Humanism at last

'Aggressive atheists' - really? Decapitating people? Flying aircraft into buildings? That sort of thing? Or perhaps just having the stupid audacity to offer an argument? Other useful terms: 'strident' and 'arrogant'!

It's a subject. Religious education. Why muddy the water with stuff that must be obvious to anyone? The purpose of Religious Education is to explain (educate in) world religions. Not to convert. Or otherwise.

Specifically putting over the point that no one has to believe in any God, is not within that remit. It's making a point.

Whaaat?!!! (feetlebaum)

Wtf has that got to do with the subject of this thread?

I do not think it is obvious to children that some people doubt the existence of god or other supernatural forces. They are taught about all the theist religions, but not about belief systems that do not include god; except Buddhism. Now thankfully also humanism.

Who do humanists worship? Each other? Who do they show devotion to?

It's not a religion. It doesn't meet the criteria.

And as for atheism...

As I said before, pastoral covers it.

My grandchildren were taught about Hindu and Baha'i faiths

For fifteen consecutive years I have been invited into local schools, because I am a practicing Christian, to answer questions, put to me by the children, in RE lessons. The children are aged 7 to 16 and believe me that by the time they are in the older age group they all demonstrate a very strong grasp of the major religions, atheism, humanism, agnosticism and secularism. The latter themes are extensively covered in pastoral studies and are also alluded to within the RE syllabus.

In response to jingl's point about humanism and atheism not being religions (quite right), how about not calling it Religious Education, but something like Belief System (clumsy, I know! someone else will come up with a better idea) Education. Humanism and Atheism are then included. The only thing, in fact, that separates them from religious believers is the lack of faith in gods. They use the same moral and ethical ideas to guide their behaviour and it is those values we want children to know about.

I think religious education (faith-based stuff) should be left to parents and churches.

If RE were to be left to parents a lot of children would not receive any and would be the poorer for it. The main aim of the subject is to develop and examine the spiritual aspect of humanity and the individual. If that is rejected later on fair enough but at least they know what they are rejecting.

I do not believe that it is not obvious to children that some people doubt the existence of God (*luckygirl*).My 8 year old autistic grandson has already decided this for himself. He announced that he does not believe in God because he has never seen him. The same goes for Father Christmas.

The teaching of RE is also an opportunity for children who are being given only one true faith in their homes to be exposed to other beliefs.

"If RE were to be left to parents a lot of children would not receive any and would be the poorer for it"

All this suggests to me, greenfinch, is that those parents, if there are any, don't really care about their nominal religion. That still leaves churches but if parents don't take their kids to church that also suggests a lackadaisical attitude to religion.

Which is not the same as a lackadaisical attitude to ethics and morality. I heartily agree that children should be taught about belief systems at school. Religons are not the only type.

In short, that judge who ruled that humanism should be included in so-called religious education in schools was absolutely right.

It would be very easy to change the name of the syllabus/course to 'Religious and moral education' - job done.

Bags, most of the people I know who have children, do not send them there for the RE content, but because they are 'better' schools- including all in my family.

Nobody ever replied, I think- to the hypothetical questionI asked last year- how many people who, in the UK, put CofE on a census, would continue to do so if they had to pay compulsory tax for the Church, on top of their normal taxes (as is the case here where I live) if they do. What do you think? Would you pay 5% extra on your taxes for the CofE or Catholic Church, or the Church of your choice. Many here voted very quickly with their feet.

Jingl : Who do humanists worship? Each other? Who do they show devotion to?

That is the whole point- that it is perfectly possible to develop a strong moral framework, without the above- just because it makes total sense, without having to be 'told from above'. Hence adding 'and moral education' on the syllabus.

But then it can't be a religion. By definition.

I'm all for teaching kids a strong moral framework, but as a separate subject away from RE.

ga I'm not at all sure about schools inviting a committed Christian into schools to answer questions in RE. Religious Education should simply teach the facts on world religions. Teachers should not try to influence the children in any way. But I'm sure "you" don't do that.

Unless It's a church school, of course.

But jings, their strong moral framework is a part of every religion. do you know any religions that don't try to inculcate morals? A non-religious upbringing does the same. So part of a syllabus about "Religious and moral education" would include a system of morality which does not include a supernatural outside arbiter in framing our morality and ethics.

But, as I said, in RE you are teaching them about the beliefs of each religion, along with the historical facts behind the religions. You should be giving knowldge, not moral guidance. That should be separate, away from religion. (And, in an ideal world, should come as much from the parents as the schools).

Anyway, stable door's bolted now. Or the horse has.

Done and dusted.

"in an ideal world" yes I agree jings but we all know that there are many parents who avoid these kinds of discussions I am still waiting for my parents to give me the sex education that they forbid me to have at school.

I think its up to schools to teach children about all kinds of religions and non-religions too, which seems to be happening in my DGC's primary school already.

I won't ask how you found out about it.

One reason for teaching about the different religions is to prevent children assuiming that someone with a different faith from their own is a wicked heathen with no conscience. Surely those who take their moral compass from a humanistic view of human relations, or from a secular belief in person-to-person responsibilty, should also be included?

Unless, of course, one is of the view that these people are wicked heathens with no moral conscience?

By sheer accident jings How else?