Aims and purpose of RE

[Rebecca Loader]

For variety's sake, and because I know there are people here who hold strong
religious views, are interested in religion and/or study it at A-level (and
may even have a taught the odd period - Ian?), I was wondering what you
consider to be the purpose of RE in school.

My dissertation is on the local vs .national control of Religious Education
(as RE occupies a peculiar place, being a required subject but outside the
National Curriculum), so it's more political than philosophical but touches
on aims and methods of RE as legislation and those in control at local level
have understood them.

Should the aim of RE be to introduce pupils to the central tenets of the
different religious traditions found in today's world? Does that not,
however, understand a fairly static idea of religion, when it is rather more
dynamic than that, especially in 21st century Western society? Should it
be, as was the aim of the Conservative government, to introduce pupils to
Britain's Christian cultural heritage? What about the fact that some pupils
come from no religious background, not even a confirmed secularist one; what
is their way in to learning about faith traditions when they're just told
'some Christians do this' and 'some Muslims do this'? Should RE encourage
pupils in awareness of the numinous and develop a sense of awe, or should it
concentrate on facts? Is RE a waste of time because nobody's really
religious any more, or is it vitally important because it both introduces
young people to different cultures and helps them to reflect on 'questions
of meaning' in their own lives?

I might not get any responses to this, but I thought it would be a nice
change from the technical stuff going on elsewhere.

Becky

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by Rebecca Loader
For variety's sake, and because I know there are people here who hold
strong religious views, are interested in religion and/or study it at
A-level (and may even have a taught the odd period - Ian?), I was
wondering what you consider to be the purpose of RE in school.
My dissertation is on the local vs .national control of Religious
Education (as RE occupies a peculiar place, being a required subject
but outside the National Curriculum), so it's more political than
philosophical but touches on aims and methods of RE as legislation and
those in control at local level have understood them.
Should the aim of RE be to introduce pupils to the central tenets of
the different religious traditions found in today's world? Does that
not, however, understand a fairly static idea of religion, when it is
rather more dynamic than that, especially in 21st century Western
society? Should it be, as was the aim of the Conservative government,
to introduce pupils to Britain's Christian cultural heritage? What
about the fact that some pupils come from no religious background, not
even a confirmed secularist one; what is their way in to learning
about faith traditions when they're just told 'some Christians do
this' and 'some Muslims do this'? Should RE encourage pupils in
awareness of the numinous and develop a sense of awe, or should it
concentrate on facts? Is RE a waste of time because nobody's really
religious any more, or is it vitally important because it both
introduces young people to different cultures and helps them to
reflect on 'questions of meaning' in their own lives?
I might not get any responses to this, but I thought it would be a
nice change from the technical stuff going on elsewhere.

What do you mean by "RE"? That is, at what level?

When I was at primary school (late 70s, early 80s), we had religious
assemblies. Hymns, prayers, the whole nine-yards of Christian belief
and it was just done without any comment. It's probably illegal or
something to do that these days, but back then it was sort of assumed
that everyone at the school was Christian, or at least didn't have any
objection to receiving Christian-based practices. (I remember that
there was one boy in my class who never attended morning assemblies
and it always seemed very odd that he had to stay back in the classroom
while we all had to go to the main hall every morning. I remember that
it never occurred to us that he might be a different RELIGION and
instead we used to gossip and speculate about all sorts of possible
reasons for his absence from morning assembly -- health reasons, extra
tuition, whatever.)

It wasn't until I got into about the third-year of senior school
(whatever the term for that is now... Year 9, 10, 11 or... ?) that we
had anything that even approached the idea of being taught about
other religions.

Ahhhh... a different time and a different world, I guess...

[Samsonknight]

Post by Rebecca Loader
Should RE encourage pupils in
awareness of the numinous and develop a sense of awe, or should it
concentrate on facts? Is RE a waste of time because nobody's really
religious any more, or is it vitally important because it both
introduces young people to different cultures and helps them to
reflect on 'questions of meaning' in their own lives?

It could be argued that learning RE at any level is simply a waste of time
for those who are not religious. This is a valid point to an extent.
However, if we all adopted that view then there is no point in learning any
foreign language, studying history (as the past is largely irrelevant),
studying art or any other subject that may not have any relevance to us in
the future. Also, and more importantly, I find it bizarre that many
individuals find RE irrelevant especially considering that many of the
world's
current conflict's stem from religion.
It just does not make sense, how can we dismiss a subject such as RE lightly
when the key to understanding religious conflict is to understanding the
religions themselves. It's the same as telling an individual to proof a
mathematical theory when they don't even know what the concept behind that
theory they are trying to proof is about.

Sure, there are people that probably don't care about any of the above, and
I guess I am not in the position to change their views. But hey, if they
would like to remained tunnel versioned into only learning set things that
are relevant to them, then nobody is in the position to question them. At
the end of the day, as mentioned briefly above, by exploring subjects such
as RE, philosophy, history helps the individual to develop a sense of
awareness of the world around him/her, and more importantly cultures the
individual. However, as I have mentioned in prev. threads people tend to
find RE less useful then other subjects purely due to the stigma that is
attached to it e.g. all RE is about is learning about the places of worship.
When in reality it goes much further then that at A-level, where you spend
the A2 part of the course learning about modern religious conflict.

In conclusion, by studying RE brings you more good then harm, at least by
having some knowledge in different religions means that you are less likely
to be "controlled" by a specific religion. This is entirely due to the fact
that your knowledge in this field should after studying the workings of
different religions be broad enough, hence "blind faith" is less likely to
occur.

[Samsonknight]

Post by Rebecca Loader
Should RE encourage pupils in
awareness of the numinous and develop a sense of awe, or should it
concentrate on facts? Is RE a waste of time because nobody's really
religious any more, or is it vitally important because it both
introduces young people to different cultures and helps them to
reflect on 'questions of meaning' in their own lives?

It could be argued that learning RE at any level is simply a waste of time
for those who are not religious. This is a valid point to an extent.
However, if we all adopted that view then there is no point in learning any
foreign language, studying history (as the past is largely irrelevant),
studying art or any other subject that may not have any relevance to us in
the future. Also, and more importantly, I find it bizarre that many
individuals find RE irrelevant especially considering that many of the world's
current conflict's stem from religion.

It just does not make sense, how can we dismiss a subject such as RE lightly
when the key to understanding religious conflict is to understanding the
religions themselves. It's the same as telling an individual to proof a
mathematical theory when they don't even know what the concept behind that
theory they are trying to proof is about.



Sure, there are people that probably don't care about any of the above, and
I guess I am not in the position to change their views. But hey, if they
would like to remained tunnel versioned into only learning set things that
are relevant to them, then nobody is in the position to question them. At
the end of the day, as mentioned briefly above, by exploring subjects such
as RE, philosophy, history helps the individual to develop a sense of
awareness of the world around him/her, and more importantly cultures the
individual. However, as I have mentioned in prev. threads people tend to
find RE less useful then other subjects purely due to the stigma that is
attached to it e.g. all RE is about is learning about the places of worship.
When in reality it goes much further then that at A-level, where you spend
the A2 part of the course learning about modern religious conflict.



In conclusion, by studying RE brings you more good then harm, at least by
having some knowledge in different religions means that you are less likely
to be "controlled" by a specific religion. This is entirely due to the fact
that your knowledge in this field should after studying the workings of
different religions be broad enough, hence "blind faith" is less likely to
occur.

[cowboy carl]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Rebecca Loader
Should RE encourage pupils in
awareness of the numinous and develop a sense of awe, or should it
concentrate on facts? Is RE a waste of time because nobody's really
religious any more, or is it vitally important because it both
introduces young people to different cultures and helps them to
reflect on 'questions of meaning' in their own lives?

It could be argued that learning RE at any level is simply a waste of time
for those who are not religious. This is a valid point to an extent.
However, if we all adopted that view then there is no point in learning any
foreign language, studying history (as the past is largely irrelevant),

the past is irrelevant?

geez, no wonder people complain that the youth of today have no
understanding of the holocaust.

if you want to understand the world today, you have to look at the past.

to understand northern ireland, for example, you have to go back to one
of the King Henrys (can never remember which).

cc

[Samsonknight]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Rebecca Loader
Should RE encourage pupils in
awareness of the numinous and develop a sense of awe, or should it
concentrate on facts? Is RE a waste of time because nobody's really
religious any more, or is it vitally important because it both
introduces young people to different cultures and helps them to
reflect on 'questions of meaning' in their own lives?

It could be argued that learning RE at any level is simply a waste of
time for those who are not religious. This is a valid point to an extent.
However, if we all adopted that view then there is no point in learning
any foreign language, studying history (as the past is largely
irrelevant),

the past is irrelevant?
geez, no wonder people complain that the youth of today have no
understanding of the holocaust.
if you want to understand the world today, you have to look at the past.
to understand northern ireland, for example, you have to go back to one of
the King Henrys (can never remember which).
cc

No, I didn't mean it in that way. Indeed the past is absolutely relevent, I
have a passion for history and everything related to it because of the
reasons you have mentioned.
The point I was trying to make was that many people feel that RE is a waste
of time when it is exactly the same as history. Yet if they carry the view
that RE is a waste of time, then they might as well carry the view that
history is a waste of time because learning about the "past is a waste of
time and highly irrelevent".

[Robert de Vincy]

Samsonknight did write:

[snip]

Post by Samsonknight
No, I didn't mean it in that way. Indeed the past is absolutely
relevent, I have a passion for history and everything related to it
because of the reasons you have mentioned.
The point I was trying to make was that many people feel that RE is a
waste of time when it is exactly the same as history. Yet if they
carry the view that RE is a waste of time, then they might as well
carry the view that history is a waste of time because learning about
the "past is a waste of time and highly irrelevent".

If someone feels that a subject is a "waste of time" then for that person
it *is* a waste of time. But if someone else doesn't, then to that
person it isn't a waste of time. This is probably sounding a little bit
on the liberal/relativistic/do-what-the-hell-you-want side, but I don't
think there is some universal Worthiness scale that all subjects have an
absolute ranking on.

If your career and personal interests guide you towards a particular
subject, then that's what you do and that's what is useful. In my own
case, A-levels maths? Absolute fucking waste of my time. I have zero
need for it, and I can't possibly see why I would ever even begin to
approach it. And yet the stuff I'm studying at Uni and for my own
interest are things that might be considered deep, profound, and highly
intellectual.
But I understand that a lot of people like maths and think that it's
essential for certain paths in life. That doesn't make it any more
worthy or "waste of time"-ish than RE on any absolute scale, merely on
a personal scale.

It's only when you view A-levels as the means to, e.g., university
admission and not things to be done for their own worth that we begin
pinning values and Worthiness Scales to them.

[Samsonknight]

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snip]

Post by Samsonknight
No, I didn't mean it in that way. Indeed the past is absolutely
relevent, I have a passion for history and everything related to it
because of the reasons you have mentioned.
The point I was trying to make was that many people feel that RE is a
waste of time when it is exactly the same as history. Yet if they
carry the view that RE is a waste of time, then they might as well
carry the view that history is a waste of time because learning about
the "past is a waste of time and highly irrelevent".

If someone feels that a subject is a "waste of time" then for that person
it *is* a waste of time. But if someone else doesn't, then to that
person it isn't a waste of time. This is probably sounding a little bit
on the liberal/relativistic/do-what-the-hell-you-want side, but I don't
think there is some universal Worthiness scale that all subjects have an
absolute ranking on.

Yes, as I said no one is in the position to make them approach things
differently.

Post by Robert de Vincy
If your career and personal interests guide you towards a particular
subject, then that's what you do and that's what is useful. In my own
case, A-levels maths? Absolute fucking waste of my time. I have zero
need for it, and I can't possibly see why I would ever even begin to
approach it. And yet the stuff I'm studying at Uni and for my own
interest are things that might be considered deep, profound, and highly
intellectual.
But I understand

Yes, I agree to a point. Why not only do subjects that are only directly
beneficial to you and your career choices? However, I disagree with you in
the respect that even if some subjects may seem to be irrelevent, they are
not entirely irrelevent in the respect that they broaden your knowledge and
culture you. Mathematics for example is a subject that I 'd recommend to any
student regardless of what they want to study at university, mainly because
it is the only subject that I know of that helps develop mental thought into
a much more logical/ rational manner and also provides the student with
another form of history that is relevent to understanding the world today.
Mathematical history.

Besides, would you rather be an individual that is tunnel-visioned in your
knowledge, or an individual that is interesting, and broad?

Post by Robert de Vincy
that a lot of people like maths and think that it's
essential for certain paths in life. That doesn't make it any more
worthy or "waste of time"-ish than RE on any absolute scale, merely on
a personal scale.

People I know that have gone onto Politics, History degrees - do see RE as a
waste of time. Despite it's course content and the fact that hardly of them
have done it. They see it as a waste of time soley because of the fact that
it is has the name "RE" and therefore it is automatically seen a waste of
time because you learn about God. This I find, bizarre. As many of the
worlds conflict's are religious! From N.Ireland - the Middle East. A subject
such as RE is absolutely vital to even to the most seculist politics/history
student.

Post by Robert de Vincy
It's only when you view A-levels as the means to, e.g., university
admission and not things to be done for their own worth that we begin
pinning values and Worthiness Scales to them.

That is the problem many of my friends have, they see A-levels as just a
learning curve to get into Uni. Very few of them actually embrace the
knowledge they learn from AL, rather they just forget it all. Or even when
they do embrace the knowledge they have learnt from A-levels, they tend like
learn the knowledge from AL like a book and copy and past rubbish from their
subject in arguements without really having an opinion of their own.

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snip]

Post by Samsonknight
No, I didn't mean it in that way. Indeed the past is absolutely
relevent, I have a passion for history and everything related to it
because of the reasons you have mentioned.
The point I was trying to make was that many people feel that RE is
a waste of time when it is exactly the same as history. Yet if they
carry the view that RE is a waste of time, then they might as well
carry the view that history is a waste of time because learning
about the "past is a waste of time and highly irrelevent".

If someone feels that a subject is a "waste of time" then for that
person it *is* a waste of time. But if someone else doesn't, then to
that person it isn't a waste of time. This is probably sounding a
little bit on the liberal/relativistic/do-what-the-hell-you-want
side, but I don't think there is some universal Worthiness scale that
all subjects have an absolute ranking on.

Yes, as I said no one is in the position to make them approach things
differently.

Post by Robert de Vincy
If your career and personal interests guide you towards a particular
subject, then that's what you do and that's what is useful. In my
own case, A-levels maths? Absolute fucking waste of my time. I have
zero need for it, and I can't possibly see why I would ever even
begin to approach it. And yet the stuff I'm studying at Uni and for
my own interest are things that might be considered deep, profound,
and highly intellectual.
But I understand

Yes, I agree to a point. Why not only do subjects that are only
directly beneficial to you and your career choices?

Because time is not unlimited. There are only 168 hours in a week,
no more, no less.

Post by Samsonknight
However, I disagree with you in the respect that even if some subjects
may seem to be irrelevent, they are not entirely irrelevent in the
respect that they broaden your knowledge and culture you. Mathematics
for example is a subject that I 'd recommend to any student regardless
of what they want to study at university, mainly because it is the only
subject that I know of that helps develop mental thought into a much
more logical/ rational manner and also provides the student with
another form of history that is relevent to understanding the world
today. Mathematical history.

"Mathematical history"? I'm not even sure what exactly you mean by
that. Ummm... are you saying that for A-level Maths you learn about the
development of counting systems, etc? Is there a section in the exam on
Roman numerals, for example? Do you have to study the dates and places
where mathematical principles were first developed and who proposed
them? And how does that help you understand the world today?

Post by Samsonknight
Besides, would you rather be an individual that is tunnel-visioned in
your knowledge, or an individual that is interesting, and broad?

That's offering a very unfair and unequal set of options. I could
counter that being "interesting, and broad" means that you know a lot of
trivial stuff about a wide range of things but nothing in-depth.
And if you go on to do, for example, a PhD, then that "tunnel-visioned
in your knowledge" aspect is almost essential, since the basis for such
a qualification is highly detailed knowledge about a specific field of
study.

I've got a choice for tomorrow. Do I:
1. Go out and pick up an A-level maths book and start learning that, or
2. Continue reading this book about primate social behaviour?
Which will be a better use of my free-time tomorrow? When and how would
I be able to use the knowledge obtained from #1? When and how would I
be able to use the knowledge obtained from #2? For me, maths at that
level (and higher) is of very low priority and is, as I said, a waste of
my time, whereas increasing my knowledge about, e.g., bonobo social
behaviour will strengthen my position to assess and argue for/against
hypotheses I encounter about human evolution and allow me to make a
better case in my upcoming Anthropology essay. I can assure you that
being able to manipulate quadratic functions with a pencil and paper did
not have much influence on how one particular species of hominid
developed culture and language.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Robert de Vincy
that a lot of people like maths and think that it's
essential for certain paths in life. That doesn't make it any more
worthy or "waste of time"-ish than RE on any absolute scale, merely
on a personal scale.

People I know that have gone onto Politics, History degrees - do see
RE as a waste of time. Despite it's course content and the fact that
hardly of them have done it. They see it as a waste of time soley
because of the fact that it is has the name "RE" and therefore it is
automatically seen a waste of time because you learn about God. This I
find, bizarre. As many of the worlds conflict's are religious! From
N.Ireland - the Middle East. A subject such as RE is absolutely vital
to even to the most seculist politics/history student.

Then it needs people to promote it better! If potential students
automatically equate "RE" with "learning about God" then there's a
breakdown in communication and the message about what RE involves is
either not getting out or is being misinterpreted.

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Robert de Vincy
It's only when you view A-levels as the means to, e.g., university
admission and not things to be done for their own worth that we begin
pinning values and Worthiness Scales to them.

That is the problem many of my friends have, they see A-levels as just
a learning curve to get into Uni. Very few of them actually embrace
the knowledge they learn from AL, rather they just forget it all. Or
even when they do embrace the knowledge they have learnt from
A-levels, they tend like learn the knowledge from AL like a book and
copy and past rubbish from their subject in arguements without really
having an opinion of their own.

Is that a point against any particular subject, or rather just an
observation that some people have the wrong idea about what learning is
all about?

[Samsonknight]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snip]

Post by Samsonknight
No, I didn't mean it in that way. Indeed the past is absolutely
relevent, I have a passion for history and everything related to it
because of the reasons you have mentioned.
The point I was trying to make was that many people feel that RE is
a waste of time when it is exactly the same as history. Yet if they
carry the view that RE is a waste of time, then they might as well
carry the view that history is a waste of time because learning
about the "past is a waste of time and highly irrelevent".

If someone feels that a subject is a "waste of time" then for that
person it *is* a waste of time. But if someone else doesn't, then to
that person it isn't a waste of time. This is probably sounding a
little bit on the liberal/relativistic/do-what-the-hell-you-want
side, but I don't think there is some universal Worthiness scale that
all subjects have an absolute ranking on.

Yes, as I said no one is in the position to make them approach things
differently.

Post by Robert de Vincy
If your career and personal interests guide you towards a particular
subject, then that's what you do and that's what is useful. In my
own case, A-levels maths? Absolute fucking waste of my time. I have
zero need for it, and I can't possibly see why I would ever even
begin to approach it. And yet the stuff I'm studying at Uni and for
my own interest are things that might be considered deep, profound,
and highly intellectual.
But I understand

Yes, I agree to a point. Why not only do subjects that are only
directly beneficial to you and your career choices?

Because time is not unlimited. There are only 168 hours in a week,
no more, no less.

168 hours in a week is a lot of time.
Spending 3 hours in a week is too much for most students, let alone 168
hours a week.

