Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education (SACRE). Dorset Humanists serve on a number of local SACREs (Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education) to promote the inclusion of Humanism in religious education. Humanism is now included in the National Framework for Religious Education and we have been successful in getting Humanism included in the Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset syllabuses. We have also visited a number of local schools to speak to sixth formers about Humanism and to deliver Humanist assemblies. We have also spoken in the Bournemouth Council Chamber against discriminatory subsidies for transport to faith schools. Source: Dorset Humanists
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Atheist banned from committee on religious education
by Simon Barrett
Reposted from:
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/generalnews/display.var.1279333.0.atheist_banned_from_committee_on_religious_education.php
Thanks to Scott McGraw for sending this our way.
An atheist has spoken of his dismay after being sidelined from discussions on how religion is taught in schools.
Former teacher Andrew Edmondson attempted to win a place on the West Sussex County Council's advisory committee for religious education (SACRE) but was denied by a majority vote.
Mr Edmondson, a humanist, believes people can lead their lives without religion and use reason to explain the world and solve problems.
Despite giving a presentation on humanism to members they voted against allowing him a place on the committee.
Mr Edmondson, of Balcombe, said: "Despite the detailed presentation I gave them, they likened humanism to minority religions such as pagans and scientologists.
"They failed to understand that humanism is the voice of reason, necessary to balance supernatural beliefs. Our children should be given a choice in schools and not railroaded into believing one thing or another.
"It is appalling that children in West Sussex are not taught that there is an alternative to religion. There is nothing stopping any school from teaching non-religious views. Schools should surely try to encourage reason."
Mr Edmondson argued that a humanist representative on the committee would speak for the non-religious people of West Sussex. He said recent polls had shown 62 per cent of people preferred humanist explanations to religious ones and 65 per cent of young people, aged between 12 and 19, were atheist or agnostic.
He said: "This is a missed opportunity for West Sussex and is contrary to the Human Rights Act. Children have a right to learn non-religious views."
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority recommends the inclusion of humanism in order to provide a broad and balanced curriculum.
Only two groups on the committee supported Mr Edmondson's application - the teachers and the Church of England which has a policy of inclusion.
Those who voted against included West Sussex County Council representatives, headteachers and minority religions.
British Humanist Association spokesman Andrew Copson said "Humanists have made a significant contribution to religious education over the last few decades. It is sad that the West Sussex committee does not seem to have recognised this and has missed an opportunity to take an inclusive approach. If religious education is to be a meaningful subject for all then those whose values are not religious must be included."
Committee chairwoman Margaret Collins said: "Following a lengthy debate lasting three meetings including a presentation from Mr Edmondson the committee decided by a majority vote not to include a non-religious organisation within its membership."
A West Sussex County Council spokesman added that secondary schools already included humanist views in the curriculum.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/generalnews/display.var.1279333.0.atheist_banned_from_committee_on_religious_education.php
Thanks to Scott McGraw for sending this our way.
An atheist has spoken of his dismay after being sidelined from discussions on how religion is taught in schools.
Former teacher Andrew Edmondson attempted to win a place on the West Sussex County Council's advisory committee for religious education (SACRE) but was denied by a majority vote.
Mr Edmondson, a humanist, believes people can lead their lives without religion and use reason to explain the world and solve problems.
Despite giving a presentation on humanism to members they voted against allowing him a place on the committee.
Mr Edmondson, of Balcombe, said: "Despite the detailed presentation I gave them, they likened humanism to minority religions such as pagans and scientologists.
"They failed to understand that humanism is the voice of reason, necessary to balance supernatural beliefs. Our children should be given a choice in schools and not railroaded into believing one thing or another.
"It is appalling that children in West Sussex are not taught that there is an alternative to religion. There is nothing stopping any school from teaching non-religious views. Schools should surely try to encourage reason."
Mr Edmondson argued that a humanist representative on the committee would speak for the non-religious people of West Sussex. He said recent polls had shown 62 per cent of people preferred humanist explanations to religious ones and 65 per cent of young people, aged between 12 and 19, were atheist or agnostic.
He said: "This is a missed opportunity for West Sussex and is contrary to the Human Rights Act. Children have a right to learn non-religious views."
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority recommends the inclusion of humanism in order to provide a broad and balanced curriculum.
Only two groups on the committee supported Mr Edmondson's application - the teachers and the Church of England which has a policy of inclusion.
Those who voted against included West Sussex County Council representatives, headteachers and minority religions.
British Humanist Association spokesman Andrew Copson said "Humanists have made a significant contribution to religious education over the last few decades. It is sad that the West Sussex committee does not seem to have recognised this and has missed an opportunity to take an inclusive approach. If religious education is to be a meaningful subject for all then those whose values are not religious must be included."
Committee chairwoman Margaret Collins said: "Following a lengthy debate lasting three meetings including a presentation from Mr Edmondson the committee decided by a majority vote not to include a non-religious organisation within its membership."
A West Sussex County Council spokesman added that secondary schools already included humanist views in the curriculum.
************ Comments ***********
7. 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.
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?
Because if pupils are to be taught about religion in schools then non-religious belief systems should be an important part of the syllabus.
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.
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".
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)?
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
8. Comment #27398 by AJ Rae on March 24, 2007 at 11:40 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."
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.
9. Comment #27404 by Yorker on March 24, 2007 at 11:57 am
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?
15. Comment #27444 by cnewell on March 24, 2007 at 4:47 pm
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.
16. Comment #27448 by MelM on March 24, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Teach the controversy. Teach critical thinking skills.18. Comment #27461 by mmurray on March 24, 2007 at 6:04 pm
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
19. Comment #27462 by Ohnhai on March 24, 2007 at 6:04 pm
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.
20. Comment #27464 by BaronOchs on March 24, 2007 at 6:10 pm
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".
21. Comment #27465 by Zigster on March 24, 2007 at 6:34 pm
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)?
23. Comment #27471 by Veronique on March 24, 2007 at 6:58 pm
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.
26. Comment #27509 by cnewell on March 25, 2007 at 4:38 am
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.
27. Comment #27510 by stephenray on March 25, 2007 at 4:44 am
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...
28. Comment #27511 by cnewell on March 25, 2007 at 4:59 am
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?
32. Comment #27675 by Philip1978 on March 26, 2007 at 4:54 am
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
reposted from: RD
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments
2 comments:
Dear webmaster
The following article on your website contains an incorrect quote from Andrew Copson of the BHA:
The Argus has now apologised for putting this "joke" quote in their newspaper, and has replaced it (see: http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/generalnews/display.var.1279333.0.atheist_banned_from_committee_on_religious_education.php)
Please replace the incorrect quote: "British Humanist Association spokesman Andrew Copson yesterday called the decision "narrow-minded, bigoted and stupid."
with the correct quote: "
"Humanists have made a significant contribution to religious education over the last few decades. It is sad that the West Sussex committee does not seem to have recognised this and has missed an opportunity to take an inclusive approach. If religious education is to be a meaningful subject for all then those whose values are not religious must be included."
Thank you
Andrew Edmondson (the atheist)
Hi Andrew, correction actioned.
Post a Comment