|
 |
February 14, 2004 ATHEISM IN BRITAIN....You learn something new about obscure foreign cultures all the time:
I know, I know, I'm just showing my ignorance when I say I had no idea that all schools in Britain were required to provide religious education. Now I know. I guess it just goes to show how cloistered we Americans are that this never occurred to me. I mean, can you even imagine this happening here? I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about teaching a "History of Religion" class or something like it in an American high school, but it just wouldn't happen. And then a proposal to add atheism as one of the highlighted religions? Kaboom! I wonder what they teach in these religious education classes? Are there any British commenters out there who can tell us? Posted by Kevin Drum at February 14, 2004 09:37 PM | TrackBackComments
RE was mandatory for three years (first through third form) back when I were a lad; it was optional at GCSE and A level. As for what we learned... well, we covered all the major religions and philosophies thereof -- Xianity (Catholicism v. Protestantism), Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and Sikhism, IIRC, though we might have hit a few others -- we visited various religious sites (mainly Chinese temples because this was in Hong Kong) and talked to priests of all stripes. We read various books, though they were mainly summaries suitable for middle-school children rather than the actual holy books themselves, and had the odd discussion about religious matters. Our RE teachers were very careful not to promote any one particular view over any others, to the point of refusing to state their own religious viewpoints in class. Didn't find out until much later that one was an atheist, the other a gay Anglican; who knew? I had a couple of friends who did RE at A level, and they did some really cool stuff like atheism, agnosticism, and Communism (?!). They also covered the actual holy books and scriptures themselves and generally immersed themselves in the study of comparative religion; sort of the equivalent of a 200-level college course in same. I can probably rustle up some more stuff should anyone care, but that oughtta do for now. Posted by: Anarch at February 14, 2004 09:53 PM | PERMALINKI think much more beneficial to our country and others around the world would be to teach a more-balanced view of history. Is it ever possible, for instance, to see the teaching of Christoper Columbus as the great sailor and mass murderer that he was? George Washington as first president and slaveowner who once got a whole barrle of molasses for one of his slaves? The lobsided view of American History we get as kids is what breeds Red States, methinks... Posted by: Peter at February 14, 2004 09:56 PM | PERMALINKI actually had a really evenhanded class on religion in a Kentucky public high school. It didn't address athiesm, but it did cover major faiths from across the world. Christianity got the most focus, but it was covered pretty factually. If that happened here, I'm sure it's not uncommon in less Bible-focused states. Of course, we just elected a Republican governor, so I'm sure that lesson plan will be revised soon... the class will probably start with something like "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal saviour?" Posted by: Lou Guy at February 14, 2004 09:58 PM | PERMALINKMy RE class in the late 70's was much like Anarch's. The less mechanistic aspects of sex education also got covered in this class. Again, no idea of the denomination of the teachers we had, if they had one or not. Posted by: eibashijo at February 14, 2004 10:07 PM | PERMALINKI love this bit from the Observer's leader (editorial): In any case, believers and atheists do not differ by as much as they often think. Neither side accepts the existence of all the other deities that humans worship in different parts of the world. Atheists merely go one god further.Posted by: bad Jim at February 14, 2004 10:13 PM | PERMALINK Teaching people about religions in school is a great idea, as long as the classes are informative and not proselytizing. Posted by: marky at February 14, 2004 10:23 PM | PERMALINKWhy would they teach about Confucianism in a religion class? Posted by: David at February 14, 2004 10:26 PM | PERMALINK"...one god further." Is there any wit drier than that of the British? Posted by: Linkmeister at February 14, 2004 10:30 PM | PERMALINKDavid: Because "religion" was held to be more than mere theology. Confucianism was -- like Communism, I'm told, though I didn't take the A level version -- a secular (i.e. godless) religion that functioned more or less as a "conventional" religion. In addition, though I don't recall the sequence of this, one can add ancestor-worship into the mix to get a more conventional religion, as was done for many centuries in China. It's as good a classification of Chinese religion as any, I guess... Posted by: Anarch at February 14, 2004 10:36 PM | PERMALINKIn my Northern Virginia high school in 1965-66, our "American Civilization" class (combined U.S. History and American literature, team taught in two periods to hs juniors) brought in the religious beliefs of the various important immigrant groups. One of our classmates was the daughter of the local Episcopal priest, who told us about their beliefs. Our history "text book" was original documents, plus lecture by our history teacher. We read works of American literature at the point in the timeline that the work was written. The religion sections were a small part of the overall class, which was a high point in my memory of my high school education. I think that is the way history/am.lit should be taught. Posted by: cafl at February 14, 2004 10:37 PM | PERMALINKsweet....i've been trying to convince the wife that if we did split the country for other pastures (greener ones, mr. blake?) that i'd be able to find a job somewhere. i could so handle that job. i'm an internet licensed minister AND an atheist. what more do they need? Posted by: j at February 14, 2004 10:38 PM | PERMALINKCalpunditry: When I was about 33, the age of Jesus at the