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Samsonknight
However, I disagree with you in the respect that even if some subjects
may seem to be irrelevent, they are not entirely irrelevent in the
respect that they broaden your knowledge and culture you. Mathematics
for example is a subject that I 'd recommend to any student regardless
of what they want to study at university, mainly because it is the only
subject that I know of that helps develop mental thought into a much
more logical/ rational manner and also provides the student with
another form of history that is relevent to understanding the world
today. Mathematical history.

"Mathematical history"? I'm not even sure what exactly you mean by
that. Ummm... are you saying that for A-level Maths you learn about the
development of counting systems, etc? Is there a section in the exam on
Roman numerals, for example? Do you have to study the dates and places
where mathematical principles were first developed and who proposed
them? And how does that help you understand the world today?

Mathematical history is the respect that there are concepts that are taught
in A-level maths that may not neccessary be used in real life but were once
dependent upon years ago. Logerithems being an example of this. Which was
absolutely essential in the days before Calulators.
Besides, many of the concepts that you learn in A-level maths are donkey
years old, so in that respect you are learning mathematical history, but in
a more practical sense.

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Samsonknight
Besides, would you rather be an individual that is tunnel-visioned in
your knowledge, or an individual that is interesting, and broad?

That's offering a very unfair and unequal set of options. I could
counter that being "interesting, and broad" means that you know a lot of
trivial stuff about a wide range of things but nothing in-depth.
And if you go on to do, for example, a PhD, then that "tunnel-visioned
in your knowledge" aspect is almost essential, since the basis for such
a qualification is highly detailed knowledge about a specific field of
study.

There is nothing wrong with developing specialist knowledge. But there is no
harm done by broadening your knowledge by venturing into other subject
areas. The problem that some people have is that they just stick to learning
what is relevent to them and refuse to broaden their knowledge by going into
other fields, as they see it as "largely irrelevent" to them. Yes, they have
a point, but what they forget is that there is more to life then that area
they specialise in.

By the way, I am referring to broadening your knowledge by learning
different things but in depth, and not learning trivial facts.

Post by Robert de Vincy
1. Go out and pick up an A-level maths book and start learning that, or
2. Continue reading this book about primate social behaviour?
Which will be a better use of my free-time tomorrow? When and how would
I be able to use the knowledge obtained from #1? When and how would I
be able to use the knowledge obtained from #2? For me, maths at that
level (and higher) is of very low priority and is, as I said, a waste of
my time, whereas increasing my knowledge about, e.g., bonobo social
behaviour will strengthen my position to assess and argue for/against
hypotheses I encounter about human evolution and allow me to make a
better case in my upcoming Anthropology essay. I can assure you that
being able to manipulate quadratic functions with a pencil and paper did
not have much influence on how one particular species of hominid
developed culture and language.

Indeed. I would do number 1. My arguement is simply for people not to rule
out knowledge that is not relevent to them and their careers as *useless*,
because different knowledge broadens you and therefore can benefit you in
way's unimaginable. I have an interest in art for example, despite not
planning to becoming an Artist but a comp scientist, yet I can really
appreciate art for what it is, whereas someone else who is a comp scientist
may think that art is a waste of time because it is not as productive as
building software that could change peoples life for the better.

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Robert de Vincy
that a lot of people like maths and think that it's
essential for certain paths in life. That doesn't make it any more
worthy or "waste of time"-ish than RE on any absolute scale, merely
on a personal scale.

People I know that have gone onto Politics, History degrees - do see
RE as a waste of time. Despite it's course content and the fact that
hardly of them have done it. They see it as a waste of time soley
because of the fact that it is has the name "RE" and therefore it is
automatically seen a waste of time because you learn about God. This I
find, bizarre. As many of the worlds conflict's are religious! From
N.Ireland - the Middle East. A subject such as RE is absolutely vital
to even to the most seculist politics/history student.

Then it needs people to promote it better! If potential students
automatically equate "RE" with "learning about God" then there's a
breakdown in communication and the message about what RE involves is
either not getting out or is being misinterpreted.

I agree, however I don't know why, but in general, anything in today's
society that is equated with "god" is just negative. Therefore it would be
very hard for a subject such as RE to shake of the stigma.

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Robert de Vincy
It's only when you view A-levels as the means to, e.g., university
admission and not things to be done for their own worth that we begin
pinning values and Worthiness Scales to them.

That is the problem many of my friends have, they see A-levels as just
a learning curve to get into Uni. Very few of them actually embrace
the knowledge they learn from AL, rather they just forget it all. Or
even when they do embrace the knowledge they have learnt from
A-levels, they tend like learn the knowledge from AL like a book and
copy and past rubbish from their subject in arguements without really
having an opinion of their own.

Is that a point against any particular subject, or rather just an
observation that some people have the wrong idea about what learning is
all about?

A bit of both. I have found this problem is mainly with politics students
that I know. They are like Robots, they dont have any ideas of their own,
rather, many of their ideas are borrowed from text books.

[Robert de Vincy]

Samsonknight did write:

[snip]

Post by Samsonknight
There is nothing wrong with developing specialist knowledge. But there
is no harm done by broadening your knowledge by venturing into other
subject areas. The problem that some people have is that they just
stick to learning what is relevent to them and refuse to broaden their
knowledge by going into other fields, as they see it as "largely
irrelevent" to them. Yes, they have a point, but what they forget is
that there is more to life then that area they specialise in.

I agree. There is certainly more to life than A-level maths. That is
just one tiny fraction of the whole amount of knowledge one could learn.
So, with an effectively infinite amount of things to learn and only a
finite amount of time to learn them, what is the best course of action?
Apply your 'mathematically-trained and logical mind" to the problem and
see what the natural and obvious answer is.

Simply... you can't just go around learning random subjects (and to me,
A-level maths would be totally random, considering my main interests and
degree course). It is a wiser investment of your finite time to learn
things that (a) interest you, and (b) will be of use to your current
and expected needs.

Now, put that A-level maths book down and go out and learn about the
Battle of Copenhagen! It will broaden your horizons!

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Robert de Vincy
Then it needs people to promote it better! If potential students
automatically equate "RE" with "learning about God" then there's a
breakdown in communication and the message about what RE involves is
either not getting out or is being misinterpreted.

I agree, however I don't know why, but in general, anything in today's
society that is equated with "god" is just negative. Therefore it
would be very hard for a subject such as RE to shake of the stigma.

Not with the right information being publicized about it. If teachers
and those who can influence students' A-level choices were aware of
what RE contained and really wanted to then they could break the "RE =
God" connection by promoting the non-"God" aspects of it and so encourage
more to see it as a 'useful' A-level.

[Samsonknight]

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snip]

Post by Samsonknight
There is nothing wrong with developing specialist knowledge. But there
is no harm done by broadening your knowledge by venturing into other
subject areas. The problem that some people have is that they just
stick to learning what is relevent to them and refuse to broaden their
knowledge by going into other fields, as they see it as "largely
irrelevent" to them. Yes, they have a point, but what they forget is
that there is more to life then that area they specialise in.

I agree. There is certainly more to life than A-level maths. That is
just one tiny fraction of the whole amount of knowledge one could learn.
So, with an effectively infinite amount of things to learn and only a
finite amount of time to learn them, what is the best course of action?
Apply your 'mathematically-trained and logical mind" to the problem and
see what the natural and obvious answer is.

Yes, you should prioritise your time for those things that are very
important at this moment in time. I don't disagree with you. However, there
is nothing wrong with learning about something else in your spare time. This
is the reason why I have an interest in art, politics, history, psychology &
many more other things . As I said before, 162 hours in a week is a hell of
a lot of time, though most people find it hard to spend 3 hours reading.

I am criticising those people that just see it as a waste of time learning
something that is not relevent to them regarless if they have the time or
not..

Post by Robert de Vincy
Simply... you can't just go around learning random subjects (and to me,
A-level maths would be totally random, considering my main interests and
degree course). It is a wiser investment of your finite time to learn
things that (a) interest you, and (b) will be of use to your current
and expected needs.

Agreed. But the hypocracy in most cases kicks in when people make comments
such as "Oh RE is a waste of time" whereas something as trivial as football
isn't. Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion but it is just so jarring
how people pick and choose what is relevent and what isn't. How can some
"random subjects" be more acceptable then others even if they are not
relevent to that person's degree/life or career? No one has the right to
brand a subject is a waste of time unless they have studied it. Even then,
it is still questionable if they are in the position to say it is a waste of
time, because the subject may be useful to x person but not you.

Post by Robert de Vincy
Now, put that A-level maths book down and go out and learn about the
Battle of Copenhagen! It will broaden your horizons!

Interesting battle.

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Robert de Vincy
Then it needs people to promote it better! If potential students
automatically equate "RE" with "learning about God" then there's a
breakdown in communication and the message about what RE involves is
either not getting out or is being misinterpreted.

I agree, however I don't know why, but in general, anything in today's
society that is equated with "god" is just negative. Therefore it
would be very hard for a subject such as RE to shake of the stigma.

Not with the right information being publicized about it. If teachers
and those who can influence students' A-level choices were aware of
what RE contained and really wanted to then they could break the "RE =
God" connection by promoting the non-"God" aspects of it and so encourage
more to see it as a 'useful' A-level.

It will always have that stigma, just like anyone that does Computer Science
is seen as someone who knows nothing about "politics".

I have had so many arguments defending that subject (RE) with people, yet in
most cases people are just so adamant to change their views. As they see the
subject in the following way : RE = God, therefore = a waste of time. When
in reality it is no different to studying history - but in a different way.
Besides what's so wrong about learning about God anyway? As the concept of
God has in a sense shaped the world that we live in today. More battles have
been fought over God then anything else.

[Samsonknight]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snip]

Post by Samsonknight
No, I didn't mean it in that way. Indeed the past is absolutely
relevent, I have a passion for history and everything related to it
because of the reasons you have mentioned.
The point I was trying to make was that many people feel that RE is
a waste of time when it is exactly the same as history. Yet if they
carry the view that RE is a waste of time, then they might as well
carry the view that history is a waste of time because learning
about the "past is a waste of time and highly irrelevent".

If someone feels that a subject is a "waste of time" then for that
person it *is* a waste of time. But if someone else doesn't, then to
that person it isn't a waste of time. This is probably sounding a
little bit on the liberal/relativistic/do-what-the-hell-you-want
side, but I don't think there is some universal Worthiness scale that
all subjects have an absolute ranking on.

Yes, as I said no one is in the position to make them approach things
differently.

Post by Robert de Vincy
If your career and personal interests guide you towards a particular
subject, then that's what you do and that's what is useful. In my
own case, A-levels maths? Absolute fucking waste of my time. I have
zero need for it, and I can't possibly see why I would ever even
begin to approach it. And yet the stuff I'm studying at Uni and for
my own interest are things that might be considered deep, profound,
and highly intellectual.
But I understand

Yes, I agree to a point. Why not only do subjects that are only
directly beneficial to you and your career choices?

Because time is not unlimited. There are only 168 hours in a week,
no more, no less.

168 hours in a week is a lot of time.
Spending 3 hours in a week is too much for most students, let alone 168
hours a week.

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Samsonknight
However, I disagree with you in the respect that even if some subjects
may seem to be irrelevent, they are not entirely irrelevent in the
respect that they broaden your knowledge and culture you. Mathematics
for example is a subject that I 'd recommend to any student regardless
of what they want to study at university, mainly because it is the only
subject that I know of that helps develop mental thought into a much
more logical/ rational manner and also provides the student with
another form of history that is relevent to understanding the world
today. Mathematical history.

"Mathematical history"? I'm not even sure what exactly you mean by
that. Ummm... are you saying that for A-level Maths you learn about the
development of counting systems, etc? Is there a section in the exam on
Roman numerals, for example? Do you have to study the dates and places
where mathematical principles were first developed and who proposed
them? And how does that help you understand the world today?

Mathematical history is the respect that there are concepts that are taught
in A-level maths that may not neccessary be used in real life but were once
dependent upon years ago. Logerithems being an example of this. Which was
absolutely essential in the days before Calulators.
Besides, many of the concepts that you learn in A-level maths are donkey
years old, so in that respect you are learning mathematical history, but in
a more practical sense.

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Samsonknight
Besides, would you rather be an individual that is tunnel-visioned in
your knowledge, or an individual that is interesting, and broad?

That's offering a very unfair and unequal set of options. I could
counter that being "interesting, and broad" means that you know a lot of
trivial stuff about a wide range of things but nothing in-depth.
And if you go on to do, for example, a PhD, then that "tunnel-visioned
in your knowledge" aspect is almost essential, since the basis for such
a qualification is highly detailed knowledge about a specific field of
study.

There is nothing wrong with developing specialist knowledge. But there is no
harm done by broadening your knowledge by venturing into other subject
areas. The problem that some people have is that they just stick to learning
what is relevent to them and refuse to broaden their knowledge by going into
other fields, as they see it as "largely irrelevent" to them. Yes, they have
a point, but what they forget is that there is more to life then that area
they specialise in.

By the way, I am referring to broadening your knowledge by learning
different things but in depth, and not learning trivial facts.

Post by Robert de Vincy
1. Go out and pick up an A-level maths book and start learning that, or
2. Continue reading this book about primate social behaviour?
Which will be a better use of my free-time tomorrow? When and how would
I be able to use the knowledge obtained from #1? When and how would I
be able to use the knowledge obtained from #2? For me, maths at that
level (and higher) is of very low priority and is, as I said, a waste of
my time, whereas increasing my knowledge about, e.g., bonobo social
behaviour will strengthen my position to assess and argue for/against
hypotheses I encounter about human evolution and allow me to make a
better case in my upcoming Anthropology essay. I can assure you that
being able to manipulate quadratic functions with a pencil and paper did
not have much influence on how one particular species of hominid
developed culture and language.

Indeed. I would do number 1. My arguement is simply for people not to rule
out knowledge that is not relevent to them and their careers as *useless*,
because different knowledge broadens you and therefore can benefit you in
way's unimaginable. I have an interest in art for example, despite not
planning to becoming an Artist but a comp scientist, yet I can really
appreciate art for what it is, whereas someone else who is a comp scientist
may think that art is a waste of time because it is not as productive as
building software that could change peoples life for the better.

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Robert de Vincy
that a lot of people like maths and think that it's
essential for certain paths in life. That doesn't make it any more
worthy or "waste of time"-ish than RE on any absolute scale, merely
on a personal scale.

People I know that have gone onto Politics, History degrees - do see
RE as a waste of time. Despite it's course content and the fact that
hardly of them have done it. They see it as a waste of time soley
because of the fact that it is has the name "RE" and therefore it is
automatically seen a waste of time because you learn about God. This I
find, bizarre. As many of the worlds conflict's are religious! From
N.Ireland - the Middle East. A subject such as RE is absolutely vital
to even to the most seculist politics/history student.

Then it needs people to promote it better! If potential students
automatically equate "RE" with "learning about God" then there's a
breakdown in communication and the message about what RE involves is
either not getting out or is being misinterpreted.

I agree, however I don't know why, but in general, anything in today's
society that is equated with "god" is just negative. Therefore it would be
very hard for a subject such as RE to shake of the stigma.

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Robert de Vincy
It's only when you view A-levels as the means to, e.g., university
admission and not things to be done for their own worth that we begin
pinning values and Worthiness Scales to them.

That is the problem many of my friends have, they see A-levels as just
a learning curve to get into Uni. Very few of them actually embrace
the knowledge they learn from AL, rather they just forget it all. Or
even when they do embrace the knowledge they have learnt from
A-levels, they tend like learn the knowledge from AL like a book and
copy and past rubbish from their subject in arguements without really
having an opinion of their own.

Is that a point against any particular subject, or rather just an
observation that some people have the wrong idea about what learning is
all about?

A bit of both. I have found this problem is mainly with politics students
that I know. They are like Robots, they dont have any ideas of their own,
rather, many of their ideas are borrowed from text books.

[cowboy carl]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Robert de Vincy
that a lot of people like maths and think that it's
essential for certain paths in life. That doesn't make it any more
worthy or "waste of time"-ish than RE on any absolute scale, merely on
a personal scale.

People I know that have gone onto Politics, History degrees - do see RE as a
waste of time. Despite it's course content and the fact that hardly of them
have done it. They see it as a waste of time soley because of the fact that
it is has the name "RE" and therefore it is automatically seen a waste of
time because you learn about God. This I find, bizarre. As many of the
worlds conflict's are religious! From N.Ireland - the Middle East. A subject
such as RE is absolutely vital to even to the most seculist politics/history
student.

That's because currently RE isn't about religion, it's about what people
*do* (as opposed to what they believe and why they believe it).

cc

[Samsonknight]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Robert de Vincy
that a lot of people like maths and think that it's
essential for certain paths in life. That doesn't make it any more
worthy or "waste of time"-ish than RE on any absolute scale, merely on
a personal scale.

People I know that have gone onto Politics, History degrees - do see RE
as a waste of time. Despite it's course content and the fact that hardly
of them have done it. They see it as a waste of time soley because of the
fact that it is has the name "RE" and therefore it is automatically seen
a waste of time because you learn about God. This I find, bizarre. As
many of the worlds conflict's are religious! From N.Ireland - the Middle
East. A subject such as RE is absolutely vital to even to the most
seculist politics/history student.

That's because currently RE isn't about religion, it's about what people
*do* (as opposed to what they believe and why they believe it).
cc

At AL, RE addresses the issues you've mentioned above. The AS part of the
course introduces you in great detail to the fundamental teaching,practices
of both Islam and Judaism, so this therefore addresses the issue for why
individuals choose to be Jewish or Muslim. The A2 part of the course builds
onto this by looking at the history and development of both Religions after
the death of Moses, Muhammed. This as you probably can imagine explores many
key historical events (Faukenheimer), such as the different fractions in
each religion (Sunni, Shiah), the philosiphy behind the holocaust and how
this led to a the creation of the state etc. All this is IMO is relevent to
any student who is studying politics/history, as many of the above issues
are the source for the problems in conflict areas.

The only criticism I have for AL RE, is that it does not go into aspects of
other Religions such as the whole conflict between Protestant and Catholics.

[Rebecca Loader]

Post by Samsonknight
The only criticism I have for AL RE, is that it does not go into aspects of
other Religions such as the whole conflict between Protestant and Catholics.

Is that not down to your teachers' choice of topic, though? That topic
probably isn't covered at all, but do you know what other areas could have
been chosen?

Becky

[cowboy carl]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Rebecca Loader
For variety's sake, and because I know there are people here who hold
strong religious views, are interested in religion and/or study it at
A-level (and may even have a taught the odd period - Ian?), I was
wondering what you consider to be the purpose of RE in school.
My dissertation is on the local vs .national control of Religious
Education (as RE occupies a peculiar place, being a required subject
but outside the National Curriculum), so it's more political than
philosophical but touches on aims and methods of RE as legislation and
those in control at local level have understood them.
Should the aim of RE be to introduce pupils to the central tenets of
the different religious traditions found in today's world? Does that
not, however, understand a fairly static idea of religion, when it is
rather more dynamic than that, especially in 21st century Western
society? Should it be, as was the aim of the Conservative government,
to introduce pupils to Britain's Christian cultural heritage? What
about the fact that some pupils come from no religious background, not
even a confirmed secularist one; what is their way in to learning
about faith traditions when they're just told 'some Christians do
this' and 'some Muslims do this'? Should RE encourage pupils in
awareness of the numinous and develop a sense of awe, or should it
concentrate on facts? Is RE a waste of time because nobody's really
religious any more, or is it vitally important because it both
introduces young people to different cultures and helps them to
reflect on 'questions of meaning' in their own lives?
I might not get any responses to this, but I thought it would be a
nice change from the technical stuff going on elsewhere.

