Jun 2010 02:14:50 GMT+1 Peter Hodge http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=96#comment1090 Just a thought. Most people are complaining about the breakdown in modern society. Violence is on the increase. They don't who to turn to for help. No good going to government, they are largely to blame for it. The last one legalised almost every perversion imaginable, encouraged the rise of Islam but discouraged Christianity. The scientific community in the shape of Professor Richard Dawkins, who in the mind of some, if he has spoken it must be true, put forward a godless approach to who and what we are.For them we are just animals, but in a higher level of evolution. Which to me seems arrogant. Who are we to assume we are at the top of the evolutionary tree? For our evolutionist friends, this is one Christian who believes in evolution. Oh, not this ridiculous 'microbes to man' variety, but the kind of evolution that we see around us every day. The vegetables you eat have evolved, the flowers you buy your wife or girlfriend, have evolved. But they have always been what they are now. They have just improved. What is unproven and unprovable, is the idea of one species or 'kind' becoming another. There isn't enough time, allowing for the concept of gradual change over millions of years for it to happen. So, all that w ask for is that schools inform that Darwinian evolution is not flawless and that there is a possible alternative. Actually, in a recent discussion I had with someone online, it was said to me that Darwinism is now old hat and that evolution is not longer the answer. Yet this same correspondent was upset with me because I would not support his views on the ideologist, Prof Dawkins, a strong Darwinian evolutionist.But the question is, how should religion be taught in schools. I would suggest that it ought not be taught. And I speak as a young age creationist and preacher. Usually when religion is taught it is of the denominational kind. That is, boring, irrelevant mishmash of conflicting ideas. Rather, it should be Bible based, examining the biblical claims of genuineness should be included, After all, how can we expect anyone to believe in the truth of Christianity if they do not believe the 'book' from which every aspect of the Christian religion is based. The Bible stands up to all honest investigation, so long as no denominational slant is placed on the message. Tue 08 Jun 2010 01:19:04 GMT+1 The Ice Man http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=96#comment1089 Religion should not be taught. we don't teach witchcraft, phrenology or the eating of babies. Religion is the exact opposite of education. Education is about truth, enlightenment, and respect for all human beings - religion is about lies, superstition, and mindless orthodoxy. One day I hope that children will be allowed to be taught free of this vicious imprisonment of their very being. Tue 08 Jun 2010 00:46:19 GMT+1 KaraAgha http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=96#comment1088 How should schools teach religion? By not teaching it. religion was political party of the old days. it's about time we stopped teaching it. Isnt religion still one of the biggest causes of war and bloodshed in the world? what new generations should learn about is morals and respect for themselves and others. Tue 08 Jun 2010 00:29:36 GMT+1 ziggyboy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=96#comment1087 Simple - they shouldn't. Tue 08 Jun 2010 00:14:14 GMT+1 Mr H http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=95#comment1086 673. At 10:35pm on 06 Jun 2010, Some other person with a comment wrote:No sense of humour or irony eh?+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Fair point. I always end up sounding like a condescending git with no sense of humour when I post on HYS. Another contributer seemed to feel that I was being patronising too. My bad.So: sorry about the sense of humour failure. Perhaps with practice I might learn to do these things better...But on our point of disagreement: Aquinas' concept of God is the concept of a Being which it makes no sense ask: where did it come from? Now, I wouldn't want to claim Aquinas has proved his point, but I think it's worth noting that the problem is one he had tried to deal with. Mon 07 Jun 2010 23:03:40 GMT+1 Mr H http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=95#comment1085 This post has been Removed Mon 07 Jun 2010 22:57:08 GMT+1 glassCanning http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=95#comment1084 Yes, schools should teach Religion. It should be taught as Church of England in the first instant, with priests etc coming in to teach those of other religions. Bible stories and others, on the whole, have good lessons to be learnt for pupils. I am not religious, but being a good Samaritan doesn't hurt anyone. Mon 07 Jun 2010 22:53:36 GMT+1 ferryfergie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=95#comment1083 how should they teach religion ?answer - they shouldn'tleave that to churches , synagogues and mosquesthe real question i have is why we consider it appropriate to teach it at all - especially in secondary . you teach the kids science - and the scientific method of theory-experiment-observation-proof . Then in the next class go - chuck that out - that is irrelevant here - you need to have faiththere is no real hard evidence about religion. so why are we teaching it ?or as the late douglas adams said it best"god used to be the best explanation for things. now we have far better ones" Mon 07 Jun 2010 22:52:33 GMT+1 Mr H http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=95#comment1082 At 11:40am on 07 Jun 2010, anti-fraudster wrote:Trace the second ( not the Origin of Species- hence the modification) SOCIAL Darwinist book's beliefs and influence through Darwin's cousin and on to Hitler who was much taken with social Darwinist theory. The links are indisputably there, as with Nietsche. [...]I find it deeply offensive the patronising tones in which some seem to think it valid to speak to us.