I'm as atheist as the rest of you (if there are degrees of atheism....!) but it does seem rather strange that Andrew Edmondson should wish to participate on a committee that discusses how religion is taught in schools. It's rather like a teetotaller wishing to have a say on how wines and spirits are sold, or a vegetarian sitting on the Butchers' Committee.
I suppose that if he were admitted, his opinion on how religion should be taught to children would be limited to one word : "Not."
I am opposed to capital punishment in all cases, without exception. I will not be asking to be heard in a discussion on the comparative merits of the lethal injection as opposed to the electric chair.
I'm as atheist as the rest of you (if there are degrees of atheism....!) but it does seem rather strange that Andrew Edmondson should wish to participate on a committee that discusses how religion is taught in schools. It's rather like a teetotaller wishing to have a say on how wines and spirits are sold, or a vegetarian sitting on the Butchers' Committee.
I suppose that if he were admitted, his opinion on how religion should be taught to children would be limited to one word : "Not."
Every child is taught religion, and many Atheists want children, even their own, to be taught religion. So Atheists should have a say in how religion is taught, that's education. Many Atheists don't want indoctrination and preaching of the wonders of irrational faith, something children shouldn't have to be subjected to.
Does anyone know where these poll figures come from?
If they are correct - and I suspect they may be - then perhaps a good idea would be to appeal to the natural rebelliousness of young people. Maybe this site should set up a special section for youngsters where it could be pointed out that those who back religion want to teach religion because it gives them control over the minds of young people.
Of course, the religious establishment would be up in arms about what they would see as subversion and an attempt by atheists to control the minds of our children, but so what? That's exactly what they're doing. Young people are the key and are also more computer savvy than many adults; within a short time the search engines would pick up on the new section of RDF and curious youngsters would want to take a look. The content and presentation of such a section would have to be carefully thought out and designed, but that's another matter.
This is just a quick idea off the top of my head, deeper thought might prove it unwise, but perhaps it's worth that deeper thought.
What do others think?
Why should atheists be represented on statutory advisory committees for religious education?
Because if pupils are to be taught about religion in schools then non-religious belief systems should be an important part of the syllabus.
Teach the controversy. Teach critical thinking skills.
I wonder if being on the Advisory Committee for Political Education requires you to be a member of a political party or a believer in some political ideology.
Michael
I love the delicious parallels with the attempts to crowbar creationism (in all its manifest guises) into the science curriculum.
Humanism and Atheism are not 'religion' per say, and thus probably should not be taught in religious education classes. Same goes for "Creation Science" not being real science and thus having no place in the science class room.
But where the division gets tricky is I believe that religious education classes must be inclusive of all religions and teach the actual historical (not hysterical) facts of all these religions. It should also make it quite clear that not believing in gods and the supernatural is equally a valid out look to take in this world. This can be done without teaching 'Humanism' and should be as humanism is NOT a religion, and religions tend to focus around deistic belief.
If you force humanism into RE classes then you best be willing to admit CS in to the science class room.
If you force humanism into RE classes then you best be willing to admit CS in to the science class room.
I suggest R.E should be renamed something like Religion, Philosophy and Ethics. In which case you could teach relevant material that isn't necessarily "religion".
Comment #27388 by Richard Morgan on March 24, 2007 at 10:45 am
I'm as atheist as the rest of you (if there are degrees of atheism....!) but it does seem rather strange that Andrew Edmondson should wish to participate on a committee that discusses how religion is taught in schools. It's rather like a teetotaller wishing to have a say on how wines and spirits are sold, or a vegetarian sitting on the Butchers' Committee.
I suppose that if he were admitted, his opinion on how religion should be taught to children would be limited to one word : "Not."
I am opposed to capital punishment in all cases, without exception. I will not be asking to be heard in a discussion on the comparative merits of the lethal injection as opposed to the electric chair.
I disagree. Religious education should not be about helping children to choose which religion they wish to be a member of (their parents and/or church will have already done that for them) but to make the children aware of all the other religions out there - and that some (an increasing number) reject all religions.
Using your example on capital punishment, I would want to be part of such a discussion to make sure the option of not executing people is discussed otherwise it is taken as read that capital punishment is acceptable.
Similarly, would you want an appreciation of alcohol taught only by alcoholics - some favouring whiskey and some special brew? Or would a teetotaller bring the message that you don't have to drink to have a good time (not that I've ever bought that argument myself! :D)?
Yorker - RD has such a terrifically high profile that many students, kids, young people, have heard of him and the raging debate about ID and Evolution.
I think it would be a good thing to develop a resource website that they can access. There must be some out there already, probably started by them themselves. One more attached to RD wouldn't go astray.
It would need a good moderator but I think the included resource material need not be that different from what is already here. Kids today have access to and know more than you and I ever did at a young age.
Comparative Religion should be included because I think that area is sadly missing in the school curricula. It could stem the hardening of belief before it calicifies.
They would also need threads and forums. Any links to this site would, hopefully, lift our game somewhat.
Let's ask RD and Josh what they think and if they have any practical format suggestions.
I would encourage non-religious people to get involved with their local SACRE (Statutory Advisory Committee for Religious Education) and ask difficult questions. Every county and metropolitan area in the U.K. has to have one. The meetings are held in public so anyone can attend but you may also be able to join the committee and have a greater impact.
The teaching of non-religious beliefs is now included in the "Guidelines on Religious Education" issued by the national Qualifications and Curriculum Authority so there is precedent for teaching these beliefs in R.E.
However, there is no precedent or logical reason for teaching Creationism in science classes so I wouldn't worry about that too much!
I think it's very important for the large numbers of children who are non-religious (over 60% ?) to know that their beliefs are shared by many adults and are taken seriously. When I was at school the sheer weight of religious study and worship made me feel like an outcast.
I dunno.
If we want to keep religion out of the science classroom, isn't this the other side of the coin?
I think we would all accept that atheism isn't a religion, so why should the religious let us in the RI classroom?
We have to challenge the unquestioning acceptance of the unchallenged position of religion in education, but attempts such as this may make a rod for our own backs...
R.E these days does not concern worship (something we should all oppose) but involves learning factual information about religions (anathema to some but could be argued to be useful - better the devil you know).
If we can't get rid of R.E. then it's important that non-religious beliefs are given equal weight to religious beliefs.
I think we should trust pupils to make up their own minds if presented with all the information in an unbiased way. Recent surveys show current pupils to be refreshingly sceptical. Has anyone got the statistics to hand?
By all means teach religion in school, I learned a load about the Norse gods and Greek mythology amongst other things and it was amazingly interesting. During my A Levels we actually debated in the religious education class, there were atheists, muslims, catholics, protestants and the teacher was the school chaplain! Kids should grow up with the choice, they look to adults for guidance and a chance to make their own minds up, give them a full education. Teaching creationism in science class is pathetic and wrong because it is not science, it is a point of view that kids should know about in a religious education class. Because that is what it should be, education of the worlds religions and the views that agree or disagree with it