What do you mean by "RE"? That is, at what level?
When I was at primary school (late 70s, early 80s), we had religious
assemblies. Hymns, prayers, the whole nine-yards of Christian belief
and it was just done without any comment. It's probably illegal or
something to do that these days, but back then it was sort of assumed
that everyone at the school was Christian, or at least didn't have any
objection to receiving Christian-based practices. (I remember that
there was one boy in my class who never attended morning assemblies
and it always seemed very odd that he had to stay back in the classroom
while we all had to go to the main hall every morning. I remember that
it never occurred to us that he might be a different RELIGION and
instead we used to gossip and speculate about all sorts of possible
reasons for his absence from morning assembly -- health reasons, extra
tuition, whatever.)

Could it be that you went to a religious primary school?

I went to a Church of England primary school, at which we had morning
assemblies which involved prayer, listened to religious stories (with
cool animal characters, not straight from the bible) said grace before
lunch.

Oh, and we did stuff in the village church, like, plays, and whatever,
for christmas and easter and stuff.

I come from a half muslim half 'english christian' (by which i mean your
typical english christian who kinda believes in god but never goes to
church) background but I was never kept away from any of these things.


As for the effect it had on me, I guess it just made me believe in a God
(something to this day I keep trying to convince myself doesn't exist
... damn that childhood brainwashing :)).

I don't know to what extent it taught me/us morals. There was no
bullying at our school (when I was there). A little taunting maybe
sometimes.

No rasism, there was one or two black people, one or two brown people,
and 95% white people (in a school of about 100).

I don't think rasism even entered the minds of anyone there, simply
because they had never seen it.

It was nice. All nice.

Also, there were more girls at primary school than there are at Imperial.

Oh yeh, and I remember we made little clay things for Divali once at
primary school.

And we had some african guy come to talk to us about his village in
Africa (which was twinned with our village) and after his talk the
teacher asked us if we had any questions, and the only question was "how
do you get your teeth so white?"


Anyway, I think morals should be taught at primary school, and I think
religion and religous stories are an excellent way to do this. But I
disagree with having different schools for different relgions.

So maybe get all religious groups to come together and agree upon a
selection of moralistic (if such a word exists) stories taking aspects
from all religons, perhaps even characters representing the different
religions and all praying together at the end, and one athiest who just
stands around at the end humming or reading Nietsche).

Maybe.

I dunno.

What I do know however, is that when I have kids, they are going to a
religious village primary school :)

Just not a crazy one where they take everything too seriously.

cc

[Robert de Vincy]

cowboy carl did write:

[snip]

Post by cowboy carl
Could it be that you went to a religious primary school?

As far as I remember, it wasn't. The name didn't indicate as such,
and the fact that we had that one boy who was excused from religious
assemblies also argues against it.

Post by cowboy carl
I went to a Church of England primary school, at which we had morning
assemblies which involved prayer, listened to religious stories (with
cool animal characters, not straight from the bible) said grace before
lunch.
Oh, and we did stuff in the village church, like, plays, and whatever,
for christmas and easter and stuff.

Yeah, we had all that. Except for grace before lunch. I could ask my
parents, but I'm quite sure that the school was just your average
LEA-run primary school with no overt religious affiliation.

Post by cowboy carl
I come from a half muslim half 'english christian' (by which i mean
your typical english christian who kinda believes in god but never goes
to church) background but I was never kept away from any of these
things.
As for the effect it had on me, I guess it just made me believe in a
God (something to this day I keep trying to convince myself doesn't
exist ... damn that childhood brainwashing :)).
I don't know to what extent it taught me/us morals. There was no
bullying at our school (when I was there). A little taunting maybe
sometimes.
No rasism, there was one or two black people, one or two brown people,
and 95% white people (in a school of about 100).

There was ONE non-white boy in all my time at primary school, and there
wasn't any racism or anything negative against him. Perhaps we were
too young to actually notice that he had a difference that older people
made an issue of?

Post by cowboy carl
I don't think rasism even entered the minds of anyone there, simply
because they had never seen it.
It was nice. All nice.
Also, there were more girls at primary school than there are at Imperial.

Ooh... I'm nominating that one for "Most Unnecessary Comment On Usenet"
2005.

[cowboy carl]

[snippity snip]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by cowboy carl
No rasism, there was one or two black people, one or two brown people,
and 95% white people (in a school of about 100).

There was ONE non-white boy in all my time at primary school, and there
wasn't any racism or anything negative against him. Perhaps we were
too young to actually notice that he had a difference that older people
made an issue of?

I don't know ... isn't there racism at other primary schools?

In my first year at secondary school (year 7), this one guy came up to
me and said "has anyone ever been racist to you?" and I said "no" and
then he proceeded to tell me a couple of racist jokes.

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by cowboy carl
I don't think rasism even entered the minds of anyone there, simply
because they had never seen it.
It was nice. All nice.
Also, there were more girls at primary school than there are at Imperial.

Ooh... I'm nominating that one for "Most Unnecessary Comment On Usenet"
2005.

Truth be told, there are more girls *anywhere* than there are at Imperial.

At least that's what I thought.

Until I went to job interview days, similar proportion of girls-to-guys
at those, I'm guessing that's cos we live in a man-centered world
(which, I hope, is changing, cos I'm hoping to meet the love of my life
at work one day).

cc

[Rebecca Loader]

Post by Robert de Vincy
What do you mean by "RE"? That is, at what level?

Any level, from age 5 to age 18.

Post by Robert de Vincy
When I was at primary school (late 70s, early 80s), we had religious
assemblies. Hymns, prayers, the whole nine-yards of Christian belief
and it was just done without any comment. It's probably illegal or
something to do that these days, but back then it was sort of assumed
that everyone at the school was Christian, or at least didn't have any
objection to receiving Christian-based practices.

As I understand it, current legislation requires that, over a term, the
majority of what is called 'Collective Worship' (taking place in assembly
before/after announcements) should be 'broadly Christian'. This is
notorious for its ambiguity: after all, 'broadly Christian' material
considering the nature of God, for example, could be just as relevant to
Islam or Judaism. I think that bit of flexibility is regarded as the only
saving grace. It's an unpopular piece of legislation.

Schools can apply to their local Standing Advisory Council for RE to be
granted an exemption from this clause if they have a persuasive case, but
they are not always granted them.

So, far from your school's practices being illegal, they would comply
perfectly with the law!

Becky

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by Robert de Vincy
What do you mean by "RE"? That is, at what level?

Any level, from age 5 to age 18.

Post by Robert de Vincy
When I was at primary school (late 70s, early 80s), we had religious
assemblies. Hymns, prayers, the whole nine-yards of Christian belief
and it was just done without any comment. It's probably illegal or
something to do that these days, but back then it was sort of assumed
that everyone at the school was Christian, or at least didn't have
any objection to receiving Christian-based practices.

As I understand it, current legislation requires that, over a term,
the majority of what is called 'Collective Worship' (taking place in
assembly before/after announcements) should be 'broadly Christian'.
This is notorious for its ambiguity: after all, 'broadly Christian'
material considering the nature of God, for example, could be just as
relevant to Islam or Judaism. I think that bit of flexibility is
regarded as the only saving grace. It's an unpopular piece of
legislation.
Schools can apply to their local Standing Advisory Council for RE to
be granted an exemption from this clause if they have a persuasive
case, but they are not always granted them.
So, far from your school's practices being illegal, they would comply
perfectly with the law!

Well, there's something I've learnt today, and it's not even 11am!

Seriously, though, how does that work in an inner-city school in
the heart of, say, Bradford where the majority of a class might
assumed to be anything but 100% Christian?
I always thought that because of the time and culture and place (1970s,
middle-class, suburban) my school could automatically assume everyone
was Christian and (as I witnessed) the very rare exception would simply
not need to attend the morning religious assemblies. It's surprising
(to me, at least) that things haven't changed so that this automatic
assumption of Christian-ness would be removed to cater for a more mixed
classroom.

[Adam Atkinson]

I was wondering what you consider to be the purpose of RE in school.

I always imagined that the purpose was to satisfy some requirement of
the 1944 Education Act, and thus to avoid having the head teacher
taken to court. Although my understanding is that these days the Act
is routinely ignored as regards assemblies and people get away with
it. For all I know RE lessons aren't in the Act at all but exist
for some other reason.

Should the aim of RE be to introduce pupils to the central tenets of the
different religious traditions found in today's world?

That was what happened at my secondary school, as far as I recall.

Does that not,
however, understand a fairly static idea of religion, when it is rather more
dynamic than that, especially in 21st century Western society?

I'm not sure that I see why. As new religions are invented/discovered
you could add them to the syllabus. Of course, one would hope that in
addition to the famous religions, possibilities like the universe
having been created by my cat 25 minutes ago were covered. Also, at
least the possibility of (at least some) religions being made up to keep
the peasants in line should be covered, I'd say.

Of course, as you might expect, I don't see what the point is of
presenting a bunch of alternative cosmologies is if they're
mostly incompatible and untestable. If different groups are saying you
should/shouldn't eat papayas, shave your left armpit, bury children on
Chilean mountaintops, cover oak trees in peanut butter, on what basis
do you decide which if any of these things to go along with?

I'm sure Matthew and others will say I'm missing the point, but quite
a few religions do appear to offer rewards and punishments, and if I
take religions seriously at all I'm forced to conclude that satisfying
the requirements of more than a few simultaneously would be very hard,
so choices need to be made. (For the record, my cat doesn't care if
you believe in her and/or like her. As long as you bury children on
Chilean mountaintops, you're ok.)

Should it
be, as was the aim of the Conservative government, to introduce pupils to
Britain's Christian cultural heritage?

I would say not, or at least not exclusively. If that's worth doing, it
could be done as part of the "whistlestop tour" approach, couldn't it?

What about the fact that some pupils
come from no religious background, not even a confirmed secularist one; what
is their way in to learning about faith traditions when they're just told
'some Christians do this' and 'some Muslims do this'?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Should RE encourage
pupils in awareness of the numinous and develop a sense of awe, or should it
concentrate on facts?

I'd say mostly the latter. I fear the former would be a non-starter
for much the same reason that instilling a love of mathematics in
pupils is mostly a non-starter. But that aside, how would you do this?

Is RE a waste of time because nobody's really
religious any more,

I'd be tempted to say yes to this, but actually I found RE as it was
done at my school (pretty much the "some X believe Y, some A believe
B" you describe above) moderately interesting. I didn't _particularly_
care, but it was less awful (imho at the time, of course) than e.g. Music,
PE or History.

or is it vitally important because it both introduces
young people to different cultures

"vitally important" may be a bit strong, but I suppose this is
what I'd regard as the best argument for RE. Even if you think
religions are all nonsense, they _exist_, so knowing something
about them has some value.

Of course, based on personal experience, it might be worth saying,
alongside "some X believe Y", that "Quite a few people who are
notionally X (in the sense that their parents would like to think that
they are) go along with Y even though they think it's nonsense because
it's more trouble than it's worth to upset parents and grandparents."

and helps them to reflect on 'questions
of meaning' in their own lives?

I don't understand this bit.

I think at least some religious parents would rather their children
didn't attend the sort of RE I would regard as worthwhile.

For the record, I'm what Richard Dawkins would call a "teapot
agnostic". I can't prove there aren't teapots in orbit around Jupiter
or that my cat didn't create the universe 25 minutes ago, but I don't
really regard either of these as credible. This would be my attitude
to all religions as well. Even if I were to be convinced somehow that
there had to be (or have been) at least one entity with seriously
amazing powers, persuading me that it is/was Thor, my cat,
Tezcatlipoca, a gestalt of 12 "Wagon Wheel" (TM) biscuits or some other
creature people want me to keep on the good side of is a separate problem.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Adam Atkinson
I'm not sure that I see why. As new religions are invented/discovered
you could add them to the syllabus. Of course, one would hope that in
addition to the famous religions, possibilities like the universe
having been created by my cat 25 minutes ago were covered. Also, at
least the possibility of (at least some) religions being made up to keep
the peasants in line should be covered, I'd say.

There are some serious philosophical points here with the cat idea.
How do we know the past existed? ("Er, I remember it", "Ah, but maybe
that memory was created by the cat"). How religions came to exist and
be influential also is important.

Post by Adam Atkinson
Of course, as you might expect, I don't see what the point is of
presenting a bunch of alternative cosmologies is if they're
mostly incompatible and untestable. If different groups are saying you
should/shouldn't eat papayas, shave your left armpit, bury children on
Chilean mountaintops, cover oak trees in peanut butter, on what basis
do you decide which if any of these things to go along with?

It's interesting to discuss why various taboos arise. I think doing so
can lead to some deep and useful thoughts about the nature of our
society.

Post by Adam Atkinson
I'm sure Matthew and others will say I'm missing the point, but quite
a few religions do appear to offer rewards and punishments, and if I
take religions seriously at all I'm forced to conclude that satisfying
the requirements of more than a few simultaneously would be very hard,
so choices need to be made. (For the record, my cat doesn't care if
you believe in her and/or like her. As long as you bury children on
Chilean mountaintops, you're ok.)

But the fact is that most religions don't impose conflicting requirements.
One can argue that religion is just a decoration put on rules which
are necessry for a complex civilization to exist. If we didn't have
some sort of taboo on killing ur neighbours, or on lying etc, civilization
couldn't exist.

Post by Adam Atkinson
For the record, I'm what Richard Dawkins would call a "teapot
agnostic". I can't prove there aren't teapots in orbit around Jupiter
or that my cat didn't create the universe 25 minutes ago, but I don't
really regard either of these as credible.

So why is it that some beliefs are more credible than others? And what
does it mean "to believe"? And is religion necessarily about "belief"
or can it be about telling myths which needn't be literally true?

Matthew Huntbach

[cowboy carl]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson
I'm sure Matthew and others will say I'm missing the point, but quite
a few religions do appear to offer rewards and punishments, and if I
take religions seriously at all I'm forced to conclude that satisfying
the requirements of more than a few simultaneously would be very hard,
so choices need to be made. (For the record, my cat doesn't care if
you believe in her and/or like her. As long as you bury children on
Chilean mountaintops, you're ok.)

But the fact is that most religions don't impose conflicting requirements.
One can argue that religion is just a decoration put on rules which
are necessry for a complex civilization to exist. If we didn't have
some sort of taboo on killing ur neighbours, or on lying etc, civilization
couldn't exist.

Here we have the whole religion/ethics thing, I think it's blindingly
obvious that people acheive more when they aren't killing each other, or
lying to each other, and people naturally want to acheive more.

Religion just came about when some people wanted to impose their ethical
beliefs on others (see references to slavery and child abuse in the
Bible...).

I mean, if you were to write down all your ethical beliefs, and throw in
a bunch of examples of situations where they might occur and how you
should act, wouldn't it look a lot like the Bible?

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson
For the record, I'm what Richard Dawkins would call a "teapot
agnostic". I can't prove there aren't teapots in orbit around Jupiter
or that my cat didn't create the universe 25 minutes ago, but I don't
really regard either of these as credible.

So why is it that some beliefs are more credible than others? And what
does it mean "to believe"? And is religion necessarily about "belief"
or can it be about telling myths which needn't be literally true?

To answer your second question: "to believe" means "to think is true"


To answer your first, some beliefs fit in with our beliefs about
everything else better than others, i.e. they are more consistant.

My knowledge of cats is not consistant with them having created the
universe 15 minutes ago.

My knowledge of an omnipotent God however, is. Since omnipotence means
he can do anything.


And to answer your third: religion is about whatever the believer wants
to believe. If they want to believe the stories are "myths which
needn't be literally true", guidelines, advice from people who might
have been in similar situations in the past, faced similar dilemmas,
then fine.

If you want to believe they are all 100% true and you believe them all,
then also fine. It's up to you.


Totally seperate issues to learning RE in schools as far as I can tell...

cc

[Adam Atkinson]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
There are some serious philosophical points here with the cat idea.
How do we know the past existed? ("Er, I remember it", "Ah, but maybe
that memory was created by the cat").

Of course. We were all created with our memories etc. already in
place. Likewise objects in motion, fossils, light already on its way
between the Sun and us, etc.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
But the fact is that most religions don't impose conflicting requirements.

Dietary requirements, which people I can marry, which days I can/can't
do various things, which people I should stone for what reasons, all
sorts of stuff.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
One can argue that religion is just a decoration put on rules which
are necessry for a complex civilization to exist. If we didn't have
some sort of taboo on killing ur neighbours, or on lying etc, civilization
couldn't exist.

The stuff that's in common between competing religions isn't a
problem. Just trying to limit my diet enough to keep everyone happy
would require considerable effort.

But yes, all the things you're saying would seem to be reasonable
things to put in an RE course, I guess.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Matthew Huntbach
There are some serious philosophical points here with the cat idea.
How do we know the past existed? ("Er, I remember it", "Ah, but maybe
that memory was created by the cat").

Of course. We were all created with our memories etc. already in
place. Likewise objects in motion, fossils, light already on its way
between the Sun and us, etc.

Well, I guess if you were a Calvinist you could say that. But not if you
were a Catholic.

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Matthew Huntbach
But the fact is that most religions don't impose conflicting requirements.

Dietary requirements, which people I can marry, which days I can/can't
do various things, which people I should stone for what reasons, all
sorts of stuff.

There is a general human taboo on marrying close relatives, but this is not
a fundamental religious belief, and it tends to be similar across
societies. I am not aware, for example of any prominent religion which
compels one to marry one's sister. Taboos about eating meat seem to be
more common than taboos about other foodstuffs. The notion about stoning
people arises from a time when there was no clear distinction between the
state and the religion, so laws about crime and punishment were mixed
up with religious obligations.

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Matthew Huntbach
One can argue that religion is just a decoration put on rules which
are necessry for a complex civilization to exist. If we didn't have
some sort of taboo on killing ur neighbours, or on lying etc, civilization
couldn't exist.

The stuff that's in common between competing religions isn't a
problem. Just trying to limit my diet enough to keep everyone happy
would require considerable effort.

Judaism has the most complex set of dietary requirements of prominent
religions, but I think Jews would argue the restrictions are intended
for Jews only, not for all humanity.

To discuss these things properly, one would have to look not just at the
major world religions, which is what contemporary RE does, but at
religious practice in history and in cultures we are less familiar with.
In fact what you are really discussing is Anthropology. Looking at these
things objectively, one finds that religious taboos are not random,
as you suggest, but tend to fall into patterns.

Matthew Huntbach

[Robert de Vincy]

Matthew Huntbach did write:

[snip]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
There is a general human taboo on marrying close relatives, but this
is not a fundamental religious belief, and it tends to be similar
across societies. I am not aware, for example of any prominent
religion which compels one to marry one's sister.

Incest avoidance is not just limited to human societies. It's a
feature that, if present, selects for viable and healthier offspring
so is favoured by natural selection in any species/community that has
it (or, more accurately, natural selection selects against those species/
communities that don't have the taboo). For this reason, it's quite an
instinctive/genetic thing. When it isn't strictly inherent in the
instinctive behaviour (i.e., that siblings live close together and
actively avoid interbreeding -- see references to the Westermarck effect)
then social behaviours lead to situations in which siblings are separated
so that out-breeding occurs (e.g., in a lot of species of monkeys and
apes, either the adolescent males or the adolescent females leave the
group they were born into to go wandering off to find another group to
join).

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Matthew Huntbach
There is a general human taboo on marrying close relatives, but this
is not a fundamental religious belief, and it tends to be similar
across societies. I am not aware, for example of any prominent
religion which compels one to marry one's sister.

Incest avoidance is not just limited to human societies. It's a
feature that, if present, selects for viable and healthier offspring
so is favoured by natural selection in any species/community that has
it (or, more accurately, natural selection selects against those species/
communities that don't have the taboo). For this reason, it's quite an
instinctive/genetic thing.