Crucifixtion, I began attending a Unitarian-Universalist church. What
my English friends speak of, here, as their experience in RE class is
much what I found attending a U-U church. There was a balance to
religious and spiritual thought and belief. One Sunday, I was walking
down a hall in the back wing of the church at the time services were
being held in the "sanctuary." I noticed a group of 7 or 8 men in a
small office, talking. I found out later that this was the atheist
group at the church. None in this group would go into the service, but
they had to be there in that office every Sunday to talk among
themselves. I sat in occasionally and learned quite a lot and did some
reading on the subject subsequent to being around them. RE was good for
me at that church. I wonder what my reaction would have been to such a
cirriculum when I was 10 or 11 or 12 years of age. An associate taught comparative religion in high school in Ohio before she retired. I have long maintained that you have to teach the King James Bible in any Western literature course, because it is alluded to so often by writers of English. As far as American history goes, I would ask the burning question, do you think that the Spanish conquistadors treated the Native Americans any differently than they treated Spanish peasants? You have to look at history in context. For centuries in Europe torturers and executioners were civil service positions. Posted by: Bryan at February 14, 2004 10:43 PM | PERMALINKUU's don't have any particular creed. In my town they define themselves as a fellowship rather than a church. It surprises me that your atheists wouldn't attend services. The content of the program may vary with the minister, but in ours it's often a topical issue and the speaker is someone with relevant knowledge. In effect, just a lecture, with music, singing, classes for children and a modicum of ceremony. Unitarianism is growing 1-2% a year in the U.S. My town's group is bursting at the seams. They need either a larger church or multiple services. Posted by: bad Jim at February 14, 2004 10:51 PM | PERMALINKcafl, what NoVa school was that? I went to Jefferson HS from '64-'68. Posted by: Linkmeister at February 14, 2004 11:03 PM | PERMALINKMy high school had a history of the 4 major religions class a couple years ago. This is in Montana, and it was by the most respected teacher in the school, so I doubt anyone cared. Posted by: Jeff at February 14, 2004 11:06 PM | PERMALINKOn UUs (I am one myself...isn't everybody?) Garrison Keillor has some of the best lines. Or my favorite: We Lutherans have the Ten Commandments of Moses, the UUS have the Ten Suggestions of Martha! "You say you found Jesus, You say you found Buddha, You say you found Mohammed, You say you found Krishna, Well, there's something missing The whole thing only makes sense when you realise that the British school system is the result of a fromally christian state being run by atheists when it took over responsibility for the school system. the earliest schools were all, of course, exolicitly religious foundations. Founding a school, like founding and Oxford College, was the mediaeval equivalent of the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation. The nineteeth century public (elite, private) schools were explicitly religious in ethos and purpose. The one I attended had compulsory chapel every day, discount rates for sons of the clergy, and my own scholarship was largely won on the basis of a hysterical rant in the Divinity exam. In the mean time, most of the rest of the primary and secondary school systems were set up by the churches. When the 1944 education act nationalised them, the churches were left with a big stake in their running, but with most of the costs borne by the taxpayer. So the vicar down the road is ex officio chairman of the governors of one of the local schools. But at the same time, no one believes a word of it. So there is
compulsory religious educaiton, and a complusory 'assembly', of a
broadly religious character, in every school. It's written into the law.
Real efforts are made, though, in most schools, to ensure that these
become lessons in what other people believe. Actually, there's nothing un-Constituional about teaching about comparative religions, the influence of religion on art, politics, etc., or even using the Holey Babble is a course on comparative literature (fiction, of course). The idea that religion _as_ _a_ _subject_ is verboten in schools is a common misconception. What is not allowed under Lemon is the "advancement of religion" generally, or worse, any specific religion. (the other two prong are that there must be a valid secular purpose to the government's actions, and the actions must not foster an "excessive entanglement" of governmental and religious affairs). Many schools may shy away from even considering the permissible types
of religion-related studies for fear of the third prong ... and many
would refuse to do a comparative religions course not for fear that the
ACLU would complain, but rather for fear that the fundies would get all
bent out of shape about their favourite religion getting equal billing
with all the Satanic cults, infidels, blasphemers, and heathens out
there. HTH. -- Arne Langsetmo Bad Jim: Not completely original. Standard sig in "alt.atheism": "We're all atheists. I simply disbelieve in one more God than you." -- Arne Langsetmo David: I suspect they're taught a lot about confusion in -- Arne Langsetmo I did RE at school in the UK back in the late 60s and early 70s. At
that time I think RE, Religious Education was a fairly new approach for
schools, as prior to that the classes had been called RI, Religious
Instruction, and were far more about teaching mainstream Christianity as
if it were the one true faith. So when I did it the curriculum was
evolving, and was still about 70% about teaching Xtian faith &
history.
