Humanism at last

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.

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

"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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

My grandchildren were taught about Hindu and Baha'i faiths

As I said before, pastoral covers it.

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...

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.

Whaaat?!!! (feetlebaum)

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

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.

'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'!

I don't see it as aggressive atheism - it is neither aggressive nor atheist. Many humanists are agnostic, not atheist. And including humanism in the curriculum is simply honest and fair.

Above all else we should be honest with children in school. We should tell them that there are people who believe many different things, some including the supernatural and some not. If we do not include the "some not", then it is dishonest.

"The assumption for the current syllabus that you either are religious- or do not have 'morality' is wrong." (*gj*)

There is no such assumption.

Sounds like aggresive atheists pushing their own agenda, to me.

Same for me Crafting, I have met kindness and nastiness with Christians and atheists .

I am a Christian but have never thought for one second that I am better than anyone else (far from it) or that you have to have faith to be a good kind person. I think that in every colour, race or religion (or no religion) that there are good and bad people. Kindness can be found in all sorts of places as can evil and wickedness.

Thanks Greenfinch - your comments fit well with the experience at our daughter's high school. I have friends who taught RE who fit into the mold you describe perfectly.

Agreed, feetle. What one believes religion- or non-religion-wise doesn't really matter except on a private, personal level. It's how one behaves towards others that matters.

jingl, it is not about 'teaching atheism' or 'humanism' as such - but explaining that you do not need a religion to develop a strong moral framework. The assumption for the current syllabus that you either are religious- or do not have 'morality' is wrong. If children look at how different religions would react when faced with a dilemma, then they could see how humanists would rationalise their actions.

Greenfinch, I am so pleased to hear that- I can only speak about the schools I taught at and the ones my children and grand-children attend/ed.

@thatbags - As in The Golden Rule? It appears in one form or another in just about every philosophy - Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Unless you are a masochist, of course!

Why not just follow the best precepts of all of them? They are pretty universal and applicable everywhere. Saves a lot of bother about belief systems.

gillybob, my elder granddaughter who took R E to A level, went from Buddhism , Christianity, humanism and when she developed a crush on a boy from Nepal gave some thought to Baha'i or Hindu, and for a very short time took an interest in the faith of the North American Indian

Exactly Luckygirl