Exactly, so Adam's idea that any such taboos found in human society
are entirely at random and would probably conflict with each other
is nonsense.

Matthew Huntbach

[Adam Atkinson]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Exactly, so Adam's idea that any such taboos found in human society
are entirely at random and would probably conflict with each other
is nonsense.

I'm not saying all such taboos are random. Quite a few of them
(incest, killing, even some of the dietary ones) most likely
aren't, but there's some randomness in there.

Of course, the biggest source of obvious conflict is likely to be multiple
organizations all saying I have to join them and no-one else, I should
think.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Exactly, so Adam's idea that any such taboos found in human society
are entirely at random and would probably conflict with each other
is nonsense.

I'm not saying all such taboos are random. Quite a few of them
(incest, killing, even some of the dietary ones) most likely
aren't, but there's some randomness in there.
Of course, the biggest source of obvious conflict is likely to be multiple
organizations all saying I have to join them and no-one else, I should
think.

Ah yes, the usual sloppy atheist assumption that the only forms of
religion that exist are fundamentalist ones. You people are so
predictable in your arrogance and ignorance.

As it happens, of the world's major religions, only Christianity and
Islam have any sort of evangelical impulse. And only extremist
fundamentalist wings of these would take the attitude you characterise
as one of all religions.

Matthew Huntbach

[Adam Atkinson]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson
I'm not saying all such taboos are random. Quite a few of them
(incest, killing, even some of the dietary ones) most likely
aren't, but there's some randomness in there.
Of course, the biggest source of obvious conflict is likely to be multiple
organizations all saying I have to join them and no-one else, I should
think.

Ah yes, the usual sloppy atheist assumption that the only forms of
religion that exist are fundamentalist ones.

Not at all, and you know perfectly well I don't think that. Are there
multiple organizations which feel this way? Yes. Are all religions
this way, or at least all flavours of all religions? No, of course
not. No flavour of Bahai'ism I've come across seems to feel anything
like this way (though maybe there's a militant wing I haven't come
across so far) but this just means I can cross them off the list of
possible concerns.

Can I be simultaneously a Catholic and a Muslim? I can't see how that
could be made to work.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
You people are so
predictable in your arrogance and ignorance.

Oh, tosh.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
As it happens, of the world's major religions, only Christianity and
Islam have any sort of evangelical impulse.

Well, I don't necessarily need to worry only about the major ones,
do I? And whether they are evangelical or not needn't really matter
if I'm concerned with rewards and punishments. (Actually, Judaism,
Orthodox or otherwise, probably gets crossed off the list since I
don't think there are any rewards or punishments on offer.)

Post by Matthew Huntbach
And only extremist
fundamentalist wings of these would take the attitude you characterise
as one of all religions.

If the non-fundamentalist wings take the attitude that I'm doing fine
as I am, I don't need to worry about them, do I? Supposing I actually
were planning to try to mollify multiple religions simultaneously to
be on the safe side, that is.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson
Of course, the biggest source of obvious conflict is likely to be multiple
organizations all saying I have to join them and no-one else, I should
think.

Ah yes, the usual sloppy atheist assumption that the only forms of
religion that exist are fundamentalist ones.

Not at all, and you know perfectly well I don't think that.

But everything you wre writing in this thread, for example the first
paragraph quoted above, suggests you DO think that.

Post by Adam Atkinson
Can I be simultaneously a Catholic and a Muslim? I can't see how that
could be made to work.

No-one is asking you to be simultaneously a Catholic and a Muslim.

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Matthew Huntbach
You people are so
predictable in your arrogance and ignorance.

Oh, tosh.

No, it's not tosh. Every time I have this sort of argument in usenet,
I find the same predictable lines coming out - and you've just come
out with the classic "Catholics believe everyone who isn't a Catholic
will go to Hell". Atheists continue to trot out this line time and
time again, despite the Catholic Church having explicitly retracted
this position many years ago.

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Matthew Huntbach
As it happens, of the world's major religions, only Christianity and
Islam have any sort of evangelical impulse.

Well, I don't necessarily need to worry only about the major ones,
do I? And whether they are evangelical or not needn't really matter
if I'm concerned with rewards and punishments.

As has been discussed here, religious education in schools generally
consists of a sumary of the beliefs and practices of the major
religions, of which there are maybe five or six. The sort of moral
code which all of these religions hold is similar, differing only in
details. A non-lazy, non-arrogant, non-sloppy atheist could, I think,
see and accept this without making the sort of flippant remarks you
have consistently made in this thread.

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Matthew Huntbach
And only extremist
fundamentalist wings of these would take the attitude you characterise
as one of all religions.

If the non-fundamentalist wings take the attitude that I'm doing fine
as I am, I don't need to worry about them, do I? Supposing I actually
were planning to try to mollify multiple religions simultaneously to
be on the safe side, that is.

I have not seen (from my position of sitting on the committee that
overviewed it) any religious education in schools that took the form
"If you don't believe in religion X, you will go to Hell", or even
"religion X says if you don't believe in us you will go to Hell". So
you are raising a false argument, which is typical of lazy, sloppy,
arrogant atheists.

Matthew Huntbach

[Adam Atkinson]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson
Of course. We were all created with our memories etc. already in
place. Likewise objects in motion, fossils, light already on its way
between the Sun and us, etc.

Well, I guess if you were a Calvinist you could say that. But not if you
were a Catholic.

The cat example is, I hope obviously, not something I actually believe.
However, it's as good a random example as any.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Matthew Huntbach
But the fact is that most religions don't impose conflicting requirements.

Dietary requirements, which people I can marry, which days I can/can't
do various things, which people I should stone for what reasons, all
sorts of stuff.

There is a general human taboo on marrying close relatives, but this is not
a fundamental religious belief, and it tends to be similar across
societies. I am not aware, for example of any prominent religion which
compels one to marry one's sister.

I was thinking more about castes, marrying out, restrictions
on who can marry Levis and Cohens, that sort of thing,
than about incest taboos. There are slight variations from society
to society about how close a relative is too close even there, though,
so it's a possible source of conflicting rules, I suppose.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Taboos about eating meat seem to be
more common than taboos about other foodstuffs.

True, but I was also thinking about requirements to fast or feast,
or eat particular items on particular days. If any of those particular
items were totally prohibited in another religion I was trying to placate,
that would be a problem.

I don't need _all_ the rules to be arbitrary and random. Even if just
a few are, I'm in trouble.

Another possibility would be two perfectly valid solutions to a real
problem coming into conflict. e.g. one tradition where young men
move away (as BdeV mentions) and one where young women do. There's
nothing wrong with either of them, but trying to satisfy both
at once might be a problem (unless BOTH moving away is satisfactory to
both groups, of course).

Post by Matthew Huntbach
The notion about stoning
people arises from a time when there was no clear distinction between the
state and the religion, so laws about crime and punishment were mixed
up with religious obligations.

Islam appears to have the death penalty for apostasy, though
perhaps I'm woefully misinformed on this as on so many other matters.
I was, of course, also thinking about the usual things about
stoning disobedient children that one can find in the Old Testament.

Another possible source of conflict would be which bits of my or
other people's bodies I can, must or must not decorate, tattoo, scar
or remove. Of course I'd like to imagine that this stuff is less
important than not killing people, but it's hardly for me to say
what's important and what's not, is it?

Of course, religions that don't offer rewards or punishments I
can ignore completely, and indeed, as you mention, religions
whose rules don't apply to non-members. Of course, if I'm
Jewish _and_ trying to hedge my bets then I _do_ need to worry
about kosher rules on top of everything else.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Judaism has the most complex set of dietary requirements of prominent
religions, but I think Jews would argue the restrictions are intended
for Jews only, not for all humanity.

So I understand.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
In fact what you are really discussing is Anthropology. Looking at these
things objectively, one finds that religious taboos are not random,
as you suggest, but tend to fall into patterns.

They tend to, no doubt. Most of my problems in trying to satisfy
multiple religions at once would come from the randomer ones, but
consider observing Friday, Saturday AND Sunday appropriately
to keep Islam, Judaism and Christianity at bay (if I were Jewish to
start with, I suppose.)

[Stuart Williams]

In article

Post by Adam Atkinson
I was thinking more about castes, marrying out, restrictions
on who can marry Levis and Cohens, that sort of thing,
than about incest taboos. There are slight variations from society
to society about how close a relative is too close even there, though,
so it's a possible source of conflicting rules, I suppose.

I remember something Claude Levi-Strauss wrote about the
incest taboo: (paraphrasing from memory) What is
important about the not-marrying-in rule is that it is a
rule. Quite a lot of his works have had the effect of
blinding revelation on me (I think everyone should read
The Raw And The Cooked, for example), and that thought
was one of them - societies need rules *and it doesn't
much matter what the rule actually is*. As someone else
has pointed out, in some tribes men go and live with
their wives' families, in others, the wives go and live
with their husbands'. There is no point in looking for
some sort of objective advantage in either arrangement.

[Think about the rule we have about not eating dogs, and
our widespread revulsion in the face of societies that
have no such inhibitions.]

We tend to try to justify many of these rules (such as
the incest taboo) by appealing to scientific knowledge -
but a lot of the cartoonish beliefs about inbreeding
aren't actually borne out in practice or in theory:
incest didn't do the Ptolemies much harm.

Stuart Williams

[Robert de Vincy]

Stuart Williams did write:

[snip]

Post by Stuart Williams
We tend to try to justify many of these rules (such as
the incest taboo) by appealing to scientific knowledge -

The "rule" against incest is one that ensures the genetic health
of any species or community that follows it (by whatever means --
the details are immaterial, so long as incest avoidance is implemented
it doesn't matter *how* it happens).

Yes, other human social rules might have no actual basis in fact, but
incest avoidance is definitely not one of the arbitrary ones. Create
any society in which incest is the norm and you will eventually
reach a point several generations down the line where inbreeding
depression is so bad that the society can not continue because of the
build-up of deleterious genetic mutations and the effects of harmful
recessives that were present at the inception of the society. With no
outbreeding taking place, there are fewer opportunities for
heterozygosity to do its masking-the-harmful-alleles job.

An inbreeding community is not sustainable. Life has evolved to cope
with the genetic mutation rate with an assumption that there is the
necessary variation to counter the effects of harmful recessives and
deleterious mutations. Remove that assumed variation and you mess up
the fine balancing act that has evolved.

Post by Stuart Williams
but a lot of the cartoonish beliefs about inbreeding
incest didn't do the Ptolemies much harm.

There is a huge body of work and research on the effects of inbreeding
depression (do a Google search for that exact term, for starters). Are
you saying that all of that research is wrong and that you have proof
that incest avoidance is just some whimsy that animals take part in for a
bit of a laugh?

[Stuart Williams]

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snip]

Post by Stuart Williams
We tend to try to justify many of these rules (such as
the incest taboo) by appealing to scientific knowledge -

The "rule" against incest is one that ensures the genetic health
of any species or community that follows it (by whatever means --
the details are immaterial, so long as incest avoidance is implemented
it doesn't matter *how* it happens).
Yes, other human social rules might have no actual basis in fact, but
incest avoidance is definitely not one of the arbitrary ones. Create
any society in which incest is the norm and you will eventually
reach a point several generations down the line where inbreeding
depression is so bad that the society can not continue because of the
build-up of deleterious genetic mutations and the effects of harmful
recessives that were present at the inception of the society. With no
outbreeding taking place, there are fewer opportunities for
heterozygosity to do its masking-the-harmful-alleles job.

But the truth of this doesn't refute what I said: if a
society developed a rule that actually required incest,
it would, according to you and Google (than whom is no
greater authority) become non-viable. My point is that a
society could well develop such a rule - it just
wouldn't survive for very long. My point about the
Ptolemies you seem to have ignored. Once you get to the
level of the ruling family, one could easily imagine
that e.g. the idiots, the blind, the drooling, et al.,
could be despatched (according to some other rule),
leaving the pure reinforced royal bloodline to march on
unopposed. As a matter of interest, how do you explain
the fact that the Hellenic dynasty that ruled Egypt (the
last of which was Cleopatra) had as its rule that
brothers married sisters or nieces?

Post by Robert de Vincy
There is a huge body of work and research on the effects of inbreeding
depression (do a Google search for that exact term, for starters). Are
you saying that all of that research is wrong and that you have proof
that incest avoidance is just some whimsy that animals take part in for a
bit of a laugh?

No: I'm saying that rule-making in this area cannot
possibly be driven by evolutionary biology since the
rule-adopters have largely been entirely unaware of any
such scientific theory (until the present day - and our
incest-taboo rules are even now not posited upon the
results of biological theory). And I say once again,
what about the Ptolemies? And the Habsburgs (arguably
the most successful ruling elite in the history of the
world)? To save you the trouble, I'm well aware that
some of the results were disastrous, but the point
remains - there was no rule to prevent it from happening
- this was not transgressive, in other words.

SW

[Robert de Vincy]

Stuart Williams did write:

[snip]

My point about the Ptolemies you seem to have ignored.

Because I don't know enough about that particular case to comment on
it. Are we 100% sure that no outbreeding took place? All it would
take is the occasional non-incestuous reproduction to inject a fresh
batch of genetic variety into the line to go some way towards re-
vitalizing it. The occasional "illicit affair" every once in a while
and the whole experiment is ruined. Can we, with 100% certainty, use
them as an example of strict inbreeding lasting for many generations?

Once you get to the level of the ruling family, one could easily
imagine that e.g. the idiots, the blind, the drooling, et al.,
could be despatched (according to some other rule), leaving the pure
reinforced royal bloodline to march on unopposed. As a matter of
interest, how do you explain the fact that the Hellenic dynasty that
ruled Egypt (the last of which was Cleopatra) had as its rule that
brothers married sisters or nieces?

I can't. Not because it contradicts what I believe about the necessity
for incest avoidance but because I would need to know for certain that
this rule was followed perfectly before I could hold that line up as an
example of inbreeding producing a successful lineage. Being married to
someone does not automatically mean that the children produced from that
marriage are related to both of the marriage partners. Just examine the
British royal lineage through history and count the number of
illegitimate offspring that crop up.

No: I'm saying that rule-making in this area cannot possibly be driven
by evolutionary biology since the rule-adopters have largely been
entirely unaware of any such scientific theory

But the awareness is not necessary. A breeding strategy biased too
heavily towards inbreeding is not a winning one. It won't last. Any
society (or species, for that matter) that goes along the incest-biased
route is doomed not to last. Any society/species that goes along the
incest-avoidance route *will* survive. The members don't have to
consciously decide which route to take. Any group that takes the winning
route will survive; any group that finds itself following the other route
won't be around for too long. So, when we look at the societies and the
species that we have today, what do we see? The ones that have, by
whatever means, followed the incest-avoidance route. A society or
species *might* arise in which incest-avoidance is absent (for whatever
reason). But it won't last long. It is doomed to fade away unless it
can introduce enough outbreeding to keep the variation at the right
level to counter the genetic mutation rate and the mathematical might of
harmful recesssives.

(until the present day - and our incest-taboo rules are even now not
posited upon the results of biological theory). And I say once again,
what about the Ptolemies? And the Habsburgs (arguably the most
successful ruling elite in the history of the world)? To save you the
trouble, I'm well aware that some of the results were disastrous, but
the point remains - there was no rule to prevent it from happening -
this was not transgressive, in other words.

But was there a rule that enforced and demanded inbreeding? The freedom
to breed with whomever introduces the chance for a revitalization of the
genetic material in that line.

You started by claiming that "a lot of the cartoonish beliefs about
inbreeding aren't actually borne out in practice or in theory" and
offering the Ptolemies as proof to back up that statement. I reject
such a statement for two (main) reasons.
1. The experiments and studies done on inbreeding show that it is
incredibly harmful in only a few generation-times, leading to
inbreeding depression which will inevitably result in non-viable
offspring. Outbreeding is a necessary requirement for a successful
lineage, and any species or society that encourages as much incest-
avoidance as possible will be the genetically most successful.
2. Can we really take it on blind faith that inbreeding took place
exclusively in those lines that we wish to hold up as examples of
non-harmful inbreeding?

Incest avoidance is not arbitrary. It's not even something created by
humans; various strategies that lead to incest avoidance can be witnessed
in the behaviours of apes and monkeys. It's something that our prehistoric
ancestors already had a tendency to exhibit, and I would bet a serious
sum of money that if I took the time to start getting even further away
from humans and to research mammals that are genetically more distant
from our species then I would find similar incest avoidance behaviours
there, too.

[Stuart Williams]

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snip]

My point about the Ptolemies you seem to have ignored.

Because I don't know enough about that particular case to comment on
it. Are we 100% sure that no outbreeding took place? All it would
take is the occasional non-incestuous reproduction to inject a fresh
batch of genetic variety into the line to go some way towards re-
vitalizing it. The occasional "illicit affair" every once in a while
and the whole experiment is ruined. Can we, with 100% certainty, use
them as an example of strict inbreeding lasting for many generations?

Once you get to the level of the ruling family, one could easily
imagine that e.g. the idiots, the blind, the drooling, et al.,
could be despatched (according to some other rule), leaving the pure
reinforced royal bloodline to march on unopposed. As a matter of
interest, how do you explain the fact that the Hellenic dynasty that
ruled Egypt (the last of which was Cleopatra) had as its rule that
brothers married sisters or nieces?

I can't. Not because it contradicts what I believe about the necessity
for incest avoidance but because I would need to know for certain that
this rule was followed perfectly before I could hold that line up as an
example of inbreeding producing a successful lineage. Being married to
someone does not automatically mean that the children produced from that
marriage are related to both of the marriage partners. Just examine the
British royal lineage through history and count the number of
illegitimate offspring that crop up.

Aren't you in danger of making your claim irrefutable?
It would obviously be impossible, without extensive DNA
testing of hundreds of mummies, to check that no new
genes had entered the line. And how many bastard
offspring of any British king or queen were kinged or
queened themselves?

Post by Robert de Vincy

No: I'm saying that rule-making in this area cannot possibly be driven
by evolutionary biology since the rule-adopters have largely been
entirely unaware of any such scientific theory

But the awareness is not necessary. A breeding strategy biased too
heavily towards inbreeding is not a winning one. It won't last. Any
society (or species, for that matter) that goes along the incest-biased
route is doomed not to last. Any society/species that goes along the
incest-avoidance route *will* survive.

<snip>

I didn't quote any more since I think we don't actually
disagree on anything important. My point was that rules
on marriage are still possibly arbitrary, not least
because it seems unlikely that any pre-scientific
society knew that inbreeding was an evolutionary blind
alley. Your point that such a rule in survival
terms would be self-defeating is, I thought, the point I
had already made myself!

I have to admit, biology and genetics is an area of
scientific knowledge I'm weak on (we weren't encouraged
to do it at school - it was seen as intellectually
inferior to Physics and Chemistry in those days), but I
have a strong feeling that animal husbandry makes use of
the offspring of closely-related animals to improve
breeds. As I said earlier, if the Ptolemies and
Habsburgs had a policy of culling the obviously
genetically-damaged results of their rule, there is no
reason why significant numbers of individuals might not
turn out to be rather good specimens of their
bloodlines. But by all means refute me.

SW

[Robert de Vincy]

BdeV says...

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snip]

My point about the Ptolemies you seem to have ignored.

Because I don't know enough about that particular case to comment on
it. Are we 100% sure that no outbreeding took place? All it would
take is the occasional non-incestuous reproduction to inject a fresh
batch of genetic variety into the line to go some way towards re-
vitalizing it. The occasional "illicit affair" every once in a while
and the whole experiment is ruined. Can we, with 100% certainty, use
them as an example of strict inbreeding lasting for many generations?