Other than that, life for a Mexican Indian was worse than that of a Spanish peasant in every way. The encomienda system distributed Indians to Spanish colonists, to be worked as the colonists pleased. That was followed by a system where Indians were worked 45 days/year and paid a small wage (in theory); in practice many died of malnutrition and overwork. In defense of the Spaniards, it should be noted that smallpox was the
main Indian-killer in the New World, not the Spaniards. Also,
contemporary British and American policies do not compare favorably with
Spanish policy. Eddie Cochrane: Until 1988 RE was the only subject that British schools were legally required to teach. That doesn't sound right at all; I'm sure that Maths and English were also mandatory. Do you have a cite? Posted by: Anarch at February 14, 2004 11:59 PM | PERMALINKArne Langsetmo, I'd only seen that once before. I participated briefly in a Unitarian youth group (Liberal Religious
Youth?) nearly forty years ago. It wasn't quite my cup of meat. In the
middle of one discussion I had an insight which I shared with the group:
"Man created God in his own image!" They were underwhelmed, and I was
chagrined to find that I wasn't the first person to think this. I did one hour a week of "Bible Study" at primary school, 1971-78, and one hour a week of "Religious Education" at secondary school, 1978-82 (after fourth year it ceased to be compulsory). The "Bible Study" wasn't very interesting: stories from the bible suitable for children, with pretty pictures of, you know, Jesus and lambs. The first two years of "Religious Education" were taught by a Methodist preacher who had a textbook that covered each sect of Christianity and each world religion not Christianity as one chapter. The second two years the subject was more "moral education" - I remember people coming in to lecture us on the evils of abortion (didn't convince me) and drinking (really didn't convince me). There was no consistent attempt to teach us about the history of religions and religious belief. I was relieved to be done with it. Posted by: Yonmei at February 15, 2004 12:26 AM | PERMALINKIn Sunday school, when 6 or 7 years old, I drew a picture of a resurrected Jesus falling through a cloud on his way to heaven. I was, of coursed, lectured how inappropriate that was and DON'T DO IT AGAIN. Things were never quite the same after that between me and them. The funny thing being, of course, is that Jesus surely would have laughed right along with me. It's always the messengers who twist things all up, isn't it? Posted by: Sovereign Eye at February 15, 2004 12:48 AM | PERMALINKI was sorta shocked to see "Bible as Literarure" on the course schedule for my old (public) high school, in freeperville (literally) Fresno. Posted by: Troy at February 15, 2004 12:55 AM | PERMALINKIt's not surprising that teaching of religion is required in England.
They do, after all, have an official state religion (the Anglican
Church), whose official titular leader is Queen Elizabeth II (thus the
"defender of the faith" clause in the long version of her official
title... the Archbishop of Canterbury is of course the actual spiritual
leader). The notion of seperation of church and state has been foreign
to England since the days of Henry VIII. In my (nominally Catholic) high school the religion teacher brought in real Jehova Witnesses for us to bash. Later he offered to discuss Nietzsche, but we would rather have a free hour, so he let us go. This was Holland, around 1986 I think. Posted by: Motoko Kusanagi at February 15, 2004 01:09 AM | PERMALINKI would theoretically completely support education about religion in American Schools, and I don't even think it would necessarily be considered a violation of the first Amendment as long as it wasn't an "Endorsement". The problem is, we as a Country wouldn't deal with it very well. Religious Fundamentalists and Extremists in America would never be able to deal with it, because none of their beliefs hold up well in an Academic setting filled with criticism and analysis. Attempts to teach Creationism and Evolution as two different viewpoints always fail because Creationism ends up looking very silly. Attempts to teach the actualy differences between different religions and religious beliefs would often have the same effect on certain religions. Also, American Teachers aren't perfect, and because we still have very isolationist and Conservative areas, we would probably end up with a lot of teachers turning "Religious Education" into "Why Christianity is right and everyone else is wrong." However, much as I may sometimes have problems with America's culture, at least we wouldn't expel people from school for wearing religiously mandated attire, as they now do in France. That is truly outrageous and a Human Rights violation, in my opinion. Posted by: MDtoMN at February 15, 2004 01:14 AM | PERMALINKYeah, that "one less god", has been around a while. To quote Homer (Simpson), "It's funny 'cos it's true.." I heard it several times even before I used to hang around alt.atheism (A better group of rogues can't be found anywhere IMO). Myself, my UU location is more into investigating spirituality as group catharsis..that people being in positive groups is a very powerful healthy thing that tends to make us happy. I don't have a problem with such a religious education..however it's a very sticky subject. Namely because you have to present them all (well, except atheism/agnosticsm, they ARE the same thing", as mere beliefs. It'll piss a whole lot of people off that way. For me, religion is the sort of thing that is sketchy at best..you
have your salad bar religious people who pick and choose their
beliefs...which is really worrisome to me as that to me is a big block
to being a moral person. On the other hand, to eat it all