[...]The social group most statistically antipathetic to Christian faith are C1 males if you check the statistics. My guess would be that they object to Christian standards of love and respect for others including females checking their sexual life.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++A number of responses here:Firstly, please accept my apologies if you felt my post was patronising, or that I was implying that Christians are 'thickos': this was unintended. In fact, I have the highest respect for a number of Christian thinkers (see my previous post on Aquinas, one of the greatest philosophers who ever wrote, in my opinion). However, I still think it true that some religious believers mis-understand Darwin's theories, and that it is possible to be both a Christian and believe that the theory of evolution by natural selection is true (even the Vatican states that it is 'more than' just a theory).Secondly, I agree that social Darwinism has had dire moral consequences, for the reasons you state. However, I would contend that social Darwinism is a mis-representation of modern evolutionary theory, and so we need to separate the two.Thirdly, I would query your explantion of some people's rejection of Christianity. My guess would be that the majority believe that modern science has shown that God does not exist (a claim I would reject), and that sexual ethics is a secondary reason. However, in fairness to people who object to Christian sexual ethics, I think it should be acknowledged that the rejection of traditional Chritian ethics in areas such as homosexuality is itself often motivated by deeply held moral convictions.Finally, you have assumed that I am not a Christian: in fact I have been careful not to state my religious beliefs in my posts. Please don't jump to conclusions. But thank you for your response. Mon 07 Jun 2010 22:47:22 GMT+1 DevilsAvacado http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=95#comment1081 "363 Wrote:In other subjects, such as maths and science, only facts are taught.Science teaches evolution as if it were proven and incontrovertable which it is not. It is _a_ theory about how we came to be as we are which happens to fit a set of data. It has not been scientifically proven but it is presented as if it has been. This is just as bad an indoctrination as any."I'm afraid your are very much mistaken, evolution is practiced on a daily basis by artificial selection on lab mice and fruit flies. Out side of the laboratory, study of the peppered moth allows us to observe evolution happening over a very small timescale, with natural pressures causing switches in population domination between light and dark genotypes within a decade.Back with the topic there should be no study of RE in schools, if parents wish to indoctrinate their children (which I consider to be child abuse) upon their wallets and time be it, not on my children's time and with my taxes. I cannot even support the teaching of RE as some kind of moral/ethical study, given the typical morals supported by religions and thier propensity for supporting violence:-Christianity:-Bible: Numbers7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.Islam :-Koran 5:33The Punishment for those who oppose Allah and his messenger is : Execution or Crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land Koran 17:16-17When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet transgress; so that Allah's word is proved true against them: then we destroy them utterly. How many generations have we destroyed after Noah? And enough is thy Lord to note and see the Sins of his servants Koran 8:012 I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.(translation Abdullah Yusuf Ali (considered to be a moderate translation))Buddism:- Kamakazis, Seppuku, Karate I'm pretty sure I can find some dirt on Hinduism/Scientology/paganism/insertreligionhere too If I could be bothered Mon 07 Jun 2010 22:42:02 GMT+1 john http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=95#comment1080 Correct me if i'm wrong, but we live in a country that has a Christian Monarch..namely CofE. So surely the main focus should be given to this faith and then also give a 'brief' overview of the other faiths. Mon 07 Jun 2010 22:22:41 GMT+1 Artemesia http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=95#comment1079 "The trouble about all these statistics... x per cent are christians, y per cent are muslims, and so on, is that the statistics are deliberately skewed by the organized religious organizations. They deliberately lay claim to a percentage of the population although they know that many of the people they're claiming have in fact become atheists or agnostics.Take me, for example. I was baptized as an Anglican. The Anglican church, therefore, when it publishes its statistics, lays claim to me as a member, deliberately inflating its membership. There are millions of people in the same situation.So all those percentages about what percentage of the people of the UK believe in such and such a religion... well, they're just as much crap as the religions they are intended to support""Christianity is the main religion in Great Britain. There were 41 million Christians in 2001, making up almost three quarters of the population (72 per cent). This group included the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Church in Wales, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations.People with no religion formed the second largest group, comprising 15 per cent of the population. About one in 20 (5 per cent) of the population belonged to a non-Christian religious denomination.Muslims were the largest religious group after Christians. There were 1.6 million Muslims living in Britain in 2001. This group comprised 3 per cent of the total population and over half (52 per cent) of the non-Christian religious population.Hindus were the second largest non-Christian religious group. There were over half a million Hindus (558,000), comprising 1 per cent of the total population and 18 per cent of the