Once you get to the level of the ruling family, one could easily
imagine that e.g. the idiots, the blind, the drooling, et al.,
could be despatched (according to some other rule), leaving the pure
reinforced royal bloodline to march on unopposed. As a matter of
interest, how do you explain the fact that the Hellenic dynasty that
ruled Egypt (the last of which was Cleopatra) had as its rule that
brothers married sisters or nieces?

I can't. Not because it contradicts what I believe about the
necessity for incest avoidance but because I would need to know for
certain that this rule was followed perfectly before I could hold that
line up as an example of inbreeding producing a successful lineage.
Being married to someone does not automatically mean that the children
produced from that marriage are related to both of the marriage
partners. Just examine the British royal lineage through history and
count the number of illegitimate offspring that crop up.

Aren't you in danger of making your claim irrefutable?

Um, I thought I was responding to *your* claim about the "cartoonish"
ideas we supposedly have about inbreeding.

But if by "your claim" you are referring to my insistence that inbreeding
*is* bad and a dead-end, then I don't think I'm making it universally
irrefutable, perhaps just irrefutable for your particular example of a
'good' but inbred line. Studies on many other kinds of animals have
shown how damaging intensive inbreeding can be (that is, purely sibling-
based reproduction for several generations). Unless we have proof that
humans obey other laws of genetics, I think it is safe to say that such
research can be generalized to *any* species that uses DNA-based genes
for its continuing existence.

I didn't quote any more since I think we don't actually
disagree on anything important. My point was that rules
on marriage are still possibly arbitrary, not least
because it seems unlikely that any pre-scientific
society knew that inbreeding was an evolutionary blind
alley. Your point that such a rule in survival
terms would be self-defeating is, I thought, the point I
had already made myself!

Really? Perhaps I misread your reply and responded too hastily,
then.

I have to admit, biology and genetics is an area of
scientific knowledge I'm weak on (we weren't encouraged
to do it at school - it was seen as intellectually
inferior to Physics and Chemistry in those days), but I
have a strong feeling that animal husbandry makes use of
the offspring of closely-related animals to improve
breeds.

Yes. Certain "good" traits can be enhanced by selective breeding
(which includes inbreeding). But only to a certain point. There's
a limit to how far one can keep on with the 'enhancement' part of
the breeding programme before the inbreeding depression effects kick in
and you end up with infertile, sickly, or dead offspring.

As I said earlier, if the Ptolemies and Habsburgs had a policy of
culling the obviously genetically-damaged results of their rule, there
is no reason why significant numbers of individuals might not
turn out to be rather good specimens of their bloodlines. But by all
means refute me.

Unfortunately, there are ethical constraints to the kind of human-based
breeding experiments one can do, so I think it would be hard to find out
in the real world just how long such a policy could continue before
inbreeding depression took its toll on even the 'healthiest' of each
generation. My suspicion ('educated guess') is that we would reach a
point where the available brood from which to pick the healthiest to
continue to the next generation would be a very poor crop indeed.
And as we discussed earlier, relying on an uncontrolled line to police
itself and make sure that inbreeding was strictly adhered to is full of
the complications of human nature.

[Adam Atkinson]

Post by Stuart Williams
I remember something Claude Levi-Strauss wrote about the
incest taboo: (paraphrasing from memory) What is
important about the not-marrying-in rule is that it is a
rule. Quite a lot of his works have had the effect of
blinding revelation on me (I think everyone should read
The Raw And The Cooked, for example), and that thought
was one of them - societies need rules *and it doesn't
much matter what the rule actually is*.

Well, as regards e.g. driving on the left or the right, that's
probably true enough. They're both fine and splendid, but everyone in
a particular area should do the same one. Of course, if they somehow
gain the status of being (supposedly) divinely mandated, then this
would be one of the sources of conflict I notionally worry about, but
quite apart from it seeming unlikely that there are religions which
dictate this, I can't drive.

Post by Stuart Williams
As someone else
has pointed out, in some tribes men go and live with
their wives' families, in others, the wives go and live
with their husbands'. There is no point in looking for
some sort of objective advantage in either arrangement.

Probably not.

Post by Stuart Williams
We tend to try to justify many of these rules (such as
the incest taboo) by appealing to scientific knowledge -
but a lot of the cartoonish beliefs about inbreeding
incest didn't do the Ptolemies much harm.

Inbreeding is very very bad for you, and can do awful things
in a tiny number of generations. I don't think it's fair to imagine
that prohibitions on e.g. brothers and sisters marrying are arbitrary.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Stuart Williams

Post by Adam Atkinson
I was thinking more about castes, marrying out, restrictions
on who can marry Levis and Cohens, that sort of thing,
than about incest taboos. There are slight variations from society
to society about how close a relative is too close even there, though,
so it's a possible source of conflicting rules, I suppose.

I remember something Claude Levi-Strauss wrote about the
incest taboo: (paraphrasing from memory) What is
important about the not-marrying-in rule is that it is a
rule. Quite a lot of his works have had the effect of
blinding revelation on me (I think everyone should read
The Raw And The Cooked, for example), and that thought
was one of them - societies need rules *and it doesn't
much matter what the rule actually is*.

Ah, yes, I had "The Raw and the Cooked" in mind in my arguing with
Adam. Different societies have different rules, and the rules need to
form a coherent whole. That doesn't necessarily mean only one coherent
whole can exist. I agree - if Adam wishes to be a sloppy ignorant
atheist, and wants to become a well-informed atheist and respectful
atheist, "The Raw and the Cooked" would be good reading.

Matthew Huntbach

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson
Of course. We were all created with our memories etc. already in
place. Likewise objects in motion, fossils, light already on its way
between the Sun and us, etc.

Well, I guess if you were a Calvinist you could say that. But not if you
were a Catholic.

The cat example is, I hope obviously, not something I actually believe.
However, it's as good a random example as any.

Well, no it isn't. There isn't any major religion which says "God is
that particular animal over there" or anything like it. So to raise it
as somehow a "typical" belief is quite clearly wrong.

What I was actually talking about was your words "We were all created
..." quoted above. This does raise the important issue of free will.
This was a fundamental part of the argument between Protestants and
Catholics, with Calvinist Protestants in particular holding to the
position you put in the paragraph quoted above, one in which there is
no free will.

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Matthew Huntbach
There is a general human taboo on marrying close relatives, but this is not
a fundamental religious belief, and it tends to be similar across
societies. I am not aware, for example of any prominent religion which
compels one to marry one's sister.

I was thinking more about castes, marrying out, restrictions
on who can marry Levis and Cohens, that sort of thing,
than about incest taboos.

Yes, and I don't recall seeing any material used for religious
eduction on Judaism going into details on whoi can marry Levis and
Cohens.

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Taboos about eating meat seem to be
more common than taboos about other foodstuffs.

True, but I was also thinking about requirements to fast or feast,
or eat particular items on particular days. If any of those particular
items were totally prohibited in another religion I was trying to placate,
that would be a problem.

No-one is saying you should be forced to adopt the particular
practices of any religion. The whole point of religious education in a
modern liberal society is that we accept that different people have
different practices, and we can try and accommodate those practices
where possible. For example, as a Catholic I am not supposed to eat
meat on Ash Wednesday. It might be useful for you to know this so that
youy might understand why I might find it awkward if you offered me a
surprise meal on that day. However, I am not, nor is any Catholic,
asking you to "placate" me by yourself not eating meat on that day.

Post by Adam Atkinson
I don't need _all_ the rules to be arbitrary and random. Even if just
a few are, I'm in trouble.

Why are you "in trouble"? No-one is forcing you to adopt other
religion's practices.

Post by Adam Atkinson
Another possibility would be two perfectly valid solutions to a real
problem coming into conflict. e.g. one tradition where young men
move away (as BdeV mentions) and one where young women do. There's
nothing wrong with either of them, but trying to satisfy both
at once might be a problem (unless BOTH moving away is satisfactory to
both groups, of course).

Sorry, what major religion forces such restrictions on people these
days?
What you are talking about is anthropology, not religious education.

Post by Adam Atkinson
Islam appears to have the death penalty for apostasy, though
perhaps I'm woefully misinformed on this as on so many other matters.

Yes, there are some extremist Muslims who say things like that. But by
putting this down as a belief of "Islam" you are accusing all Muslims
of having this belief. So why did you react angrily when I accused you
of taking the typical sloppy atheist line of supposing that all
religion exists only in its most extremist form - because here you
are, doing just that again.

Post by Adam Atkinson
I was, of course, also thinking about the usual things about
stoning disobedient children that one can find in the Old Testament.

Yes, and what modern religion advocates stoning disobedient children?
Again and again you take the sloppy ignorant atheist attitude to
religion by assuming that all religion must be of an extreme
fundamentalist form. You completely ignore, for example, that right at
the centre of Christianity is the debate over the applicability of the
Old Testament law - and its rejection. Go and read the Acts of the
Apostles, or Paul's Letter to the Roamns or something, or maybe some
modern theological writing, instead of lazily pontificating aboutr itr
from a position of complete igonrance.

Post by Adam Atkinson
Another possible source of conflict would be which bits of my or
other people's bodies I can, must or must not decorate, tattoo, scar
or remove. Of course I'd like to imagine that this stuff is less
important than not killing people, but it's hardly for me to say
what's important and what's not, is it?

Well, here we go once again - you assume all religion is of an
extremist sort in which there is no debate about what is fundamental
and what is incidental, and you must just do what you are told rather
than think about it.

Post by Adam Atkinson
They tend to, no doubt. Most of my problems in trying to satisfy
multiple religions at once would come from the randomer ones, but
consider observing Friday, Saturday AND Sunday appropriately
to keep Islam, Judaism and Christianity at bay (if I were Jewish to
start with, I suppose.)

But no-one is saying you should try to keep religions "at bay". All
that is being asked for is that you live and let live - that you
accept that different people have different traditions.

Matthew Huntbach

[cowboy carl]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Taboos about eating meat seem to be
more common than taboos about other foodstuffs.

True, but I was also thinking about requirements to fast or feast,
or eat particular items on particular days. If any of those particular
items were totally prohibited in another religion I was trying to placate,
that would be a problem.

No-one is saying you should be forced to adopt the particular
practices of any religion. The whole point of religious education in a
modern liberal society is that we accept that different people have
different practices, and we can try and accommodate those practices
where possible. For example, as a Catholic I am not supposed to eat
meat on Ash Wednesday. It might be useful for you to know this so that
youy might understand why I might find it awkward if you offered me a
surprise meal on that day. However, I am not, nor is any Catholic,
asking you to "placate" me by yourself not eating meat on that day.

That's all well and good, and I expect most religious people are like
that. Grand.

However a lot of religions have a big thing about trying to convert
people to their religion. Okay, this is probably less than it used to
be, but it's still there.

Little quote from a book on Ethics:

First the Buddhist talked of the ways to calm, the mastery of desire,
the path of enlightenment, and the panellists all said, "Wow, terrific,
if that works for you that's great." Then the Hindu talked of the cycles
of suffering and birth and rebirth, the teaching of Krishna and the way
to release, and they all said, "Wow, terrific, if that works for you
that's great." And so on, until the Catholic priest talked of the
message of Jesus Christ, the promise of salvation, and the way to life
eternal, and they all said, "Wow, terrific, if that works for you that's
great." And he thumped the table and shouted, "No! It's not a question
of if it works for me! It's the true word of the living God, and if you
don't believe it you're all damned to hell!"

And they all said, "Wow, terrific, if that works for you that's great."

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson
I was, of course, also thinking about the usual things about
stoning disobedient children that one can find in the Old Testament.

Yes, and what modern religion advocates stoning disobedient children?
Again and again you take the sloppy ignorant atheist attitude to
religion by assuming that all religion must be of an extreme
fundamentalist form. You completely ignore, for example, that right at
the centre of Christianity is the debate over the applicability of the
Old Testament law - and its rejection. Go and read the Acts of the
Apostles, or Paul's Letter to the Roamns or something, or maybe some
modern theological writing, instead of lazily pontificating aboutr itr
from a position of complete igonrance.

There are references to child abuse in the New Testament too.

The thing is, you have this book which you either believe to be the word
of God, or you don't.

If you do, then it's all true and must be obeyed.

If you don't, then you get to pick and choose which bits to consider
"applicable" and which bits to ignore. In which case, what is the point
of the book in the first place?

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson
They tend to, no doubt. Most of my problems in trying to satisfy
multiple religions at once would come from the randomer ones, but
consider observing Friday, Saturday AND Sunday appropriately
to keep Islam, Judaism and Christianity at bay (if I were Jewish to
start with, I suppose.)

But no-one is saying you should try to keep religions "at bay". All
that is being asked for is that you live and let live - that you
accept that different people have different traditions.

Athetists accept that better than religious people. Many religions say
you cannot accept that, and praise you for spreading your religion to as
many people as possible.

cc

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
No-one is saying you should be forced to adopt the particular
practices of any religion. The whole point of religious education in a
modern liberal society is that we accept that different people have
different practices, and we can try and accommodate those practices
where possible. For example, as a Catholic I am not supposed to eat
meat on Ash Wednesday. It might be useful for you to know this so that
youy might understand why I might find it awkward if you offered me a
surprise meal on that day. However, I am not, nor is any Catholic,
asking you to "placate" me by yourself not eating meat on that day.

That's all well and good, and I expect most religious people are like that.
Grand.
However a lot of religions have a big thing about trying to convert people
to their religion. Okay, this is probably less than it used to be, but it's
still there.

I think the problem is that those who do this the most tend to be the
most loud-mouthed and extreme. So people see a loud-mouthed extremist
Muslim or Christian and think all Muslims and Christians are like that.
But, in any case, what has this to do with religious education in
schools, which is what we are talking about? I'd have thought people
can better weigh up the claims of the loud-mouthed evangelicals if they've
had some more balacned religious education beforehand.

First the Buddhist talked of the ways to calm, the mastery of desire, the
path of enlightenment, and the panellists all said, "Wow, terrific, if that
works for you that's great." Then the Hindu talked of the cycles of
suffering and birth and rebirth, the teaching of Krishna and the way to
release, and they all said, "Wow, terrific, if that works for you that's
great." And so on, until the Catholic priest talked of the message of Jesus
Christ, the promise of salvation, and the way to life eternal, and they all
said, "Wow, terrific, if that works for you that's great." And he thumped
the table and shouted, "No! It's not a question of if it works for me! It's
the true word of the living God, and if you don't believe it you're all
damned to hell!"

Here we go, anti-Catholic prejudice again. I have never in over 40 years
of attending Catholic services and being involved in the Catholic Church
heard a priest say anything like that or adopt that attitude. Yet STILL
ignorant, sloppy and prejudiced people like you and Adam go on saying
that's what Catholics are like.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson
I was, of course, also thinking about the usual things about
stoning disobedient children that one can find in the Old Testament.

Yes, and what modern religion advocates stoning disobedient children?
Again and again you take the sloppy ignorant atheist attitude to
religion by assuming that all religion must be of an extreme
fundamentalist form. You completely ignore, for example, that right at
the centre of Christianity is the debate over the applicability of the
Old Testament law - and its rejection. Go and read the Acts of the
Apostles, or Paul's Letter to the Roamns or something, or maybe some
modern theological writing, instead of lazily pontificating aboutr itr
from a position of complete igonrance.

There are references to child abuse in the New Testament too.

So where in the New Testament does it advocat stoning disobedient
children?

The thing is, you have this book which you either believe to be the word of
God, or you don't.
If you do, then it's all true and must be obeyed.
If you don't, then you get to pick and choose which bits to consider
"applicable" and which bits to ignore. In which case, what is the point of
the book in the first place?

Here we go, the sloppy, ignorant atheist view of religion which holds that
the only form of religion that can exist is the fundamentalist one.

The Bible is NOT a rule-book that can just be obeyed. It's a collection
of all sorts of things. The whole POINT of Christianity, which is
explicit in various texts in the New Testament is about the REJECTION
of the idea of religion as an arbitrary set of rules that must be obeyed.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
But no-one is saying you should try to keep religions "at bay". All
that is being asked for is that you live and let live - that you
accept that different people have different traditions.

Athetists accept that better than religious people. Many religions say you
cannot accept that, and praise you for spreading your religion to as many
people as possible.

The only reason I ever mention my religion in usenet is that I come across
so many people, paarticularly people who are evangelical atheists who
lie and make ignorant remarks to try and spread their belief, who continue
to express extreme prejudice against it and who say things about it which
are offensive and untrue. I would rather not have wasted a whole morning
on this today, but what to do when people like you and Adam insist on
insulting me by the the false things you say about my religion?

Matthew Huntbach

[Rebecca Loader]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
The Bible is NOT a rule-book that can just be obeyed. It's a collection
of all sorts of things. The whole POINT of Christianity, which is
explicit in various texts in the New Testament is about the REJECTION
of the idea of religion as an arbitrary set of rules that must be obeyed.

It's interesting to think how Christianity might have been today - and
particularly how the entire history of Jewish-Christian relations might have
been different - if it had followed the Jerusalem Church's conception and
continued to advocate legal observance, circumcision and so on. Personally,
I find that much easier to stomach; I find Christianity as understood by
Paul (and distorted by, for example, Luther) too much of a leap.

Becky

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by Matthew Huntbach
The Bible is NOT a rule-book that can just be obeyed. It's a collection
of all sorts of things. The whole POINT of Christianity, which is
explicit in various texts in the New Testament is about the REJECTION
of the idea of religion as an arbitrary set of rules that must be obeyed.

It's interesting to think how Christianity might have been today - and
particularly how the entire history of Jewish-Christian relations might have
been different - if it had followed the Jerusalem Church's conception and
continued to advocate legal observance, circumcision and so on. Personally,
I find that much easier to stomach; I find Christianity as understood by
Paul (and distorted by, for example, Luther) too much of a leap.

It's not just Paul. A central point of Jesus' teaching as reported in
the Gospels is his anger with the Pharisees for the way they sought to
be perfect Jews by strict observance of the Law, and yet somehow
seemed to miss the humanitarian message of "love of neighbour".

Had Christianity not made this radical break, it would have remained
just a trend within Judaism, probably disappearing within a few
generations.

Matthew Huntbach

[Rebecca Loader]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
It's not just Paul. A central point of Jesus' teaching as reported in
the Gospels is his anger with the Pharisees for the way they sought to
be perfect Jews by strict observance of the Law, and yet somehow
seemed to miss the humanitarian message of "love of neighbour".

Yes, that occurs, but it's fully in accordance with Jewish prophetic
tradition. Look at Isaiah, most famously - Judaism has a history of
criticism from the faithful within. Just as you criticising the Catholic
Church does not mean you think the whole system is corrupt and at fault, so
Jesus' criticism of certain traits within Judaism does not mean he's
suggesting the necessity of a radically different conception of the religion
and, most importantly, the Law. Jesus was probably no different from other
first century Jewish teachers in that respect. The gospels hold that he
came 'not to abolish [the Law and the prophets], but to fulfil them' (Mt
5.17), after all.

Many Christians might be interested in recent scholarship that suggests that
Jesus' teaching and Pharasaic Judaism probably shared much in common, and
that such New Testament passages as you describe may more accurately have
reflected tensions within the early church (attempts to establish
Christianity as different from Pharisaism and win adherents) than debates
Jesus conducted at the time.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Had Christianity not made this radical break, it would have remained
just a trend within Judaism, probably disappearing within a few
generations.

Who's to know? It's likely and, at any rate, it probably wouldn't have
grown as it has, but within any religion there are all number of branches.

Becky

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by Matthew Huntbach
It's not just Paul. A central point of Jesus' teaching as reported in
the Gospels is his anger with the Pharisees for the way they sought to
be perfect Jews by strict observance of the Law, and yet somehow
seemed to miss the humanitarian message of "love of neighbour".