unpicked-through creates bigger problems. MDtoMN, hie thee to Crooked Timber where discussions about headscarves and such are artfully debated. I doubt that it will change your mind, since it didn't much change mine, but some of the arguments are mildly mind-expanding. Posted by: bad Jim at February 15, 2004 01:40 AM | PERMALINKRE in the UK these days seems to consist of a combination of comparative religion and applied ethics. The latter has made teaching RE one of the top career choices for students (many of them atheists) who graduate with philosophy degrees. Posted by: Jenny at February 15, 2004 01:46 AM | PERMALINKIn my R.E. class, which was a single mandatory lesson once a fortnight in my last couple of years at school, our teacher would try and start debates on the deep moral issues of the day. Unfortunately, he was also the school's disciplinarian, deputy head, and a staunch Catholic. So you can imagine how the debate on abortion went - 20 terrified kids harried into timidly voicing an opinion, which would usually then be blown out of the water in a torrent of proselytising zeal. The one on vegetarianism was fun though, remembering the outraged squeals from the girls in response to a suggestion that - meat wise - a cow was functionally equivalent to a horse. BTW, I really don't think there's much point teaching Atheism as a kind of alternative religion. I think this plays into the hands of the people who suggest that belief in evolution is simply a choice of faith, on the same level as those who tout ID or something. Posted by: mike at February 15, 2004 02:02 AM | PERMALINKThe real problem with teaching religion in America is that as soon as the class opened their books, one group or another would complain that they weren't using the right Bible, this part should be treated literally and this other part not. All the believers would be attacking eacher right and left. Posted by: McDruid at February 15, 2004 02:31 AM | PERMALINKOne of the fears of some of the founding fathers was that getting the government involved in religion would tend to reduce religion's appeal. The European experience has recently validated that concern. Might I suggest that concern was misplaced? Posted by: bad Jim at February 15, 2004 02:47 AM | PERMALINKYou hit on an important note, Kevin...America is as religiously fundamentalist a nation as Saudi Arabia. The analog to fundamentalist terrorists are groups like the KKK, White Pride, etc. We can compare the christian religious fervor here to the millions of devoted muslims in pan-arabia with saudis being the 'koran-belt' of the middle east. Imagine anything approaching true plurality here...KABOOM! We pass for a democracy...don't know how...*shrug* Remember a few months after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 how some people were objecting to teaching the koran as part of middle east area studies programs? Somehow that doesn't strike the rest of us with as much disgust as muslims wanting to wear headscarves to school. Posted by: sunship at February 15, 2004 04:26 AM | PERMALINKI want to thank all of you folks who have raised such a remarkable clamor for GWB to release all of his service records. This will result in an unstoppable demand to Kerry that he do the same (it's just like tax returns -- no law they must make them public, but no way to avoid it. This is why Howard Stern dropped out of politics). I can't wait to see Kerry's medical records. Did any of his three shrapnel wounds require stitches? Is it likely he cut himself to gain a quick pass out of harm's way (he bugged out of Nam after 4 months! -- Less time than even Al Gore!) Just what was in the action report that won Kerry the Silver Star? Who wrote it (Kerry was the senior officer on the scene). How many sailors saw Kerry cap that wounded VC as he was crawling away? Did Kerry seek psychiatric counselling for his remorse for this murder? Is that why he went commy on his return stateside? In his congressional "testimony" he accused himself (and, of course, all US soldiers) of being war criminals. Was he just compensating? I can't wait to see this stuff -- and we would never had built the groundswell without your support. Thank you all. OBTW, since Kevin Drum has led the call to see ALL of GWB's records, let's see if we can get Kevin to release some of his personal records. As I read Kevin's bio, he flunked out of Caltech (he couldn't do even sophomore level math), then eventually bumbled his way to a degree in JOURNALISM? from a state school -- and he's been out of work for several years (how else would he find the time to run a blog?) Now, I may be misreading this, but since y'all think our President (who has an undergraduate degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard -- all completed in regulation time) is a bumbling idiot, and Kevin Drum is your GOD, I think it's only fair to ask Kevin if his academic and employment history is as bad as it looks. So, let's demand that Kevin release his academic and employment records. This guy was enrolled in California schools well after grade inflation first set in and he still flunked out of Caltech! Kevin, what were your SAT's? Come on, give it up! Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 15, 2004 05:19 AM | PERMALINKAs an American expat in London with two children (6 and 9) in British schools, I can tell you I find it wonderful. They teach the foundations of belief of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism to my children. They have visited a mosque and a Hindu temple. They have studied the concept of pilgrimages and origins of the human race as seen through the eyes of religion, as well. It's all about understanding each other and getting along in a pluralistic society. Posted by: Liz at February 15, 2004 05:24 AM | PERMALINKReminds me of an article I read 6 or 7 years ago from Norway. Seems their religion ministry had recently given a permit for a local mosque to give the call to prayer on Friday afternoons, and in a bit of religious evenhandedness, issued a permit to a group of athiests for the same time period for them to stand across the street from the mosque with bullhorns so they could shout slogans like "There is no God" and "You are being fooled." Posted by: Incertus at February 15, 2004 05:31 AM | PERMALINKWell, Kevin, to show you *MY* ignorance, I was surprised that religious education isn't the norm in America. I'm a Preacher's Kid. When I was growing up in the 70's, we had religious education in my public school -- albeit just off the school grounds. What's funny about all this, is that none of it took in me. I don't "believe" in God, call it atheism or agnostic, or whatever. The more I read and learn the more convinced I've become that this is the case. You can see in the statistics that people are slowly falling away from the old ways. Several months ago I read somewhere that in the 70's only 12% of people told pollsters that religion/church going played no part in their lives, today that number is in the low 30's. This is a western country, and over time our local, American culture will come to reflect what's happening in the rest of the west. I think it's happened quicker in Europe because in Europe you've always had established churches -- here there are none. While religion has deep roots here, the government has always been more or less *SECULAR* in the sense that religion is not a part of the state in the way it was in Europe. I think over time this situation of having an "approved" church tends to lead to a certain amount of cynicism on the part of the people. When religion gets bound up with politics, naturally people will fall away, since there'll always be those that disagree with the government. The Muslims now are at the beginning stages of this, while we here in America have actually dealt with the issue of approved churches, but are still dealing with the issue of religious involvement in policy-making. In Europe they've come much farther much faster because the connection between religion and state and how that can cause trouble was much more obvious to everyone. Our American government as set down in the 1780's was a very radical thing for the time -- separating church and state. As I mentioned above, if church and state are one and the same, over the broad depth of time you'll see people fall away, simply because of the fact that the broad mass of the people will get disgusted with a situation where religion is the state and vice versa. Now the pendulum has swung, and those from which we have sprung have passed us in some ways. We will catch up. It's inevitable. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at February 15, 2004 05:33 AM | PERMALINKYes, bad_jim, that fear was misplaced! Religion here is going to be much tougher to deal with because of that fact. But the results will be the same. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at February 15, 2004 05:40 AM | PERMALINKHere in Germnany Religion is a mandatory subject at school too. Somebody in the thread above mentioned the problem of the "correct" bible. Well we have a special school bible, very much in the vein of a "Jesus For Dummies" or fairy tale book with many illustrations (would turn out to be a huge problem in the USA, because there even was one of Adam & Eve naked in paradise). And there are no marks... just a "participated" on the annual report card. At the age of 13 everybody over here is free to choose his/her own kind of religion (or none at all). So in case you no longer want to be catholic you just have to go over to your local civil registry office and "quit" (of course without the need of the parent's allowance). Posted by: lost_horizon at February 15, 2004 05:52 AM | PERMALINKWell, lost_horizon, I wish it were that easy here in America! The problem here is that you just can't quit -- a minority of the population won't accept your resignation. They'll come after you anyway, and are somewhat aggressive about saving your soul. This is their mission, and they don't care what you say. I'd say this minority is strongest in the southern states -- around 40% or so. Weakest in the northeast, probably at around 20%. But it's throughout the entire country. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at February 15, 2004 06:14 AM | PERMALINKMy senior year in public high school (1986), I took a comparative religion course. This was in Des Moines, Iowa. We studied all of the major religions and many of the minor ones. The teacher was an avowed atheist, but he dealt with everything pretty evenhandedly. The course was optional, but relatively popular. Posted by: FDRLincoln at February 15, 2004 06:42 AM | PERMALINKI graduated "high school" in England in 1986. As I recall we were required to take RE up until about age 13 or 14. It consisted of our Gym teacher (usually, although other teachers were dragooned in occasionally - it was just that the gym teacher obviously didn't have enough to do to get out of it) staring out of the window while we coloured pictures of scenes in Jesus's life. There was no attempt at comparative religions, and the course was widely regarded as a complete joke. And this at a fairly conservative private school. I attribute the comparatively low religiosity in England to classes like these. Posted by: Simon at February 15, 2004 07:44 AM | PERMALINKNorman, Norman, Norman. How many times do you have to be told that Kevin isn't running for President? Posted by: Jesurgislac at February 15, 2004 07:59 AM | PERMALINKMy view is that RE as taught at the moment is just a pointless portmanteau. At a younger age it is all about stories and festivals, learning about myths like Hanuman, Jesus and Anastasi or getting henna-ed up for Diwalli. At an older age it a mishmash of ethics and sociology, learning about AIDS and the middle east, but not in any rigourous way since RE falls outside the National Curriculum and is basically made up. There's nothing wrong with that, its a good waste of an hour but it wasn't very useful: I didn't get a qualification (which means students are entirely unengaged and just mess about) nor did I learn anything about the fundamentals of the religions, rather than the window dressing. I still have no real idea about what the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant is. Worse it conflates RE with two real subjects, philosophy and sociology, that weren't actually on offer.