non-Christian religious population.There were just over a third of a million Sikhs (336,000), making up 0.6 per cent of the total population and 11 per cent of the non-Christian religious population.There were just over a quarter of a million Jewish people (267,000), constituting 0.5 per cent of the total population and 9 per cent of the non-Christian religious group.Buddhists numbered 149,000 people in 2001, comprising 0.3 per cent of the population of Great Britain.The religion question was the only voluntary question in the 2001 Census and 8 per cent of people chose not to state their religion" (Office for National Statistics - Figures from the 2001 Census)http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=954 Mon 07 Jun 2010 22:09:53 GMT+1 This is a colleague announcement http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=95#comment1078 Well at least I'm glad to see the BBC use the word "religion" and not the weasel one, "faith". I think we should be like France, but perhaps more so, with religious acts being limited to between consenting adults on private property. Mon 07 Jun 2010 21:59:36 GMT+1 Michael J Bramham http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=95#comment1077 Yes, it should be taught at schools, I say this as a devout atheist. This is because it covers things more varied than simply religion, it includes philosophy both religious and secular. It is important that the human philosophical and theological heritage is maintained. RE lessons are not about indoctrination, any child that is religious will be religious regardless of how much RE they are exposed to, it is the parents who indoctrinate them not the teachers, if anything RE can provide a way out to such children by teaching them to question what they have been told by their parents and others. I agree that we need to improve RE not scrap it. Mon 07 Jun 2010 21:56:32 GMT+1 thesubtleknife http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=95#comment1076 Incredible how narrow-minded and short-sighted the moderators are, isn't it? But then, I don't suppose they'll have the gonads to publish this comment. Bunch of old women. Mon 07 Jun 2010 21:54:18 GMT+1 Tams http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=94#comment1075 I found RE/RS/Scripture/Divinity/whatever it's called, to be very boring. Now I know this just reflects me and I may just have not paid the attention I probably should have, but I felt that there was too much emphasis on Christianity. Yes, Christianity is a major religion and this countries official religion, but the emphasis was too great, especially at the lower years of the education, when children are most impressionable. Later on, Islam started to take an equal role in the lessons, but we only took a quick glance at Hinduism, another major religion and atheism was touched upon, but with a hint of scorn. Now, there are many religions out there and it would be unreasonable to teach them all, but they should at least be more than mentioned and the largest religions, for particality's sake could be taught, as well as atheism and other stances. I just don't feel, that young people are being made aware of the great diversity of relgions and other beliefs, which in an ever more connected world they are more and more likely to encounter. As a Buddhist, I don't expect Buddhism to be taught, but I would like it, among many of the other religions/beliefs to be at least briefly covered. I don't believe that RE should be about trying to convert people or influence their religious beliefs, even for children, that should be their own choice (I actually believe children should be discouraged from firmly believing one religion/belief until they are more mature). Re should be about making young people aware of as many religions and beliefs as possible, so that they can respect members of those relgions/beliefs if they encounter them and to do so by only needing a slight understanding of them. I (again "I", I'm sorry =)) think that RE should be compulsory for the lower school years (whatever they may be) and unlike my education, be full ranging as I have mentioned above, giving a basic understanding. Higher levels of RE I believe should be voluntary, going into more depth and allowing a greater understanding of different religions/beliefs. This should be balanced a first (at GCSE for example) and then, as other subjects allow, allow more emphasis on one area later on (at A-level for example), as by then one would hope a person to have matured enough to be able to make informed decisions of which relgion/belief they believe in, if any. Again, these are just my views, but I feel that this may make this country and the people of this country more amiable and accepting. Mon 07 Jun 2010 21:44:54 GMT+1 Isimplydontbelieveit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=94#comment1074 At 06:32am on 06 Jun 2010, G_Jones wrote:How ridiculous that the views of an institution as tiny as the NSS should be given similar coverage as those of the Church of England.Hmm, and yet EVERY time there is a comment from the Arch Leader With A Seat In The Upper House Of Our Government For Some Reason (along with several other mere priests) about the evils of TV, pop music, the Internet or any moral debate he implies (at least) that we could not possibly understand the moral position without his guidance. I find that utterly offensive and it is my biggest problem with religion. Must we teach children to follow priests' coded messages from above, or can we teach them to know right from wrong for themselves? Mon 07 Jun 2010 21:40:05 GMT+1 geekgirl http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=94#comment1073 As mythology that people use to prop up their prejudices, rulers use to control the populace and the weak use to justify their inability to make their own choices. Teach where every religion came from, the charlatans and liars that created them, the cultural imperatives then enforced, and prejudices they enshrined, and how they discriminated, and still discriminate against