Yes, that occurs, but it's fully in accordance with Jewish prophetic
tradition. Look at Isaiah, most famously - Judaism has a history of
criticism from the faithful within. Just as you criticising the Catholic
Church does not mean you think the whole system is corrupt and at fault, so
Jesus' criticism of certain traits within Judaism does not mean he's
suggesting the necessity of a radically different conception of the
religion and, most importantly, the Law.

Sure. My point is that had the break not been made, Christianity would
not have emerged as a separate religion.

Post by Rebecca Loader
Many Christians might be interested in recent scholarship that suggests
that Jesus' teaching and Pharasaic Judaism probably shared much in common,
and that such New Testament passages as you describe may more accurately
have reflected tensions within the early church (attempts to establish
Christianity as different from Pharisaism and win adherents) than debates
Jesus conducted at the time.

Sure, I think it's widely accepted that Jesus came from the background
of Pharasaic Judaism. This was itself a vital break from the Temple
religion with its rituals of animal sacrifice, without that break
Judaism would have been nothing more than just another tribal cult.

Christianity made the further break of seeking converts from outside
the Jewish race. Whether Jesus intended this or not is, of course,
another thing that can be questioned. Jesus is recorded as making
overtures to the Samaritans, which shocked orthodox Jews. But, of course,
it was Paul who was "apostle to the gentiles". The Jewish Law is, of
course, natural to those brought up in it, but one can see right from
the start the tension once gentiles are inducted into the religion -
particularly the painful issue of adult circumcision. So the question
is how much of the Law is simply ritual appropriate for one particular
tribe, and how much of it is God's message to all humanity.

What I find most interesting about Acts and the Epistles is the way
these issues are carefully talked through. Like you, at one time I
didn't have much timne for Paul, but I now have a better appreciation
of him as someone seriously trying to work out a way of bringing the
humanitarian insights of Pharasaic Judaism to the wider world. Some
of the dilemmas which he faces seem very modern, much like the dilemmas
faced by religion today.

Matthew Huntbach

[Rebecca Loader]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
What I find most interesting about Acts and the Epistles is the way
these issues are carefully talked through. Like you, at one time I
didn't have much timne for Paul, but I now have a better appreciation
of him as someone seriously trying to work out a way of bringing the
humanitarian insights of Pharasaic Judaism to the wider world. Some
of the dilemmas which he faces seem very modern, much like the dilemmas
faced by religion today.

Oh, no, I actually have a lot of time for Paul's letters. I think they're
very interesting, not only in terms of the theological tour de force but
also culturally and historically, and he argues in a very sophisticated
manner (if not always entirely logical by contemporary expectations, they
are at least masterful in their use of rhetoric). I can see how he grapples
with the issues; I just can't always understand how he reaches his
conclusion and whether the theology developed in response to issues arising
in one particular community should be applicable to the whole church through
history.

Becky

[cowboy carl]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by cowboy carl
Athetists accept that better than religious people. Many religions
say you cannot accept that, and praise you for spreading your religion
to as many people as possible.

The only reason I ever mention my religion in usenet is that I come across
so many people, paarticularly people who are evangelical atheists who
lie and make ignorant remarks to try and spread their belief, who continue
to express extreme prejudice against it and who say things about it which
are offensive and untrue. I would rather not have wasted a whole morning
on this today, but what to do when people like you and Adam insist on
insulting me by the the false things you say about my religion?

I avoid talking about religon with most people because religious people
tend to find non-religious views and arguments to be highly offensive,
and I can see why, if someone said to me "I think everything you believe
in is wrong" then, well, it's not a happy conversation starter.

Atheists don't lie to spread their beliefs ... they might be misinformed
when they talk about other people's beliefs, but as I say, everyone
believes different things.

If I am told by a christian that they don't believe free will exists,
and that they believe I am going to hell, then I can argue those points,
and then go on to use them as examples of what some christians believe
in other discussions.

So it raises the problem of where do I go in order to find out what the
core beliefs of a certain religion are?

And what's more, if it's just "be nice to your neighbour" etc. then
what's the point of religion, since most atheists probably believe it's
good to be nice to your neighbour.

I dunno, just seems to be religion is a bit pointless, and what's more
is the cause of much hatred around the world.

Feel free to enlighten me. One thing I hate is when people just say "no
you are wrong, and you are being rude" but they don't make any attempt
to correct the person who they believe is wrong (I'm not saying you have
been doing that ... I'm just saying ... in general ... and one person
specifcally ... who knows who she is ... but shall remain nameless...)

cc

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by cowboy carl
Athetists accept that better than religious people. Many religions say
you cannot accept that, and praise you for spreading your religion to
as many people as possible.

The only reason I ever mention my religion in usenet is that I come
across so many people, particularly people who are evangelical atheists
who lie and make ignorant remarks to try and spread their belief, who
continue to express extreme prejudice against it and who say things
about it which are offensive and untrue.

I avoid talking about religon with most people because religious people
tend to find non-religious views and arguments to be highly offensive, and
I can see why, if someone said to me "I think everything you believe in is
wrong" then, well, it's not a happy conversation starter.

I'm not offended if someone disagrees with me. In an appropriate context,
such as an appropriate usenet group, I'm not offended if they wish
to argue about it. I am offended, however, if someone goes round
accusing me or a group with which I'm associated of holding beliefs
or doing things which I or the group do not. That is why I have no
problem with Adam stating that he believes everything Catholics say
is wrong, but I am offended when he says that the "current Catholic
worldview" is that anyone who is not a Catholic will go to hell (or
when you pass on a joke which amounts to suggesting the same thing),
since I know it is not, but it fits in with a prejudiced and wrong
view of Catholic as "people who like the idea of condemning everyone
else to hell".

Post by cowboy carl
Atheists don't lie to spread their beliefs ... they might be misinformed
when they talk about other people's beliefs, but as I say, everyone
believes different things.

Well, it shifts from being misinformed to not bothering to check
your facts because your misinformation happens to fit your prejudices,
to deliberately lying because even though you know what you are saying
isn't true, you think your audience won't check and it helps your case.
I don't think people who have a hatred of religion are any less likely
than people who have strong beliefs of other sorts to slip from the
first of these to the second then to the third.

Post by cowboy carl
If I am told by a christian that they don't believe free will exists, and
that they believe I am going to hell, then I can argue those points, and
then go on to use them as examples of what some christians believe in
other discussions.

The problem is that most people who are moderate Christians tend to
be happy to use a denominational label and accept theirs is not the
only interpretation of Christianity. For example, I will always describe
myself as "Catholic", not "Christian". The sort of person who just
calls themselves "Christian" and insists that the beliefs they are
putting forward are just "Christianity" is often (ok, not always)
someone of extreme fundamentalist views i.e. someone who is not
typical of mainstream Christianity.

Post by cowboy carl
So it raises the problem of where do I go in order to find out what the
core beliefs of a certain religion are?

If the religion has no central authority that is accepted as the holder
of the core beliefs, there is nowhere to go. At best you can try and see
if there are some beliefs which almost everyone who holds to that
religion agrees with.

Post by cowboy carl
And what's more, if it's just "be nice to your neighbour" etc. then what's
the point of religion, since most atheists probably believe it's good to
be nice to your neighbour.
I dunno, just seems to be religion is a bit pointless, and what's more is
the cause of much hatred around the world.

As captured by that great atheist hymn, John Lennon's "Imagine".
The idea that if there were no religion everyone would be loving and
peaceful and would share everything is, well perhaps it was more
believeable in the past than now. The Communist dictators believed
it so much they thought that if they killed and persecuted religious
people it would help bring about communism. Of course, we don't have to
imagine a non-religious society - we live in one. Religious belief has
dwindled away in modern Britain, at least in terms of practice of
mainstream religion. Is modern Britain more happier and with less
hatred than most of parts of the world and Britan in the past when
religion was more widely practiced? I think not.

Matthew Huntbach

[Adam Atkinson]

I had planned not to write in this thread any further, because
annoying Matthew is not, whatever people might imagine, my primary
motivation in life.

I had also imagined that the best thing to do was simply to shut up.
I have almost certainly been responsible for Matthew's leaving the
newsgroup on a previous occasion, and since a real live admissions
tutor is clearly a more useful contributor to this newsgroup than I
am, I didn't want to risk causing this again.

However, it could be that I was wrong. Since Matthew has just
mentioned me, I have decided it might be better to say something than
not.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
That is why I have no
problem with Adam stating that he believes everything Catholics say
is wrong, but I am offended when he says that the "current Catholic
worldview" is that anyone who is not a Catholic will go to hell

I was saying that I had been told _I_ would go to Hell. I'm pretty
sure I wasn't told why. My first guess was "not baptised?", and
based on examination of the catechism section of the Vatican web site,
it looks like that's quite sufficient (yes, there are a number of
notes about exceptions to this being a necessity, but I don't think
any of them apply to me.) My second guess was "not a Catholic?" and it
was a very bad guess. I really don't want Ross blamed for either of
these guesses, and I asked him if he'd be so kind as to write in the
thread to minimise the risk of misrepresenting him. We'd just been talking
about baptism (for JP: typing about baptism) when me going to Hell came up,
which is why I guessed that was most likely the reason. Actually, when I
next had the chance to talk (type) to Ross, he said he'd been thinking of
atheism or idolatory (cf my cat).

For the sake of clarity I do not, in fact, believe that my cat created
the universe. I don't even have a cat. (I used to, and it's pretty
likely that I first used the "my cat / 25 mins" example back when I
did, though I'm not sure about this.)

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I don't think people who have a hatred of religion are any less likely
than people who have strong beliefs of other sorts to slip from the
first of these to the second then to the third.

I'm not sure if you think I'm a person who has a hatred of religion. I
don't "get" it, and consider it pretty peculiar, but I'd
say the same of all sorts of things. I probably even distrust it, on
the whole, especially when it seems threatening or oppressive.
"hatred" is way over the top, though, seriously.

But this isn't the sort of thing to be saying in a message that's at least
partly intended as an apology, is it?

For the record, I don't think I am, strictly speaking, an atheist. I
described myself as a "teapot agnostic" in my first message in this
thread, a term which I saw in a Richard Dawkins newspaper article
once. Based on the definitions of atheist and agnostic in the Vatican
web site's catechism section, I'd also say agnostic as defined there was a
closer match than atheist, though I'm certainly one with atheist leanings.
I don't imagine Matthew is "lying" when he describes me as an atheist,
however.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Matthew Huntbach
That is why I have no
problem with Adam stating that he believes everything Catholics say
is wrong, but I am offended when he says that the "current Catholic
worldview" is that anyone who is not a Catholic will go to hell

I was saying that I had been told _I_ would go to Hell. I'm pretty
sure I wasn't told why. My first guess was "not baptised?", and
based on examination of the catechism section of the Vatican web site,
it looks like that's quite sufficient (yes, there are a number of
notes about exceptions to this being a necessity, but I don't think
any of them apply to me.) My second guess was "not a Catholic?" and it
was a very bad guess. I really don't want Ross blamed for either of
these guesses, and I asked him if he'd be so kind as to write in the
thread to minimise the risk of misrepresenting him. We'd just been talking
about baptism (for JP: typing about baptism) when me going to Hell came up,
which is why I guessed that was most likely the reason. Actually, when I
next had the chance to talk (type) to Ross, he said he'd been thinking of
atheism or idolatory (cf my cat).

In the past the Catholic Church certainly did promote the idea that
large numbers of people would be going to hell for relatively trivial
reasons. There has been a gradual pulling back from this, to the point
where there is a reluctance now to suggest anyone would go to hell. That is
not to say you won't find Catholics who continue with the old-fashioned
attitudes, whether because that appeals to them, or because although they
are nominal Catholics they actually have little idea about current
Church thinking. Also, there are evangelical Christians who will
readily say that if you don't "admit Jesus as Lord and Saviour into
your life" (they generally use some sort of formula like this) you
will go to hell - and they often delight in suggesting that Catholics
will go to hell becaue somehow Catholics are deemed not to have
consented to their formula. As I have said I am concerned that in this
age when most people have no contact with Christianity, it's easy for
them to believe that Christianity is what evangelical Christians say it
is, because these are the loud-mouthed types who jump out and try and force
it onto you.

The current Pope has prayed alongside leades of other religions in a
way that suggests he doesn't regard them as hell-bound. The Catholic
liturgy for Good Friday contains specific prayers for "those who do not
believe in Christ" and "those who do not believe in God" of a form which
does not suggest they are hell-bound.

Post by Adam Atkinson
For the sake of clarity I do not, in fact, believe that my cat created
the universe. I don't even have a cat. (I used to, and it's pretty
likely that I first used the "my cat / 25 mins" example back when I
did, though I'm not sure about this.)

I never supposed you raised this as anything else but a deliberately
absurd suggestion. The idea of the universe being created 25 minutes
ago (never mind the cat) raises some interesting points however.
Obviously we feel it was not, because we remember 30 minutes ago.
"Ah, but your memory was created 25 minutes ago". But it's not just
that we remember 30 minutes ago, we remember it *being* 30 minutes ago.
So is there some sort of "me" which is outside time which causes this
to work?

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I don't think people who have a hatred of religion are any less likely
than people who have strong beliefs of other sorts to slip from the
first of these to the second then to the third.

I'm not sure if you think I'm a person who has a hatred of religion. I
don't "get" it, and consider it pretty peculiar, but I'd
say the same of all sorts of things. I probably even distrust it, on
the whole, especially when it seems threatening or oppressive.
"hatred" is way over the top, though, seriously.

From the comments you have made - and I find this is general from almost
everyone I argue with who comes from your point of view - you have a
tendency always to look on the worst side of religion. You tend to assume
the worst possible motivations of religious people, and the worst possible
interpretations of their view. When you criticise religion, you almost
always criticise it in its "fundamentalist" form, yet use language to
suggets that all relifion must be of that form. Hence, for example, your
readiness to accept that the current Catholic worldview is that you are
destined for hell.

It seems that my religion in particular is one where people like to
assume the worst possible. I do wonder why this is - is it because,
as I suggest here, because people's views of Christianity these days
are dominated by the loud-mouthed evangelicals, and the assumption is that
Catholicism must be the same but worse? Or is it, as I have suggested in
the past, because anti-Catholicism is an intrinsic part of Britishness,
conditioned by our history? Why is it for example, that a viciously
anti-Catholic novel - far more insulting to Catholicism than Salman
Rushdie's book was to Muslims - is a current best-seller to the point
where if I get on a crowded train at present there is an odd-son chance
if I look around I will see someone reading it. How would I, if I were
a Muslim, feel, if everywhere I looked I saw people reading that
Rushdie book? Yet as Rushdie has said, the prophet in his book was not
Mohammed, the city was not Mecca, the religion was not Islam, and the
passage deemed offensive was about the prophet going mad and having a
dream. Whereas Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" actually states that it is
about the Catholic Church as it exists now and that it is based on "fact".

It's in the face if this that I do feel the need to defend my religion
rather than sit in silence when it is attacked or misrepresented because
somehow it's embarrasing to talk about it.

Matthew Huntbach

[Rebecca Loader]

Post by cowboy carl
I dunno, just seems to be religion is a bit pointless, and what's more
is the cause of much hatred around the world.

I've been wrestling with what I believe for a long time because I don't
consider religion to be pointless, but I think it is far more subtle than we
are often given to think. When someone asks me if I believe in God, I have
to say no, because the chances are that they imagine an external, omnipotent
creator God and I don't believe in that sort of divine. However, just
because I don't believe in this conception of God, I don't consider the
alternative to be agnosticism or atheism. That's why I'm interested in a
movement like the Quakers and in the work of people like Don Cupitt and the
Sea of Faith Network (www.sofn.org.uk). I really think that's worth a look
if you have time, just to see how people are reimagining faith in modern
times. You might think you should just throw the baby out with the
bathwater, but I think it's quite powerful at a time when organised religion
is, as you say, 'a bit pointless' for many people. I'm quite fascinated by
it and plan to read a lot more when I've got the formalities of the degree
out of the way.

Becky

[cowboy carl]

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by cowboy carl
I dunno, just seems to be religion is a bit pointless, and what's more
is the cause of much hatred around the world.

I've been wrestling with what I believe for a long time because I don't
consider religion to be pointless, but I think it is far more subtle than we
are often given to think. When someone asks me if I believe in God, I have
to say no, because the chances are that they imagine an external, omnipotent
creator God and I don't believe in that sort of divine. However, just
because I don't believe in this conception of God, I don't consider the
alternative to be agnosticism or atheism. That's why I'm interested in a
movement like the Quakers and in the work of people like Don Cupitt and the
Sea of Faith Network (www.sofn.org.uk). I really think that's worth a look
if you have time, just to see how people are reimagining faith in modern
times. You might think you should just throw the baby out with the
bathwater, but I think it's quite powerful at a time when organised religion
is, as you say, 'a bit pointless' for many people. I'm quite fascinated by
it and plan to read a lot more when I've got the formalities of the degree
out of the way.

When I said "pointless" I meant in a very general way. It obviously
proves to be a great source of comfort and guidance to a lot of people,
and I would never want to take that way from people.

On the other hand, it bugs me when I see people living what I consider
to be a lie.

Like you, I don't believe in an external, omnipotent creator God .. I
think that if I did want to talk to, or seek guidance from, what most
people would refer to as 'God', it would be done by sitting alone
quietly thinking, rather than building and attending grand colourful
churches and reaching to the stars.

Anyway, that Sea of Faith thing looks interesting ... the name is a bit
off putting, sounds a bit evangelical, but I shall try and get past that
and read some of the website :)

cc

[Stuart Williams]

Post by cowboy carl
Anyway, that Sea of Faith thing looks interesting ... the name is a bit
off putting, sounds a bit evangelical, but I shall try and get past that
and read some of the website :)

As you have perhaps already discovered, The Sea of Faith is very much not
part of the evangelical tradition. The name comes from a Matthew Arnold
poem called Dover Beach, in which the following lines appear:

"The sea of faith
"Was once too at the full, and round earth's shore
"Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd;
"But now I only hear
"Its melancholy long withdrawing roar...."

And that is very much the Sea of Faith approach - the Christian religion
without belief in the objective existence of God, if I have it correctly.

SW

[Rebecca Loader]

Post by Adam Atkinson

I was wondering what you consider to be the purpose of RE in school.

I always imagined that the purpose was to satisfy some requirement of
the 1944 Education Act, and thus to avoid having the head teacher
taken to court. Although my understanding is that these days the Act
is routinely ignored as regards assemblies and people get away with
it. For all I know RE lessons aren't in the Act at all but exist
for some other reason.

The 1944 Education Act made way for the 1988 Education Reform Act, which has
determined the nature of RE and collective worship since its enactment.
Although RE doe not come within the National Curriculum created by ERA, it
is part of the 'basic curriculum' and must be taught by law. There's been
more proactivity to try to prevent it being sidelined into PSHE, humanities,
etc.

Post by Adam Atkinson

What about the fact that some pupils
come from no religious background, not even a confirmed secularist one; what
is their way in to learning about faith traditions when they're just told
'some Christians do this' and 'some Muslims do this'?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

I wasn't expecting people to answer these questions individually, more to
illustrate what I meant.

There's a school of thought that believes that the systematic approach to
teaching RE (where you teach each religion individually, in its own terms,
rather than using 'festivals' or 'the home' as a jumping off point) is
off-putting because most children don't have a 'way in'. They and their
families might have some residual religion - church for weddings, siblings'
Christening - but the beliefs and practices of
Islam/Hinduism/Sikhism/Judaism and most of Christianity seem to them to have
little relevance to their lives. If the intention is to teach phenomena
then that might not matter, just as it does not really matter that nobody
among your acquaintance is a Tudor; however, it becomes a problem if you
want to give kids something more in the way of understanding of the
motivation of a person from another tradition or even something more
experiential (without, I stress, seeking to convert anyone to anything).