This is still the law but is a total joke and widely ignored. It was implemented at my Church of England first school where we had singing but completely disregarded in my other two schools. Maybe my experience is skewed because both my other schools were 50% Muslim but I suspect it is the same everywhere. Posted by: Martin at February 15, 2004 08:14 AM | PERMALINKWhen I lived in Britain in the 6th grade I had to take a religious studies course. For the most part we learned about Aboriginal religion and that's about all I recall. Although, I do recall having an assembly where someone handed out New Testaments and talked about God. And on another occasion we went on an excursion to the church across the street to sing hymns. In other words, the public school I attended was not very secular. Posted by: JoshVH at February 15, 2004 08:32 AM | PERMALINKI was in high school in New Jersey not too long ago and we had a comparative religions course as an elective. Posted by: Mitch at February 15, 2004 08:34 AM | PERMALINKI spent a year in the UK - my kids went to school there, and it was a mind opening experinece. At the time, I was struck by the irony that England, with an official state religion, was less religious than the US, which had a separation of church and state. I wondered if loosening up on our separation might reduce the stridency of some of our religious groups. Maybe we should legalize and tax drugs and do the same to religion? Or is that what led to the downfall of Rome? Posted by: Tripp at February 15, 2004 08:52 AM | PERMALINKref: Eddie Cochrance My stepson went to a non-denominational school, where every major religous group in Britain was given a quick going over. I'm not sure about this teaching atheism business. It puts the truth on the same grounding as superstition. Posted by: jamie at February 15, 2004 08:57 AM | PERMALINKThere is in the US no prohibition on providing instruction in the history of religion. Or even in comparative religions. Yup, even in public schools. The issue arises when one attempts to proselytize. The unfortunate fact is that certain segments in the US--usually conservative christians--want to use instruction regarding religion to proselytize on behalf of their religion. Posted by: raj at February 15, 2004 09:02 AM | PERMALINKWow, I'm stunned at all the British readers of a lefty California-centered blog. Very cool. R/E at our school was at best patchy depending on the Teachers who were in charge of the class. The school I went to was a pretty mixed school of Catholics and Protestants and a few Pakistan children. There was one R/E class a week, usually the first class of Wednesday, as I remember it lasted 45 mins. Some teachers would use it to discuss the social issues of the day such as should drugs be legalised, should 16 year olds get the vote and such like. Others would simply allow you catch up with the homework and their own marking. Only one or two actually made an attempt to engage in any religious discussion and from my own experience it was usually met with stony silence from us bored 15 year old Scots kids. I remember getting into trouble once with one Teacher for taking the mickey out of Creationism, I had just read Douglas Addams ?Hitch Hikers Guide to The Galaxy? and thought myself as a smart arse and wise cracked through the class about the Earth being sneezed out of left nostril..or something. The Teacher kept me back and went ballistic saying that I could not be rude about Creationism; the irony was though that teacher that was giving me the row was a Biology teacher and that afternoon I had him again for studies in Evolution. All this was in the early eighties so I don?t know what they do now. The nature of RE in Britain varies according to the status of the school: grant-maintained religious schools (ones which supplement their state funding with monies from local religious institutions) are allowed to teach an RE course which is more orientated towards a particular denomination or religion. That's to say, there's a 'Catholic', 'Anglican' or 'Jewish' syllabus permitted in particular schools (and as jamie says, the RC syllabus concentrates on the synoptic gospels); but for most comprehensives, it's much more a case of teaching comparative religion and applied ethics: questions along the lines of 'why do particular religions have a particular position on a particular issue'. But as Tripp says, having a state religion in Britain doesn't affect the fact that, as a society, religion has far less impact on the political process: issues with an ethical element, such as abortion or the death penalty, for instance, are pretty much settled in law. It's partly because Anglicanism is a broad church, but partly because the system has matured sufficiently, at least since the days of Catholic emancipation, to create a de facto separation of church and state. Posted by: ahem at February 15, 2004 09:19 AM | PERMALINKIt should be noted that parents in the UK have the right for their kids to opt out of Religious Education. At the school I went to it was just assumed that Catholics would do so, and since my dad was Catholic I never got to find out what it was like. Posted by: Andrew Conway at February 15, 2004 09:22 AM | PERMALINKAnother lefy Brit here. I always enjoyed RE in school, depite (because?) being an atheist. We did a bit about Islam, a bit about Hinduism, a bit about Christianity, nothing too strenuous, not much home-work. The "daily act of Christian worship" was taken both seriously (we had it every day) and not (it was pro-forma, reading-passage-from-bible-sing-song-say-prayer, all taken from the same small book with not much thought gone into it). I used to quite enjoy that, too, because I went to a Welsh language school, and Welsh hymns are *way* nicer than English ones. Posted by: Keith at February 15, 2004 09:23 AM | PERMALINK"We're all atheists. I simply disbelieve in one more God than you." And has any fundie ever pointed out that many of them don't
disbelieve in those other gods? They believe they exist, all right:
they believe they're devils. I went to a catholic high school in Des moines, IA. Graduated 1988. We had a comparative religions class that was taught by the lesbian? tennis coach. Tremendously balanced. Until this thread, I never really thought about the fact that I went to an extremely liberal, catholic high school. I'm all for kids learning about all the different belief systems, but I know that the harder-core religious types don't usually want it known that there are different opinions and options. Posted by: Boggs at February 15, 2004 09:33 AM | PERMALINKIn the 80's my C of E school had RE that consisted of classes which
explained the major religions and differences thereof. If you wished to