women, gays, other religions and anyone that doesn't follow their random set of rules. Mon 07 Jun 2010 21:33:27 GMT+1 Bradford http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=94#comment1072 Government funded schools should be secular. Why should the taxpayer pay for religious superstition, particularly those religions that undermine our traditional social fabric. Mon 07 Jun 2010 21:18:10 GMT+1 mgp67 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=94#comment1071 I think that Religious Education is extremely important as it is a good opportunity for young people with their enquiring minds to discuss and form opinions on serious issues. Mon 07 Jun 2010 21:07:12 GMT+1 thesubtleknife http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=94#comment1070 Pavel, your "Jesus Christ" person is just as fictitious as the tooth fairy. So stop preaching at us, please, it's getting very boring. Mon 07 Jun 2010 21:02:07 GMT+1 thesubtleknife http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=94#comment1069 The trouble about all these statistics... x per cent are christians, y per cent are muslims, and so on, is that the statistics are deliberately skewed by the organized religious organizations. They deliberately lay claim to a percentage of the population although they know that many of the people they're claiming have in fact become atheists or agnostics.Take me, for example. I was baptized as an Anglican. The Anglican church, therefore, when it publishes its statistics, lays claim to me as a member, deliberately inflating its membership. There are millions of people in the same situation.So all those percentages about what percentage of the people of the UK believe in such and such a religion... well, they're just as much crap as the religions they are intended to support. Mon 07 Jun 2010 21:00:04 GMT+1 thesubtleknife http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=94#comment1068 2squirrels said something about "England was predominantly a christian country and when I went to school jews did not have to receive religious education"Hang on, what about the rest of the country? Or have you decided to jettison the rest of the United Kingdom? Mon 07 Jun 2010 20:55:59 GMT+1 plainspeakit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=94#comment1067 Hasn't RE/RI always been taught in an inadequate, inappropriate way? The best way of religious or moral education is to look at your teachers and judge them on their actions. Unfortunately, many of them fall short of what they should represent. It is difficult to look up to the managerial clones placed in high office in British schools today! Mon 07 Jun 2010 20:51:44 GMT+1 thesubtleknife http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=94#comment1066 This post has been Removed Mon 07 Jun 2010 20:48:04 GMT+1 Neil Welton http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=94#comment1065 Joss (1008 at 4:42pm) sums it all up when he says "I don't like things like citizen classes and 'how to behave' and other such rubbish." Quite. As Edmund Burke points out above (1047 at 7:35pm), the 1944 Education Act specifies that state schools must teach the Christian Faith. They must also conduct an act of collective Christian worship on a daily basis. Just think athiests. Millions of children WILL be worshipping God in the morning and there ain't much you can do about it. Thankfuully. Mon 07 Jun 2010 20:45:55 GMT+1 johnlh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=93#comment1064 Religion should be taught from a historical view and not a personal view. You cannot discuss anything in history that does not contain some religious aspect. Understanding the different religions of the world is almost mandatory if you are to talk and think in an intelligent manner. One needs to understand religion now and in the past and how it has effected all of us in this world in one way or the other. Yes religion should be taught and as early as possible beginning in the lower grades. It should be a mandatory subject for at least 1-2 semesters in college. Mon 07 Jun 2010 20:43:29 GMT+1 JustExtreme http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=93#comment1063 It should be taught as mythology and pure speculation. Mon 07 Jun 2010 20:32:40 GMT+1 th3_0r4cl3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=93#comment1062 britain is not a christian country, churches are empty and you cant find a normal teen that believes in religion thankfully.god is dead human genome being mapped was the final nail on the lid of that coffin. the so called good people see is not exclusive it is down to people all religions preach separation believers and non, or infadels it should be removed and anyone with strong religious beliefs should not be allowed to hold any position of power as they hold illogical irrational and just plain stupid beliefs. Mon 07 Jun 2010 20:29:19 GMT+1 th3_0r4cl3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=93#comment1061 Religion should not be taught if it is referenced it should be referebced in sociology in secondary school along with other mental illness's and the effect on society.religion will fly you into a building, lead you on a crusade, make you burn a witch or two, Science will cure disease and fly you to the moon.In fact religion should be ridiculed, "you believe in men that live in the clouds and a heaven and hell and talking bushes". 911 should have taught you that religion is a stupid and dangerous form of thought control. 