Post by Adam Atkinson

and helps them to reflect on 'questions
of meaning' in their own lives?

I don't understand this bit.

It's a bit jargony, perhaps, but part of the stated aim of RE is to
encourage pupils to reflect on what they learn. If there's a place to talk
about God and religious matters, then kids can at least have some kind of
open, questioning discussion about, for example, the (non-) existence of a
divine and the implications of that in their own lives.

Post by Adam Atkinson
I think at least some religious parents would rather their children
didn't attend the sort of RE I would regard as worthwhile.

Parents have the legal right to withdraw their children from RE, but
obviously mass withdrawal isn't desirable!

Post by Adam Atkinson
For the record, I'm what Richard Dawkins would call a "teapot
agnostic".

Well, I'm probably veering towards Christian humanism (yes, indeed!). I
don't believe in God as He is generally understood, but I like the thinking
behind Anthony Freeman's conception of God as "the sum of all our values and
ideals". "On a non-dualistic Christ-centred account, God is not a
supernatural agent external to humanity, but an emergent property of human
life itself." (www.sofn.org.uk). I was so excited to discover them.

Becky

[Adam Atkinson]

Post by Rebecca Loader
The 1944 Education Act made way for the 1988 Education Reform Act, which has
determined the nature of RE and collective worship since its enactment.
Although RE doe not come within the National Curriculum created by ERA, it
is part of the 'basic curriculum' and must be taught by law. There's been
more proactivity to try to prevent it being sidelined into PSHE, humanities,
etc.

To what extent does the Act say what _must_ take place in RE, and how
much of it there must be? Is there so much freedom of action that you
could do anything at all and claim it was RE? (Watching David Beckham
on video, say).

Is PSHE the thing I last heard of as PSE? It's grown! H=health?

My initial response (my first response to your message) was not intended
to be flippant, in case that wasn't obvious. I can't see anything
wrong with using a silly cat-based scenario as an example, but it
seems to upset some people.

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Rebecca Loader
What about the fact that some pupils
come from no religious background, not even a confirmed secularist one;

what

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Rebecca Loader
is their way in to learning about faith traditions when they're just told
'some Christians do this' and 'some Muslims do this'?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

There's a school of thought that believes that the systematic approach to
teaching RE (where you teach each religion individually, in its own terms,
rather than using 'festivals' or 'the home' as a jumping off point) is
off-putting because most children don't have a 'way in'.

Surely teaching each religion on its own terms has its merits? (Though
what those terms are would appear to be hard to determine. A US
Catholic acquaintance today, with whom I was discussing this thread,
said that according to the current Catholic worldview I am
_definitely_ going to Hell, though it could be one of the relatively
nice bits (though I'm not sure why - not being
baptized? not Catholic? I should check.) Presumably Matthew would say
this is not necessarily true, otherwise he wouldn't have objected to my
comment about not being able to belong to multiple organizations. I am
tempted to seek out some local religious leaders and ask them if it's
fair to say that it doesn't matter which religion I join.)

One thing I would find interesting, though how you present this
without annoying people's parents I don't know, is some idea of which
bits they "don't really mean" (cf conversation with Matthew some
months ago in which he appeared to be saying that I shouldn't imagine
religions mean everything they appear to be saying), or which stuff is the
last to go. e.g. going to church only for weddings, funerals, and perhaps
Christmas and Easter, or only going to synagogue for Yom Kippur. A
presentation of e.g. (some flavour of) Christianity for people who
live in Japan could well have all sorts of stuff in it that no-one
really does or believes (a bit like the chapters about life in Italy
in many Italian textbooks I've seen), so some idea of what the range
of actual adherence / belief is might be useful to have. Do random Sikhs
really go around with the 5 Ks? How would most Christians react if the
second coming actually occurred?

Post by Rebecca Loader
They and their
families might have some residual religion - church for weddings, siblings'
Christening

My mother (infant school head teacher, now retired) says that people
write "Church of England" in the "religion" box on forms (which forms
ask this?) in the belief that it's equivalent to "none" or "not
applicable". I'm not sure why I'm saying this at this point.

Post by Rebecca Loader
If the intention is to teach phenomena
then that might not matter, just as it does not really matter that nobody
among your acquaintance is a Tudor;

Sure. I'd quite like to see, say, Parsis and Shintoists included in
something like this, and I would imagine that most parts of the UK
don't have many of those. And even defunct religions, I suppose.
Cathars. Vikings. Whatever.

Post by Rebecca Loader
however, it becomes a problem if you
want to give kids something more in the way of understanding of the
motivation of a person from another tradition

One would imagine that within any tradition there could be a range of
motivations. The official ones, a wish to avoid getting in trouble
with grandparents, or even just never having thought about it at all.
(Terry Pratchett's "Good Omens" includes a bit about even people who
grow up as Satanists leading lives of unassuming mediocrity most of
the time, and saying the words at Black Mass without thinking about
what they mean.)

Post by Rebecca Loader
or even something more
experiential (without, I stress, seeking to convert anyone to anything).

One thing I'd like to know would be what it means for an entire
country to have flipped backwards and forwards between being
Protestant and Catholic several times in the course of a century. I
cannot see that what a given person actually believed will have
flipped like this. What they _said_ they thought may have done, I
guess.

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by Adam Atkinson

Post by Rebecca Loader
and helps them to reflect on 'questions
of meaning' in their own lives?

I don't understand this bit.

It's a bit jargony, perhaps, but part of the stated aim of RE is to
encourage pupils to reflect on what they learn.

The "questions of meaning" makes me think of the Fast Show "Ralph and
Ted" sketch where Ted says something along the lines of "The way I see
it, Sir, you're born, and then you die, and anything in the middle,
well that's a bonus."

Post by Rebecca Loader
If there's a place to talk
about God and religious matters, then kids can at least have some kind of
open, questioning discussion about, for example, the (non-) existence of a
divine and the implications of that in their own lives.

At least in my school, I fear the "open discussion" part would not
really have gone anywhere. ("Not the Nine O'Clock News" sketch again:
this time, the "Hey, Wow!" kids TV one.) Of course, not all schools
need be like mine.

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by Adam Atkinson
I think at least some religious parents would rather their children
didn't attend the sort of RE I would regard as worthwhile.

Parents have the legal right to withdraw their children from RE, but
obviously mass withdrawal isn't desirable!

I'd like to imagine that RE can/should include stuff like how
religions get started (which I think Matthew mentioned as well), but
you can see how this could be tricky to do. Would you have to say
"Well, Mormons would tell you this, ... but everyone else would tell
you..." and similar for each religion?

I'd also like to think that RE should perhaps include things like "Why
do people believe (whatever)?" with reference to, say, copper
bracelets, crystal healing, astrology, dowsing, the Loch Ness Monster
(yes, "Not the Nine O'Clock News" again) or even France existing, Carl
Sagan's invisible intangible silent weightless dragon, or my
universe-creating cat. But maybe this is really Philosophy or General
Studies, or listing crystal healing and dowsing along with people's
religions would risk annoying their parents enough to lead to a mass
withdrawal.

And, of course, (a) what does religion X claim will happen to people
who aren't members (whether or not it makes any attempt to convert
people) and are there things that even non-members are or aren't
supposed to do and (b) what does religion X claim will happen to members who
don't do whatever it is they're supposed to do? (e.g. in Judaism the
answer to (b) seems to be "nothing", though I'm told one mitzvah is to
do all the others in the right spirit. But if there are no positive or
negative consequences associated with wearing mixed fabrics, or opening
packets of biscuits on a Saturday, what difference does it make?)

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Adam Atkinson
Surely teaching each religion on its own terms has its merits? (Though
what those terms are would appear to be hard to determine. A US
Catholic acquaintance today, with whom I was discussing this thread,
said that according to the current Catholic worldview I am
_definitely_ going to Hell, though it could be one of the relatively
nice bits (though I'm not sure why - not being
baptized? not Catholic? I should check.) Presumably Matthew would say
this is not necessarily true,

What you report is complete and utter rubbish. Who is this "US
Catholic acquaintance" of yours and does he or she have any
understanding or knowledge of debates that are currently happening in
the Catholic Church?

Many years ago the idea that if you are not Catholic you will go to
Hell was current in the Catholic Church, there may still be a few on
the eccentric right-wing fringe of the RC Church who would say such
things. However, it is a position that was explicitly denied by the
Second Vatican Council, has been explictly denied by the current Pope,
and I don't think you would find any leading Catholic figure stating
it today. As it happens there is a debate going on in the UK Catholic
press right now over whether *anyone* goes to Hell.

So what you report as "the current Catholic worldview" simply isn't -
though it's typical of a lazy and sloppy and arrogant atheist to claim
it is.

Matthew Huntbach

[cowboy carl]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson
Surely teaching each religion on its own terms has its merits? (Though
what those terms are would appear to be hard to determine. A US
Catholic acquaintance today, with whom I was discussing this thread,
said that according to the current Catholic worldview I am
_definitely_ going to Hell, though it could be one of the relatively
nice bits (though I'm not sure why - not being
baptized? not Catholic? I should check.) Presumably Matthew would say
this is not necessarily true,

What you report is complete and utter rubbish. Who is this "US
Catholic acquaintance" of yours and does he or she have any
understanding or knowledge of debates that are currently happening in
the Catholic Church?
Many years ago the idea that if you are not Catholic you will go to
Hell was current in the Catholic Church, there may still be a few on
the eccentric right-wing fringe of the RC Church who would say such
things. However, it is a position that was explicitly denied by the
Second Vatican Council, has been explictly denied by the current Pope,
and I don't think you would find any leading Catholic figure stating
it today. As it happens there is a debate going on in the UK Catholic
press right now over whether *anyone* goes to Hell.
So what you report as "the current Catholic worldview" simply isn't -
though it's typical of a lazy and sloppy and arrogant atheist to claim
it is.

Well this is the problem with religion. Everyone believes their own thing.

Some people I talk to say I'm going to hell, but it's not too bad, it's
just life after death without God.

Some people say I'm going to hell, and it's going to be absoutely awful,
cos it's life after death without anything Good (because God is good,
and God isn't in Hell, therefore nothing good is in Hell).

Everyone believes their own thing, it isn't helpful to teach what some
central council of archbishops or vatican officals is saying, because
most people learn what they believe from a local level.

Therefore, I believe it would be much more effective to teach religion,
not from an 'examples' point of view, but a much more general point of view.


Anyone can learn what various religions do by picking up a text book.
But understanding why they do it usually requires a bit more teaching of
basic principles. Which is what schools should be doing.

cc

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Adam Atkinson
Surely teaching each religion on its own terms has its merits? (Though
what those terms are would appear to be hard to determine. A US
Catholic acquaintance today, with whom I was discussing this thread,
said that according to the current Catholic worldview I am
_definitely_ going to Hell, though it could be one of the relatively
nice bits (though I'm not sure why - not being
baptized? not Catholic? I should check.) Presumably Matthew would say
this is not necessarily true,

So what you report as "the current Catholic worldview" simply isn't -
though it's typical of a lazy and sloppy and arrogant atheist to claim
it is.

Well this is the problem with religion. Everyone believes their own thing.

No, that's not the issue here. Adam was not saying "some people believe
I will go to Hell". He was reporting it as the "current Catholic worldview",
by which one woudl assume he meant the view officially held and
promoted by the Catholic Church in 2005. In saying this he was either
lying, or reporting a lie someone else had told him, or adopting a view
without knowing the truth of it out of prejudice.

Matthew Huntbach

[L. Ross Raszewski]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
What you report is complete and utter rubbish. Who is this "US
Catholic acquaintance" of yours and does he or she have any
understanding or knowledge of debates that are currently happening in
the Catholic Church?

He's me, and he doesn't (well, not as much as maybe he should have).
I should probably confess that almost the entirety of my understanding
of my religion comes from the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, which, I
realize, are a little out of date.

I did glaze over the bit about the possibility that no one actually
goes to hell any more, mostly because it didn't serve the purpose of
the argument I was making at the time, but it was something of a
misinterpretation to say that it was specifically for not being
Catholic (I thought that being a devout athiest still got you into
hell.). I really didn't mean to suggest that these were the views of
most Catholics, but rather that these were part of the Official Party
Line. The whole point of the conversation, from my end, was to point
out that the dichotomy between Catholic beliefs and what you've termed
far-right fundamentalist beliefs has less to do with what the
individual beliefs actually *are* and more to do with how *important*
they are (That is, as a Catholic, certain things that the
fundamentalists like to scream about still *are* sins, but we're not
going around condemning anyone to hell over it.).

Post by Matthew Huntbach
So what you report as "the current Catholic worldview" simply isn't -
though it's typical of a lazy and sloppy and arrogant atheist to claim
it is.

As the person who was doing the having of the afforementioned
conversation, I can perhaps agree with arrogant, but lazy and sloppy,
certainly not.

Any logical sloppiness is mine and not God's.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by L. Ross Raszewski

Post by Matthew Huntbach
What you report is complete and utter rubbish. Who is this "US
Catholic acquaintance" of yours and does he or she have any
understanding or knowledge of debates that are currently happening in
the Catholic Church?

He's me, and he doesn't (well, not as much as maybe he should have).
I should probably confess that almost the entirety of my understanding
of my religion comes from the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, which, I
realize, are a little out of date.

Well then, Adam was lying when he said "according to the current Catholic
worldview I am _definitely_ going to Hell". Or you were lying if you
told him that.

Post by L. Ross Raszewski
I really didn't mean to suggest that these were the views of
most Catholics, but rather that these were part of the Official Party
Line.

But they are NOT the "Official Party Line" if you mean the view currently
held and promoted by the Vatican. It is in fact a point of view which has
been explicitly rejected by the Vatican.

Had Adam written that it was a view that Catholics *used* to hold
or promote, I would not have objected. I most certainly do object
when he lies or reports a lie that it is the *current* worldview.
If it is not a lie, but rather someone who couldn't be bothered to
check the facts and relied on out of date prejudiced stereotpes,
well that just proves my point about sloppiness and arrogance, doesn't it?

Matthew Huntbach

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Rebecca Loader
Should the aim of RE be to introduce pupils to the central tenets of the
different religious traditions found in today's world? Does that not,
however, understand a fairly static idea of religion, when it is rather
more dynamic than that, especially in 21st century Western society?

It's useful general knowlege to know the central tenets of the major
religions, so that should come into the school curriculum somewhere.
But in my experience (I was for a while on my borough's SACRE "Standing
Advisory Committee on Religious Education"), that's about ALL that
modern RE does, leading it to be sterile and boring. In my experience
religion has to be taught in a way that makes it all sound jolly and nice
but with no depth or passion. There is no coverage of the darker side
of religion, and no acknowledgement that most of the interesting
religious questions cut across the various religions.

Post by Rebecca Loader
Should it be, as was the aim of the Conservative government, to introduce
pupils to Britain's Christian cultural heritage?

Again, I would have thought this useful general knowledge that anyone
should have.

Post by Rebecca Loader
What about the fact that some pupils come from no religious background,
not even a confirmed secularist one; what is their way in to learning
about faith traditions when they're just told 'some Christians do this'
and 'some Muslims do this'?

It might be useful, for example, to discuss the difference between
Catholicism and Protestantism, or those who take a fundamentalist
approach to religion, and those who see it as allegorical. It seems
this is never done - religion is presented as if it just comes in these
big blocks "Christian", "Muslim", "Hindu", "Buddhist", "Judaism".

Post by Rebecca Loader
Should RE encourage pupils in awareness of the numinous and develop a
sense of awe, or should it concentrate on facts?

I think one needs to be cautious about "awareness of the numinous" etc.
I'm not sure that really can be done in a way that is properly neutral
as state RE should be.

Post by Rebecca Loader
Is RE a waste of time because nobody's really religious any more, or is
it vitally important because it both introduces young people to different
cultures and helps them to reflect on 'questions of meaning' in their
own lives?

I think one might usefully ask whether in modern British society, the
culture of celebrity has taken the place of religion. Our pantheon
these days consists of those entertainment stars we see presented in
the media, and it's a religion every bit as cynically constructed to
keep the peasants in control as any in the past.

Post by Rebecca Loader
I might not get any responses to this, but I thought it would be a nice
change from the technical stuff going on elsewhere.

Of course, I'm a Computer Scientists so I'm supposed to be incapable
of discussing such stuff.

Matthew Huntbach

[cowboy carl]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Rebecca Loader
I might not get any responses to this, but I thought it would be a nice
change from the technical stuff going on elsewhere.

Of course, I'm a Computer Scientists so I'm supposed to be incapable
of discussing such stuff.

Ask 1000 computer scientists what they think about the teaching of RE in
schools and give them three options:

A - Good
B - Bad
C - Don't care


Ask 1000 people from the general population what they think.

I am pretty sure you'll find more CS people would choose C.

:-P

cc

[Alun Harford]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Rebecca Loader
I might not get any responses to this, but I thought it would be a nice
change from the technical stuff going on elsewhere.

Of course, I'm a Computer Scientists so I'm supposed to be incapable
of discussing such stuff.

Ask 1000 computer scientists what they think about the teaching of RE in
A - Good
B - Bad
C - Don't care
Ask 1000 people from the general population what they think.
I am pretty sure you'll find more CS people would choose C.

I very much doubt that. I'd love somebody to do the survey.

Alun Harford

[cowboy carl]

Post by Alun Harford

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Rebecca Loader
I might not get any responses to this, but I thought it would be a nice
change from the technical stuff going on elsewhere.

Of course, I'm a Computer Scientists so I'm supposed to be incapable
of discussing such stuff.

Ask 1000 computer scientists what they think about the teaching of RE in
A - Good
B - Bad
C - Don't care
Ask 1000 people from the general population what they think.
I am pretty sure you'll find more CS people would choose C.

I very much doubt that. I'd love somebody to do the survey.

As would I, then my argument would be somewhat stronger ;-)

cc

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by cowboy carl
Ask 1000 computer scientists what they think about the teaching of RE in
A - Good
B - Bad
C - Don't care
Ask 1000 people from the general population what they think.
I am pretty sure you'll find more CS people would choose C.

Why? I don't find Computer Scientists are any more apathetic about
general issues like this than anyone else. My guess is that you would
probably find more B and less C than from a random sample.

Matthew Huntbach

[cowboy carl]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by cowboy carl
Ask 1000 computer scientists what they think about the teaching of RE
A - Good
B - Bad
C - Don't care
Ask 1000 people from the general population what they think.
I am pretty sure you'll find more CS people would choose C.

Why? I don't find Computer Scientists are any more apathetic about
general issues like this than anyone else.

Well I find that they are.

So, since we are both only going by what we have personally
seen/experienced, this discussion can't really continue .... until
someone does a poll ;-)

cc

[Rebecca Loader]

There is no coverage of the darker side

Post by Matthew Huntbach
of religion, and no acknowledgement that most of the interesting
religious questions cut across the various religions.

I think that's because people within the major faith traditions were
becoming concerned that pupils did not gain much knowledge of the faiths by
looking at common themes and questions, and this was borne out by some
research. I also think there was concern from some that a comparative and
relativistic approach was encouraged and this was felt to be inappropriate:
religions did not feel they were being allowed to exist in their own terms
(i.e., talking about religious beliefs in relation to Buddhism wasn't
perceived to be helpful). I'm just raising a few issues - I'm not disputing
what you say.

Interesting that you were on a SACRE. I'm interviewing RE advisers and
SACRE members for my dissertation, to find out about the local governance of
RE.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
It might be useful, for example, to discuss the difference between
Catholicism and Protestantism, or those who take a fundamentalist
approach to religion, and those who see it as allegorical.