be confirmed, the classes were held separately. sunship wrote: yup, they are exactly the same, no difference there. Does your burkha fit on properly? You should be sure to check before you walk out onto Main Street. Posted by: Kevin P. at February 15, 2004 10:28 AM | PERMALINKJust reminded me of a very funny story from back in the dark ages, the '50's. An American student at Oxford was told that all students must attend chapel at 6am. No excuses accepted. In his attempt to avoid this, he told his dean he was a sun worshipper and didn't want to take part in any other religious ceremony. The dean, not missing a beat, (probably had heard all the excuses!) said, "Fine. We will expect you in the quadrangle at 5 am to greet the sun". Another interesting bit. One of the Saudi nobility who attended prep and college in England, (hey, this was the "old" days) wrote recently, (1999) that since he was expected to participate in all the religious customs of the schools he attended, he not only had to learn the religious dogma, but also the music; including caroling during the holidays. To this day, he cannot hear Christmas music without being reminded of his days at school in England. Just some comments from old acquaintances. Posted by: tygerll at February 15, 2004 10:51 AM | PERMALINKWelsh hymns are *way* nicer than English ones... Ahhhh... Llef... Posted by: Anarch at February 15, 2004 10:57 AM | PERMALINKI did RE or Divinity at the King's School, Canterbury in the mid-70s. We're tied to Canterbury Cathedral (and very old). We did Acts and some NT that I remember, no Epistles. Got to drop it after 5th Form. No other religions or OT. Bland and non-intrusive, very C of E. Plenty of other religion at school, hymns every morning, cathedral every Sunday, etc. Taps on November 11th, outside. Public school. Posted by: John Isbell at February 15, 2004 11:35 AM | PERMALINKA little way back, Bryan writes: "As far as American history goes, I would ask the burning question, do you think that the Spanish conquistadors treated the Native Americans any differently than they treated Spanish peasants?" Yeah. I think they did. I may be wrong, but it seems to me I've read that 50 years after the Spanish landed in Hispianola, the Caribe Indians were extinct, as a result of the gift of disease that the Spanish brought, but also as a result of destroying their culture, converting them to Christianity, enslaving them, and other forms of mistreatment. Did Spanish peasants have the same sort of experience, and in just a few years? I doubt it. And in Peru and Mexico, they destroyed the cultures there, too, and looted them of their gold and other treasure, because the Spanish saw all that as being THEIRS. And in the American Southwest, whenever they came to an Indian village, they would strip it of clothes, food, and other necessities without paying or bartering for it or anything, again as if those things didn't belong to the Indians but to them. I wonder if the Spanish peasants regularly had experiences like that. I doubt it. All in all, the introduction of the Spanish was an unmitigated disaster for the original inhabitants of the Americas wherever they went, from my various readings of history. Posted by: Sofarsogoo at February 15, 2004 11:41 AM | PERMALINKThere is no bas as far as I know to teaching about religion in the
California public schools, just a ban on proselytizing or anything that
can be construed as a state endorsement of a religion. Commentor Tony Shifflett's observations, above, that a close association between religion and the state leads to a dimunition of established religion in a society can be observed in the America also. The people of New England theocracies in the American colonies of the 1600's evolved to become revolutionaries who promoted church/state separtion of the late 1700's; the liberal abolitionists of the mid-1800's, and today's northeastern liberal establishment. Whereas the early governments of the colonial South were of a much less theocratic nature, resulting in church going today being central to their daily lives as it was in colonial times. Thus, it is apparent that a peoples first hand experience with fundementalist theocracy enlightens them about religion to a point where they evolve with a central premise of never returning to such enslavement to religion again, which diminishes it across the board in that society. Posted by: Carswell at February 15, 2004 01:06 PM | PERMALINKWell, Kevin, to show you *MY* ignorance, I was surprised that religious education isn't the norm in America. They only teach the official state religion: American civics. I went to a couple of different high schools. One's idea of RE was making you learn the Sermon on the Mount, the other's was making sure you knew how to spell "Apartheid" and what it meant for South Africans. More recently it seems to be much more comparative religion trivia (name the turret things on the top of a muslim religious building, what's the name of a minister in the Jewish faith, what do you call the square bit of a cathedral with the altar in it? what are the five pillars of islam?) More of that came up in the 'General Studies' high school examination. Posted by: DavidByron at February 15, 2004 01:30 PM | PERMALINKI believe the official high school Social Studies curriculum in British Columbia, Canada has a fairly detailed unit on Islam, covering both Sunni and Shi'ite beliefs and the differences between them -- though I don't know if it's ever regularly taught. Posted by: sagesource at February 15, 2004 01:38 PM | PERMALINKI remember my religous education - for O level we had to learn St Marks gospel by heart. It didnt make me much of a Christian but does mean I breeze it whenever I have to read the lesson at Church! I think though you'll find that america is more the exception in not teaching RE as opposed the UK in doing so. Posted by: Giles at February 15, 2004 01:46 PM | PERMALINKIn Junior HS in Brooklyn in the mid 70's we had a social studies
curruculum that discussed major regions of the world, inclding East
Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, etc. In each unit, the local religion
was discussed in context of local social development and current
history. Now, while this was by no means a course devoted specifically
to religion, it did get a lot of airtime in class. Especially when the
religions intersected with local demographics, which were mostly Italian
(Catholic with a few Protestants) Jewish (Ashkenaz and Sephardic) and
Chinese (Buddhist/Taoist/Confuscian sometimes with a Christian overlay). 'Until 1988 RE was the only subject that British schools were legally required to teach. I can't give you any cite myself except to readd the 1944 Education Act, but Eddie is almost right -- PE (Gym) was also complulsory. No, not Maths, not English. Why make something compulsory if no-one would think of not doing it? Also, the collective act of worship is still mandatory. Honored more in the breach though. And, as people have hinted, the state funds and collaborates in running CofE, RC, Methodist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and, I think, 1 Sikh school. Good thing too, IMHO. Kevin is half-wrong about American schools. Bible as Literature is a standard college-prep class. I've not heard of a formal history of religion course, but 'World Religions' is not unusual. Posted by: harry at February 15, 2004 02:47 PM | PERMALINKi had a comparative religions class as an elective in high school.