21st century move on tax religion. or ban it it has killed more people than canabis-FACT Mon 07 Jun 2010 20:23:00 GMT+1 Rob Birmingham http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=93#comment1060 Someone once said that religion has killed more people than all other causes combined. I don't know if that is true, but it does mean that it is so important to the past, present and future of society that excluding it from education for fear of abuse and "brainwashing" is a huge mistake. Monitor it, yes, to make sure that doesn't happen, but don't ban it.Teach it as education, not indoctrination and you'll be fine. Mon 07 Jun 2010 20:22:35 GMT+1 Pavel http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=93#comment1059 In the modern world that is becoming more and more globalised there is a tendency toward a unified religion. Now different nations can associate with each other more closely than before, talking about God and God's goodness. This can provide an opportunity for developing the universal system of belief that could satisfy all people and at the same time could broaden their thinking. In dealing with modern challenges, such as terrorism or global warming, humankind needs to be united for the sake of developing a common strategy. The necessity for such religious system is urgent. Local wars happen from time to time in many parts of the world. The nuclear arsenals stored on different continents are enormous, and some autocratic states try to develop their own. Is not humankid interested in preventing the WWIII or total nuclear catastrophy? If no political institution can prevent such a conflict, religion must do so. The planet Earth is also affected by global ecological problems that are exacerbated and aggravated by human negligence. Humans spoil the beauity of the world by their industries, by their ruthless exploitation of natural resources, by their unjust treatment of indigenous inhabitants etc. All know that what is going on is bad, but it is difficult to implement the necessary policies on the global scale. What is needed is Light that could make humans understand that they are responsible for everything they do.Jesus Christ saved the world once and for all, there will be no such gift again. Now it is the responsibility of humankind to save it again from humans themselves. Sooner or later all people will be judged by God for what they did to the world that is God's creation. From the beginning of it it was made perfect and beautiful, but became corrupt and spoiled. Those who live on Earth are responsible for the harm done to the world's beauty. To become aware of this is a half-step toward developing effective measures against global problems. Mon 07 Jun 2010 20:17:31 GMT+1 Enny2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=93#comment1058 I cannot agree with religious concept of a maker who created the world in six days, the birth of a virgin son, a resurrected man from the dead after three days. The concept of God is the one I see everyday in all works of life. That is why Darwin is a GoD, I want him worshipped and taught in school. Mon 07 Jun 2010 20:10:31 GMT+1 anti-fraudster http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=93#comment1057 Last Post from me...becoming a bit tired. Lots of these arguments demolish straw men. To what purpose? But for the record re Hitler's religious beliefs, a good book to read is "The Last Days of Hitler" by Hugh Trevor-Roper. Occult religion was actually dominant amongst the Nazis. This is well documented and not controversial. Some forms of religion are very nasty and have a bloodlust attached. Personally I would not believe in letting small children know some of the nastiest beliefs and practices out there. But later on I guess they need to know even these, just because they exist. Someone raised the issue of feeling safe on the streets. Austria and Malta are said to be some of the safest places. Unlike me they are R.C.Also Switzerland which is Protestant I think. South America (R.C) though has lots of dangerous places so not sure correlations are easy to see really. My God is actually incredibly nice. Hope others find the same one. Goodnight and Peace. Mon 07 Jun 2010 20:08:16 GMT+1 anti-fraudster http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=93#comment1056 in_the_uk no you have not researched, sorry. People with a background in English would not pull my comments apart successfully as my background is English which is partly why I am riled by people who don't show any evidence of having studied the academic subject but nevertheless feel free to pontificate (that word comes from pontiff, ironically). Of course neither of us believes in genocide, murder, rape, and slavery. I am not going to give an exegesis of the whole of the Old Testament which is where you are getting these ideas. I am not qualified to, and have never learnt Hebrew either. What I do know is that Christianity believes that the Old Covenant has been superceded by the New Covenant. The New covenant is written upon the heart "I will take out your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh" is the poetic way of putting it, and is within the New Testament. The character of Jesus is central to what Christians believe and I don't actually think you have a lot of quarrels with what he did stand for. He could also be part of the awkward squad I notice. Peace. Mon 07 Jun 2010 19:43:17 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=93#comment1055 1046. At 7:33pm on 07 Jun 2010, spotthelemon wrote:Hitler, himself, made conflicting statements on christianity though he usually praised it in public, I suspect he used it when it suited and ignored it when it suited.It's a bit strong to say the Catholic church supported his regime though many have argued that the church did not do enough to oppose it.