Many Agreed Syllabuses include these sorts of issues for older students,
yes.

It seems

Post by Matthew Huntbach
this is never done - religion is presented as if it just comes in these
big blocks "Christian", "Muslim", "Hindu", "Buddhist", "Judaism".

See above; I think this is done to preserve the perceived integrity of the
traditions.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Rebecca Loader
Should RE encourage pupils in awareness of the numinous and develop a
sense of awe, or should it concentrate on facts?

I think one needs to be cautious about "awareness of the numinous" etc.
I'm not sure that really can be done in a way that is properly neutral
as state RE should be.

Can RE be neutral, though?

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Of course, I'm a Computer Scientists so I'm supposed to be incapable
of discussing such stuff.

Well, you'll be pleased to know that I had you, as a Catholic who's espoused
views on religion here before, very much in mind when I was thinking about
my original post.

Becky

[cowboy carl]

Post by Rebecca Loader
Can RE be neutral, though?

Yes, very easily. Teach is like philosophy.

Whers is the problem?

cc

[Rebecca Loader]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Rebecca Loader
Can RE be neutral, though?

Yes, very easily. Teach is like philosophy.
Whers is the problem?

It's not an overt problem, but when your teacher has a particular religious
belief or none, and you have a class of students of various different
backgrounds, I'm not sure it can be neutral. (Obviously I'm not talking
about openly confessional teaching.) Well, perhaps it can, if you teach it
like philosophy, but I think that would be completely wrong. Religious
traditions are living; you've got to be sensitive to the fact that you might
have an Islamic pupil in the class and it's inappropriate not to acknowledge
that and just treat Islam as a distant set of philosophies. Teaching RE in
that way does not convey any sense of culture and practice that is alive -
not just a way of looking at the world, but the lens through which certain
groups filter many of their experiences.

Becky

[cowboy carl]

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Rebecca Loader
Can RE be neutral, though?

Yes, very easily. Teach is like philosophy.
Whers is the problem?

It's not an overt problem, but when your teacher has a particular religious
belief or none, and you have a class of students of various different
backgrounds, I'm not sure it can be neutral. (Obviously I'm not talking
about openly confessional teaching.) Well, perhaps it can, if you teach it
like philosophy, but I think that would be completely wrong. Religious
traditions are living; you've got to be sensitive to the fact that you might
have an Islamic pupil in the class and it's inappropriate not to acknowledge
that and just treat Islam as a distant set of philosophies. Teaching RE in
that way does not convey any sense of culture and practice that is alive -
not just a way of looking at the world, but the lens through which certain
groups filter many of their experiences.

But the way people *live* religions is intensly personal and varies
greatly between next-door neighbours.

It is not possible, on a practical level, to teach religion by saying
"these people do this, those people do that".

Why not focus on what religions have in common: a belief in God/Gods.
Start with that, explain why they believe in God, then explain how
religions differ and where these differences come from.

I don't understand when you say "you've got to be sensitive to the fact
that you might have an Islamic pupil in the class and it's inappropriate
not to acknowledge that and just treat Islam as a distant set of
philosophies."

The only way you can offend an Islamic pupil would be by assuming
anything about the way they live their life. Some Islamic pupils will
pray 5 times a day, some won't. Some will abstain from alcohol, some
won't. It would be much more offensive to point to this guy (or girl)
and say "look, he's a muslim, they pray 5 times a day and never drink
alcohol or eat pork". It would be much less offensive to say "he's a
muslim, okay, let's study Islam today, where it came from, the different
strands, what they all have in common, and how people choose to
'implement' it".

I don't think you can understand religion today without understanding
religion in the past.

And I don't think you can understand why people believe in God today
without understanding why people believed in God hundreds of years ago.

cc

[Adam Atkinson]

Post by cowboy carl
Why not focus on what religions have in common: a belief in God/Gods.

I'm told that Buddhism doesn't have this.

[Rachel]

Post by Rebecca Loader
For variety's sake, and because I know there are people here who hold strong
religious views, are interested in religion and/or study it at A-level (and
may even have a taught the odd period - Ian?), I was wondering what you
consider to be the purpose of RE in school.
My dissertation is on the local vs .national control of Religious Education
(as RE occupies a peculiar place, being a required subject but outside the
National Curriculum), so it's more political than philosophical but touches
on aims and methods of RE as legislation and those in control at local level
have understood them.
Should the aim of RE be to introduce pupils to the central tenets of the
different religious traditions found in today's world? Does that not,
however, understand a fairly static idea of religion, when it is rather more
dynamic than that, especially in 21st century Western society? Should it
be, as was the aim of the Conservative government, to introduce pupils to
Britain's Christian cultural heritage? What about the fact that some pupils
come from no religious background, not even a confirmed secularist one; what
is their way in to learning about faith traditions when they're just told
'some Christians do this' and 'some Muslims do this'? Should RE encourage
pupils in awareness of the numinous and develop a sense of awe, or should it
concentrate on facts? Is RE a waste of time because nobody's really
religious any more, or is it vitally important because it both introduces
young people to different cultures and helps them to reflect on 'questions
of meaning' in their own lives?
I might not get any responses to this, but I thought it would be a nice
change from the technical stuff going on elsewhere.
Becky

I go to a RC 6th form (I am not at all religious myself). We have to attend
a "General RE" session once a week.

The 6th form tries to make it dynamic - making it more of a
discussion/debate lesson. For example, once we were asked to bring in a CD
of a song that we like, and explain why we like it - why it touches us.

Then in other lessons, we had to do a presentation on a certain religion.

Recently, we have been discussing images and movies made about Jesus.


I find it a complete waste of time. If I want to reflect on questions of
meaning in my life, I'll do it myself, thanks! <g>

I also hated RE at GCSE - my school made it compulsory. I ended up going for
the short course, and promptly failed it. What a waste of time. Sure, it's
important to know about other religions and understand why they do the
things they do, but I sure as hell don't want to take an exam in it.

Rachel

[cowboy carl]

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by Rebecca Loader
For variety's sake, and because I know there are people here who hold

strong

Post by Rebecca Loader
religious views, are interested in religion and/or study it at A-level

(and

Post by Rebecca Loader
may even have a taught the odd period - Ian?), I was wondering what you
consider to be the purpose of RE in school.
My dissertation is on the local vs .national control of Religious

Education

Post by Rebecca Loader
(as RE occupies a peculiar place, being a required subject but outside the
National Curriculum), so it's more political than philosophical but

touches

Post by Rebecca Loader
on aims and methods of RE as legislation and those in control at local

level

Post by Rebecca Loader
have understood them.
Should the aim of RE be to introduce pupils to the central tenets of the
different religious traditions found in today's world? Does that not,
however, understand a fairly static idea of religion, when it is rather

more

Post by Rebecca Loader
dynamic than that, especially in 21st century Western society? Should it
be, as was the aim of the Conservative government, to introduce pupils to
Britain's Christian cultural heritage? What about the fact that some

pupils

Post by Rebecca Loader
come from no religious background, not even a confirmed secularist one;

what

Post by Rebecca Loader
is their way in to learning about faith traditions when they're just told
'some Christians do this' and 'some Muslims do this'? Should RE encourage
pupils in awareness of the numinous and develop a sense of awe, or should

it

Post by Rebecca Loader
concentrate on facts? Is RE a waste of time because nobody's really
religious any more, or is it vitally important because it both introduces
young people to different cultures and helps them to reflect on 'questions
of meaning' in their own lives?
I might not get any responses to this, but I thought it would be a nice
change from the technical stuff going on elsewhere.
Becky

I go to a RC 6th form (I am not at all religious myself). We have to attend
a "General RE" session once a week.
The 6th form tries to make it dynamic - making it more of a
discussion/debate lesson. For example, once we were asked to bring in a CD
of a song that we like, and explain why we like it - why it touches us.

Sounds embarassing.

Post by Rebecca Loader
Then in other lessons, we had to do a presentation on a certain religion.
Recently, we have been discussing images and movies made about Jesus.

That sounds kinda interesting ... only cos you get to watch films tho.

Post by Rebecca Loader
I find it a complete waste of time. If I want to reflect on questions of
meaning in my life, I'll do it myself, thanks! <g>

:) I agree, but it [home philosophising] can be made so much easier with
guidance and teaching on what other people think.

Post by Rebecca Loader
I also hated RE at GCSE - my school made it compulsory. I ended up going for
the short course, and promptly failed it. What a waste of time. Sure, it's
important to know about other religions and understand why they do the
things they do, but I sure as hell don't want to take an exam in it.

An exam would be hard, cos there is no right or wrong answer.

Even saying "muslims believe X" might not be true, because there is such
a wide range of muslims and beliefs which they have.

So yeh, wouldn't examine it, but would teach it, in a fun way.

cc

[cowboy carl]

Post by Rebecca Loader
For variety's sake, and because I know there are people here who hold strong
religious views, are interested in religion and/or study it at A-level (and
may even have a taught the odd period - Ian?), I was wondering what you
consider to be the purpose of RE in school.
My dissertation is on the local vs .national control of Religious Education
(as RE occupies a peculiar place, being a required subject but outside the
National Curriculum), so it's more political than philosophical but touches
on aims and methods of RE as legislation and those in control at local level
have understood them.
Should the aim of RE be to introduce pupils to the central tenets of the
different religious traditions found in today's world? Does that not,
however, understand a fairly static idea of religion, when it is rather more
dynamic than that, especially in 21st century Western society? Should it
be, as was the aim of the Conservative government, to introduce pupils to
Britain's Christian cultural heritage? What about the fact that some pupils
come from no religious background, not even a confirmed secularist one; what
is their way in to learning about faith traditions when they're just told
'some Christians do this' and 'some Muslims do this'? Should RE encourage
pupils in awareness of the numinous and develop a sense of awe, or should it
concentrate on facts? Is RE a waste of time because nobody's really
religious any more,

I'm assuming you are talking about English people here...

I realise you were asking questions, not stating your view, but surely
nobody can possibly agree with that when you consider a global scale??

Post by Rebecca Loader
or is it vitally important because it both introduces
young people to different cultures and helps them to reflect on 'questions
of meaning' in their own lives?

I can only really talk from my own limited personal experience, but I
think RE should be taught from a very philosophical point of view.

For example, in our philosophy class this year, we didn't learn about
different religions specifically, but we learnt a bit about God, and
some of the reasons why people think he exists (the different 'proofs').
And I think that is more useful an explanation than a 'fact based'
treatment of religion could ever be.

It's all about understanding, you see :) The Bible (and other religious
texts) are essentially works of philosophy to anyone who wants to study
them (if you want to believe them, then I guess they are works of God,
but it isn't the job of RE to teach people beliefs).

An interesting study would be to look at how religion is taught in
America. On the one hand, they are millions of crazy christians (by
which I mean the extreme evangalical type) and all school kids swear an
oath of allegaince to the flag which includes the words "one nation
under God" (or something ... I may be wrong, but I am almost certain
that they mention God when swearing allegiance at kiddy school).

On the other hand, a lot of people are crazy seperation of Church and
State people, and you can get arrested for having organised school prayers.



So, in conclusion (to borrow a phrase from Samsonknight), the important
thing about RE is defiently[1] *understanding*. Facts help
understanding, but learning "these people do this, those people do that"
isn't helpful, unless you know *why* these people do this, and why those
people do that.

I think it should be compulsory, religious students shouldn't be able to
opt out from learning about other people's religions. But it shouldn't
be a big part of your qualification (GCSE or whatever).

Post by Rebecca Loader
I might not get any responses to this, but I thought it would be a nice
change from the technical stuff going on elsewhere.

We should have more discussions like this :)

cc


[1] one day i'm gonna learn how to spell that word, I always misspell it
in such a way my spellchecker cannot find the correct spelling <angry face>

[Samsonknight]

Post by cowboy carl
An interesting study would be to look at how religion is taught in
America. On the one hand, they are millions of crazy christians (by which
I mean the extreme evangalical type) and all school kids swear an oath of
allegaince to the flag which includes the words "one nation under God" (or
something ... I may be wrong, but I am almost certain that they mention
God when swearing allegiance at kiddy school).
On the other hand, a lot of people are crazy seperation of Church and
State people, and you can get arrested for having organised school prayers.

Yeah, it is contradictory. Maybe all religions need their own state like
Jewish people have in the form of Israel in order to be practiced properly.
Otherwise, it seems there will be conflict as you have described above - as
a lot of religions tend to have their own rules for the way they should run
the state. You could of course get around this issue by making compromises,
which is a good alternative, but it can be difficult for some very religious
people as we are seeing in the mid east.

[cowboy carl]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by cowboy carl
An interesting study would be to look at how religion is taught in
America. On the one hand, they are millions of crazy christians (by which
I mean the extreme evangalical type) and all school kids swear an oath of
allegaince to the flag which includes the words "one nation under God" (or
something ... I may be wrong, but I am almost certain that they mention
God when swearing allegiance at kiddy school).
On the other hand, a lot of people are crazy seperation of Church and
State people, and you can get arrested for having organised school prayers.

Yeah, it is contradictory. Maybe all religions need their own state like
Jewish people have in the form of Israel in order to be practiced properly.
Otherwise, it seems there will be conflict as you have described above - as
a lot of religions tend to have their own rules for the way they should run
the state. You could of course get around this issue by making compromises,
which is a good alternative, but it can be difficult for some very religious
people as we are seeing in the mid east.

Problem with setting up religious states is that sure, the first
generation get to choose whether or not to live there, but the kids born
to that generation don't have a choice, and their human rights (if such
things even exist) may be violated in such a state.

So we would have to go to war with them to save them.

Not good.

cc

[Alun Harford]

Post by cowboy carl
Problem with setting up religious states is that sure, the first
generation get to choose whether or not to live there, but the kids born
to that generation don't have a choice, and their human rights (if such
things even exist) may be violated in such a state.
So we would have to go to war with them to save them.

When have we ever done that?

Alun Harford

[cowboy carl]

Post by Alun Harford

Post by cowboy carl
Problem with setting up religious states is that sure, the first
generation get to choose whether or not to live there, but the kids born
to that generation don't have a choice, and their human rights (if such
things even exist) may be violated in such a state.
So we would have to go to war with them to save them.

When have we ever done that?

We haven't (as far as I know ... unless you count Afghanistan).

I'm saying we may feel under a moral obligation to, if such a situation
arose (and was highlighted by the media).

cc

[Rebecca Loader]

Post by Samsonknight
Yeah, it is contradictory. Maybe all religions need their own state like
Jewish people have in the form of Israel in order to be practiced properly.

Israel is not a religious state. There is a grey area surrounding legal
responsibility of the knesed, but Israel is governed. Sure, the geography
has its roots in religion and some commandments can only be performed in
Israel, but it wasn't created as a religious state (if you look at the use
of the term 'klal Yisrael' in the Declaration of Independence, it's
deliberately ambiguous). The majority of Israeli Jews self-identify as
secular.

Becky

[cowboy carl]

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Samsonknight
Yeah, it is contradictory. Maybe all religions need their own state like
Jewish people have in the form of Israel in order to be practiced

properly.
Israel is not a religious state. There is a grey area surrounding legal
responsibility of the knesed, but Israel is governed. Sure, the geography
has its roots in religion and some commandments can only be performed in
Israel, but it wasn't created as a religious state (if you look at the use
of the term 'klal Yisrael' in the Declaration of Independence, it's
deliberately ambiguous). The majority of Israeli Jews self-identify as
secular.

He never said it was a religious state.

He said it was a state for Jewish people, which it is.

As I understand it, it's a state where any Jew can go and live and
practice their religion without fear of persecution.

cc

[Rebecca Loader]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Samsonknight
Yeah, it is contradictory. Maybe all religions need their own state like
Jewish people have in the form of Israel in order to be practiced

properly.
Israel is not a religious state. There is a grey area surrounding legal
responsibility of the knesed, but Israel is governed. Sure, the geography
has its roots in religion and some commandments can only be performed in
Israel, but it wasn't created as a religious state (if you look at the use
of the term 'klal Yisrael' in the Declaration of Independence, it's
deliberately ambiguous). The majority of Israeli Jews self-identify as
secular.

He never said it was a religious state.
He said it was a state for Jewish people, which it is.

I was clarifying that to ensure it wasn't being over-simplified. The
implication of what he said was that every religion might need their own
state (to practice without fear, presumably). One interpretation of that is
Israel was a state created for religious purposes, which was not entirely
the case. Zionism, as I understand it, was not largely a religious
movement. About 20% of Israelis are not Jewish, religious or secular,
anyway.

Becky

[cowboy carl]

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Samsonknight

Post by Samsonknight
Yeah, it is contradictory. Maybe all religions need their own state like
Jewish people have in the form of Israel in order to be practiced

properly.
Israel is not a religious state. There is a grey area surrounding legal
responsibility of the knesed, but Israel is governed. Sure, the

geography

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Samsonknight
has its roots in religion and some commandments can only be performed in
Israel, but it wasn't created as a religious state (if you look at the

use

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Samsonknight
of the term 'klal Yisrael' in the Declaration of Independence, it's
deliberately ambiguous). The majority of Israeli Jews self-identify as
secular.

He never said it was a religious state.
He said it was a state for Jewish people, which it is.

I was clarifying that to ensure it wasn't being over-simplified. The
implication of what he said was that every religion might need their own
state (to practice without fear, presumably). One interpretation of that is
Israel was a state created for religious purposes, which was not entirely
the case. Zionism, as I understand it, was not largely a religious
movement. About 20% of Israelis are not Jewish, religious or secular,
anyway.

Cool beans ... interestingly, there are more Jews in America than in Israel.

Food for thought... if Israel didn't exist for religious reasons (and
thus wasn't overly fussy about *where* it existed) then, I dunno, North
West USA anyone?

cc

[Rebecca Loader]

Post by cowboy carl
Cool beans ... interestingly, there are more Jews in America than in Israel.
Food for thought... if Israel didn't exist for religious reasons (and
thus wasn't overly fussy about *where* it existed) then, I dunno, North
West USA anyone?

Interestingly, some prominent political Zionists in the late 19th, early
20th century weren't tied to the idea of creating a Jewish state
specifically in what is now Israel; only a minority of Jews specifically
targetted Palestine. Uganda and Argentina were suggested as possibilities.

If you're talking about the USA, I think North East is where the Jewish
concentration is more likely to be.

Becky

[cowboy carl]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by cowboy carl
Cool beans ... interestingly, there are more Jews in America than in

Israel.

Post by cowboy carl
Food for thought... if Israel didn't exist for religious reasons (and
thus wasn't overly fussy about *where* it existed) then, I dunno, North
West USA anyone?

Interestingly, some prominent political Zionists in the late 19th, early
20th century weren't tied to the idea of creating a Jewish state
specifically in what is now Israel; only a minority of Jews specifically
targetted Palestine. Uganda and Argentina were suggested as possibilities.
If you're talking about the USA, I think North East is where the Jewish
concentration is more likely to be.

Sorry, yeah, I *always* get my east and west muddled up when it comes to
America ;-)

I guess cos it's all west of us ... I just think of the whole country as
west :-/

cc

[Ian/Cath Ford]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:04:43 -0000, "Rebecca Loader"

Post by Rebecca Loader
For variety's sake, and because I know there are people here who hold strong
religious views, are interested in religion and/or study it at A-level (and
may even have a taught the odd period - Ian?), I was wondering what you
consider to be the purpose of RE in school.

Becky, I'll get to this at the weekend - shed loads of damned reports
and a college assessmnet (*nobody* do cooking at college OK - you have
to work really fucking hard for it :-) ) at the moment,

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later