"A key aim of the curriculum is to promote pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and prepare them for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of life. The Government believes that all pupils should be given the opportunity to develop their knowledge, understanding and awareness of the major religions represented in this country. Parents, however, have the right to withdraw their children from all or any part of religious education.
Religious education teaches about the concept of religion and belief – it does not indoctrinate or provide instruction in any religion. It is important because it provokes challenging questions about the ultimate meaning and purpose of life, the nature of beliefs and reality and the self. It stimulates thinking about issues of right and wrong and what it means to be human and helps pupils to develop their own values. It plays a central role in the curriculum of all schools and that is why it is part of the basic school curriculum.
Pupils learn to recognise the impact of religion and belief locally, nationally and globally. It encourages respect for those holding different beliefs. It also encourages consideration of issues around faith, identity and diversity which underpin community cohesion. This is an essential part of enabling young people to develop mature and informed views about the world around them."
quedula says: In an ideal world it is difficult to take much exception to this but the whole essence of the government's position seems to hang on the sentence I have italicised. Are we really asked to believe that religious education classes will always be taught by atheists or humanists and, if not, that the usual religious teacher will take much care at all to distinguish between "teaching the concept of religion" and "providing instruction" in it?
Even in the US, with a secular constitution, problems arise in the classroom as this recent case shows:-
"This past week, Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger ruled that teachers and officials at the Webster School in St. Johns County acted improperly by having third-grade youngsters practice "In God We Still Trust," composed by the country singing group Diamond Rio.
Judge Schlesinger opined that students had their First Amendment rights violated when they were forced to choose between performing "proselytizing" and "sectarian" music or skipping their school assembly? He described the song as "espousing a specific religious viewpoint and attacking those who do not share in the same belief." "
This is just so much bollocks:
ReplyDelete"A key aim of the curriculum is to promote pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and prepare them for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of life. The Government believes that all pupils should be given the opportunity to develop their knowledge, understanding and awareness of the major religions represented in this country.
Let's look at the juxtaposition of ideas here. First we get "pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and prepare them for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of life", then, straightaway, we get "The Government believes that all pupils should be given the opportunity to develop their knowledge, understanding and awareness of the major religions".
So what are we to make of this? Why, that the only way for pupils for gain these ideas is through studying religion. Now I have no objection to studying religions. It's a valid choice of academic subject, since religions play a huge part in history and in geopolitics and many other fields of study. But it's this bullshit about preparing them for life and giving them religion, as if one couldn't exist without the other.
I don't bother with these Downing Street petitions any more. So many times have I received a bland attempt at a response in my inbox that I despair. The point of a petition, I thought, was to try to persuade a body to do something. This just seems like a way of telling Downing Street something and getting a response based on government policy. Why don't we just write to Downing Street?
It probably prevents just that, of course. "Oh, no need to write to the PM: I've signed a Downing Street petition. That'll do the trick."
Yeah, and the Pope's boyfriend has just had triplets.
Yes that's a good point Andy. Why bring religion into it at all unless the pupil elects for it?
ReplyDeleteAs regards the usefulness of no.10 petitions a lot of people are prepared to sign them who wouldn't bother to write. They at least show no.10 what people are concerned about and if you imagine a petition getting several million signatures it would presumably be something the government would have to take very seriously indeed.
Many thanks for commenting.
I think, like Armitage, that religion should be studied, but with distance and stressing that the beliefs are that, a belief, not factual. And when we know that what the sacred text (whatever that may be) is mistaken, it should be said in class. We know the Genesis did not happen, we know King David was at best a chief of tribe, we know that the Virgin Birth was a late addition to the myth of Jesus, etc. The problem in this country is that often the dogma prevails over facts. The Church of England simply has an incestuous relationship with both the state and the educational system.
ReplyDeleteI agree one wouldn't want to actually ban the study of religion but at the moment due to the "incestuous relationship" you mention it still carries a degree of quite unwarranted respect within the education system. It is surely less useful than ancient greek, latin or history. It really needs demoting.
ReplyDeleteI see what you mean and agree completely. Priesthood is the only profession that requires no competence, only the conviction of the believer. Priests can be smart and educated, but it is not a requirement (and they don't even know latin or ancient Greek anymore). I cringe every time the Anglican vicar gives a speech at the school where I work. And it saddens me to see the students bowing their heads.
ReplyDelete