---------------------------------There is debate if hitler was catholic. Publicly he was and he used it to control the populace. His actions were supported by the germans and german army in the name of god. In private he is recorded to have said things to put his belief in doubt.The fact remains that the 1 man may or may not have been catholic. The many men who committed attrocities like gassing and torture were acting in the name of god.The catholic church didnt condemn the nazis at all (even with gassing jews!) but catholics did help nazis escape the country. Mon 07 Jun 2010 19:42:50 GMT+1 billyhano http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=93#comment1054 How should schools teach religion?With tongue firmly in cheek would be most appropriate. Mon 07 Jun 2010 19:30:03 GMT+1 BMace http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=93#comment1053 Surely the lack of adequate religious education in our schools has led to issues such as Islamaphobia being on the rise. With the move towards a greater multi cultural society then we should be looking at introducing more religious education in schools than claiming it has no place. Simply teaching children the rituals and routines of a particular faith group is not enough. Children ought to be taught how faith and belief affects them personally rather than simply learning about 'religion'. Humankind has attempted to explain itself through religious ritual and a sense of the numinous for centuries. We ought to be getting children to engage with this. Asking them to think about why people have faith. My school is introducing a "Whats RE got to do with me?" course for the year 7's in September. We aim to get the children asking "why?" about religion. Why do people believe in things? Where does this religious sense come from? What are the different types of knowledge and truth?We believe that this is more valuable to their education and will hopefully enable them to access Religious Studies in years 8/9 and then through into GCSE. More importantly however, we are aiming to equip them with a greater religious tolerance and an understanding of those who have views different to their own. Mon 07 Jun 2010 19:23:16 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=92#comment1052 1008. At 4:42pm on 07 Jun 2010, Joss wrote:Teaching ABOUT religion and instructing someone how to be religious are two VERY different things, and it is a pity that many narrow minded people on this board cannot see that.In schools children are taught about religion as it is a major part of our society.In the UK, polls show that people who do NOT believe in a god number around 30% (in the US it is 9%). That means that the majority of people in this country have some sort of belief, even if it is a "not quite sure" belief. That cannot be ignored.-----------------------------------Odd. Last I checked the UK non believers was about 45%. Religious groups were around 55%. So the largest group are non-believer.I am sure Dawkins mentions in the US that there are again more non-believers. Agnostics are not believers by the way. Since most athiests would believe god exists if it was ever proven. Shame the religious groups aint like that. Mon 07 Jun 2010 19:22:05 GMT+1 2squirrels http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=92#comment1051 England was predominantly a christian country and when I went to school jews did not have to receive religious education. If we go to a Muslim country ther is no way they would allow us to carry on our own faith in our own way we would have to live as they lived or take the consequences. This country seems afraid to say obey our laws or leave - we don't ask that they follow Christianity but that they do as they would be done by and live and let live. Problems are being caused in the UK because it seems as though foreigners are trying to take over our Nationality and Culture to change it to suit themselves and it is causing racism where there was none before. The saying when in Rome do as the Romans do would work well if followed here. Mon 07 Jun 2010 19:19:37 GMT+1 Safetyman http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=92#comment1050 Reading many of the posts on this subject, no wonder this country has sunk into the morass of self indulgence, selfishness and disregard for others.I agree with Confusious, Christianity is the basis of our MORALITY AND LAW.This country is a christian country, and religious education was a way of teaching kids morality, and christian values. Our laws are based on these values.No wonder many kids grow up having no respect for anyone or anything Mon 07 Jun 2010 19:07:35 GMT+1 KarenZ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=92#comment1049 Given that religion is one of the key causes of conflict, it would be useful to teach the history, principles and development of the major religions: Christianity; Judaism; Islam; Buddism; etc..Engendering religious tolerance would be helpful. Mon 07 Jun 2010 18:49:53 GMT+1 Pavel http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=92#comment1048 1006. At 4:29pm on 07 Jun 2010, in_the_uk wrote:...The people who fill the ranks of the armies and who performed great evil did so in the name of god. ...people blow themselves up for allah. The religion is the evil which disarms a normal person into irrational acts like suicide bombing. Jews were gassed, happily supported by the catholics and catholic church so surely they were right in the eyes of god. Any reading of gods actions presents it as a demonic evil which promotes such genocide and murder. The fights as you say are often for wealth or land yet the army fight for the god. Their death is for god. Suicide caused by religion is considered ok if its in the name of the right god.From your comment it may be inferred that for you God is the embodiment of evil. Then who is the devil? In this way it is easy to fall into Satanism when Satan, which is the source of evil, is worshipped as God. This is the most perverted form of religion, and it is even worse that islamic fundamentalism. Mon 07 Jun 2010 18:45:43 GMT+1 Guto Evans http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=92#comment1047 I thought the question was "How should Schools teach religion?" not have a pop at people who believe in God, so much bitterness here, maybe some of you have been tainted by people who have their own agenda e.g. the harsh and sometimes abusive Catholic establishments but if rival football team supporters decide to kick each others heads in or lay hold of some innocent bystander, is that the football teams' fault? Should we get rid of football?So how should schools teach religion, well they could make a study of all the major religions and point out their cultural influences, the good that good people have done in the name of their faith and the bad that bad people have done in the name of their faith. Just as good and bad people have also done in the name of their personal and political beliefs since the dawn of man and which will continue to occur even if there were no religion.Reading Jesus' sermon on the mount is a very powerful statement on how to conduct your life even if you're an atheist. This could be read, analyzed and discussed.We can't just ignore something that has been an intrinsic part of our culture, literature and law since the dawn of civilisation. Mon 07 Jun 2010 18:39:50 GMT+1 Edmund Burke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=92#comment1046 The 1944 Education Act specified that all state schools should teach the Christian faith, and conduct a communal act of Christian religious worship on a daily basis. The Act has not been repealed. Mon 07 Jun 2010 18:35:35 GMT+1 Sagacity http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=92#comment1045 1022. At 5:46pm on 07 Jun 2010, in_the_uk wrote:.....Just to correct, the nazis were catholic. Supported by the catholic church and sworn into service of god. The catholic religion was used to control the population and the jews were killed on the justification that they killed christ.Hitler, himself, made conflicting statements on christianity though he usually praised it in public, I suspect he used it when it suited and ignored it when it suited.These are a couple of quotes.Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race." Albert Speer in his memoirs reports Hitler as saying the following : "it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"according to Jean-Michel Angebert, The Occult and the Third Reich (1974)Hitler described religious leaders such as "Confucius, Buddha, and Mohammed" as providers of "spiritual sustenance"It's a bit strong to say the Catholic church supported his regime though many have argued that the church did not do enough to oppose it. Mon 07 Jun 2010 18:33:37 GMT+1 Mark http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=92#comment1044 It should be taught along with Greek Mythology and history. Certainly I think it would be useful for children to know just how many wars and assorted atrocities and disinformation have been committed in the name of religion.We have things like the Spanish Inquisition, the Pope to this day telling African people that condoms CAUSE HIV - and other such grotesquely harmful prattle.Yes, I think children should be adequately forewarned of religion.The "Churches" - worth trillions - but still want the pensioners to scrimp and save to pay for the new roof on their church. If any other landlord did that they would be branded as sick, heartless and possibly worse. Mon 07 Jun 2010 18:28:52 GMT+1 Richard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=92#comment1043 `` Re: Simply to know that greed is bad or immoral is not enough. But to know that greed is a sin bringing about God's punishment is a half-step toward putting control on it. ''Is fear of hell all that is stopping you do wrong? What kind of a person does that make you?Religions like Buddhism examine greed based on the effects on us, effects that can be understood whether you believe or not.Best that RE looks at different approaches to the question, even asks questions like "Why is greed harmful?" and "Is greed always harmful?" (Consider the case of philanthropists who got to their current position courtesy of what you may call greed). Hinduism also has interesting things to say on greed, as I expect does Christianity if we move beyond "You'll go to hell if you don't do as I say" - which doesn't work as an argument anyway. Mon 07 Jun 2010 18:26:56 GMT+1 Bro_Winky http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=92#comment1042 1027. At 5:57pm on 07 Jun 2010, Ron wrote: The last 3000 years or more have been shaped on a religion of some sort, what do we do? Re boot?--------------------------No, we evolve. Mon 07 Jun 2010 18:14:36 GMT+1 Bro_Winky http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=91#comment1041 1017. At 5:28pm on 07 Jun 2010, SaintMarysSaint wrote: ...so remember not being able to prove something, does not render it false. I guess it sounds smart to disagree with the idea of a spirit life, i.e. to be scientific, but where is your scientific proof?---------------------So by your rationale, I can claim that there are magical pink outer-space unicorns living on the Pluto, and since this cannot be disproved, people should take my "spiritual" belief seriously... Mon 07 Jun 2010 18:07:47 GMT+1 hirundine608 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=91#comment1040 Religion should be taught in schools but in a non-secular manner. It would be better if everyone knew what beliefs are held throughout the globe. It is a lack of knowledge about creation stories, beliefs and how others try to influence the way morals are taught. Once others are aware of of how these beliefs are come by, might they relieve the anxieties and threats of others that are felt? Even atheism deserves an education. Also many views of Gaia and the planet as a complete living organism; to be taught to minds that will then, hopefully, make up their own minds?All things come out of the one and the one out of all things. (Heraclitus)What gave these men the right to be considered philosophers, unlike the other astronomers, geographers and doctors who were active especially in the latter half of the period, was their common assumption that the world possessed some kind of integral unity and determinability which could be understood and explained in rational terms. A more important debt to myth appears in the central presupposition that the world is coherent and intelligible, is somehow a unity in spite of the diversity of its appearance. (Nietzsche, 1890) Mon 07 Jun 2010 18:02:49 GMT+1 Lana http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=91#comment1039 WooahhAfter reading some of these comments I'm literally shouting at the computer screen!"At 3:59pm on 07 Jun 2010, Mark wrote: Personally RE should be replaced...without all of this worthless religion indoctrination...You can't really teach evolution in a Biology lesson in the morning, then Adam & Eve in RE half an hour later...."..riiight and that's not 'indoctrination' at all"RE teachers shouldn't be allowed to impose their own views on pupils"..erm, they're not! In every single RS class I've had there's been some bright spark whose tried to wind up the teacher by yeling 'oi Miss do you believe in God?' and in every single circumstance they've just smiled and moved on, because they're not allowed to influence our understanding in that way, just as they're not allowed to tell us who they voted for in the general election"Get rid of RE, stick to the three Rs and the academic subjects please"...I take it you count English under this bracket? Because RE is extremely close to it in terms of the analysis and evaluation you have to do. Also in my personal opinion teaching RS is no different to teaching sciene - they're both theories trying to explain exactly the same thing. And yes they both have 'proof', for you a tree may be proof of photosynthesis and evolution and whatever else, for me it may be proof of God's work in producing something so amazingAnd all this stuff about putting RE into History!? I did History at GCSE and A-Level and learnt about: Bloody Sunday, Weimar Germany, Tudor England, the Lutheran Reformation, Witchcraft in the 16th Century, and a topic of our own choice (I did the Suffragette movement)..this spec is hardly representative of human history - nothing about the Bronze Age or the Iron Age or the Ancient Greeks or the Romans or Ancient Eygpt or the Russian Revolution or England's influence in the Americas or the Incas or the English Civil War or the Vikings or the Saxons or the history of slavery ..I could go on forever..so where exactly were you planning to fit RE into all this? Mon 07 Jun 2010 18:01:28 GMT+1 GC4AH http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=91#comment1038 I don't think that religion should be taught in schools. Religion is the main cause of major conflicts and tragedies in the world. All the recent wars have been down to religion. The conflict in Israel and Palestine for example which has been going on for years.Sure, religion used to work in the world, but that was when people had a very poor knowledge of science and didn't have any idea how to explain anything. Now it doesn't. Religions are just too different and as long as we have it then there will always be conflict. Mon 07 Jun 2010 17:48:41 GMT+1 Sally http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=91#comment1037 All schools should offer within their curriculum of religious education a chance to get to grips with the ideals and cultures of lots of different religions, both major and lesser known. No school should be linked to a specific faith as often this can influence the content of religious education. Religious education should remain a smaller part of the curriculum but should foster in pupils a tolerance of those that hold different beliefs. Mon 07 Jun 2010 17:45:25 GMT+1 Lana http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=91#comment1036 I did the compulsory half-course RE at GCSE and didn't find it particularly thrilling. On Friday, however, I'll be sitting my A-Level RS exam, which is now one of my favourite subjects.The problem with RE at secondary and GCSE level is that it's basically spoon-feeding you information that you forget within 10 minutes of leaving the classroom - if you asked me now there's no way I could tell you anything about the origins of Buddhism or why the symbol of Hinduism is what it is.However if you wanted to engage me in a debate on the different theories about the attributes of God and how they affect humans I could talk for hours, similarly with different idea on life after death, the origins of conscience, and whether we as humans are truly in possession of free will.The way to make RE interesting is to encourage children in these types of debates; why do you think God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge? Why do you think God made the Ten Commandments? etc.Oh and by the way, all the discussion about God has only strengthened my belief in Him and the fact that I am a Christian just makes our debates more interesting. Mon 07 Jun 2010 17:32:51 GMT+1 Rufus McDufus http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=91#comment1035 Religion is a personal thing and I don't believe children should be indoctrinated into it. They should be left until adults when they can make up their own minds without being coerced. There are far more useful things that could be taught in schools - first aid anyone? Mon 07 Jun 2010 17:23:20 GMT+1 Dylan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=91#comment1034 As the fiction that it so clearly is.It is important to teach about religion so that the next generation can understand some of the reasons the world is so messed up now but lets not perpetuate the lie any longer by confusing kids with made up history. Mon 07 Jun 2010 17:17:52 GMT+1 Custador http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=91#comment1033 "Carl wrote: “A good start would be by not paying any attention to input from atheists. However they could be included in lessons as a warning: Hitler, Stalin, Pol-pot, Mao, Deng, Kim-il-sung etc.“"Hitler was Catholic (this is WELL proven), and Kim Il Sung (and now Kim Jong Il) are now the objects of religious worship themselves. Theists often use these straw-man arguments, and they're easily debunked. Mon 07 Jun 2010 17:17:20 GMT+1 Custador http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/how_should_schools_teach_relig.html?page=91#comment1032 36. At 07:53am on 06 Jun 2010, parlovero wrote:"Dawkins drivel is typical of his type of "Science". Don't forget he was the one who slated James Lovelock for his Gaia Hypothesis which has been proven true (By science)."Laugh. Out. Loud. Seriously, thank you for eloquently proving that religious indoctrination precludes knowledge of science. Mon 07 Jun 2010 17:08:32 GMT+1