this was around '95 in a rather affluent part of southern
california---not exactly the bible belt, but there was no shortage of
christians among the students who were ready to tell me i was going to
hell if i didn't accept jesus christ as my savior. they all seemed to
wear banana republic clothes, too. maybe they had a group discount
arrangement of some sort, i can only speculate. i remember the teacher
sticking up for me and my gripes on more than one occasion. at the
time, i rather enjoyed working the fundies up. I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about teaching a "History of Religion" class or something like it in an American high school, but it just wouldn't happen. Not quite. I had a "religions of the world" seminar in my senior world studies class back in high school. We had speakers talking about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and a Hopi speaker who spoke of general Native American religions. Of course, this was a charter high school with about 150 students, so it's not quite indicative of societal trends as a whole. Posted by: Raznor at February 15, 2004 04:23 PM | PERMALINKI have voluntary amnesia about whether there was religious Ed in class at my English boarding school--it certainly had morphed into philosophy or civics by age 15-6. I do remember that the confirmation classes I took aged 11 were taught by the school priest out of class time, but that we had to go to Chapel EVERY day, until age 16--and I was an atheist by then as were most smart kids put through this BS. After that we still had to go every Sunday. This was extremely grim as several masters went too and might notice your absenence AND each row had a prefect (Monitor) to make sure his row showed up. The only place where there were no teachers was in the gallery. In my last year by some fluke I was appointed a row prefect/monitor in the gallery. Needless to say without no-one there to report my absence, I never showed up to chapel that year and was able to spend that 90 minutes each sunday happily in the pub. In a related fact, I have not been to a religious service outside of funerals and weddings since! Given the similar reaction of most Brits I know to the force-feeding of religion, I have no idea how the Mormons get away with it and keep so many adherents! Posted by: Matthew Holt at February 15, 2004 04:56 PM | PERMALINK"And then a proposal to add atheism as one of the highlighted religions?" atheism is NOT a religion! Posted by: agave at February 15, 2004 07:19 PM | PERMALINKLearning about different religions was a big part of my Advanced World Literature class my senior year of high school in a public school in southeastern Virginia. Read parts of the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad-Gita, Daodejing, etc. No firestorm from parents or anything Posted by: Adam at February 15, 2004 08:14 PM | PERMALINK"Atheism is a faith." Because you cannot "negatively prove" the nonexistence of God (or anything else)? Do you call it "a faith" when you expect functioning feathered wings to sprout from your shoulder blades within the next five minutes?! Religion builds upon certain premises with ritual and other qualities with no equivalent in atheism. Being a British Columbian is a "faith"-outside of the minds of mortals there is no natural certainty called "British Columbia" the way there is hydrogen or cetaceans or rain-but nobody confuses this with a religion. It's really just snarkiness on the part of the insane (or "saved") to try to snap right back, "o, yeah, well you are too!" Posted by: kei & yuri at February 15, 2004 09:30 PM | PERMALINKRegarding bhurkas and religious fundamentalism in the Bible Belt: No, they do not require bhurkas. Yes, the most restrictive sects do require a particular style of dress on the part of their women -- long dresses (must hide the ankles), no adornments, high neckline, long sleeves (must hide the arms). The head is not required to be covered, though -- that's because those evil statue-worshipping Papists (Catholics, who the Fundies hate) required their women to wear head covering in chuch until after Vatican II. My mother worked with some Pentacostals, and we visited them a couple of times. It was like visiting a foreign land stuck in a time warp 50 years back. Posted by: BadTux at February 15, 2004 10:43 PM | PERMALINKHeh. My RE teacher, Mr Manvers, at Riverside Middle School in Mildenhall, England joked with my parents he thought I'd become a minister or a sociopath. A. He'd be booted for a comment like that over here. B. He was right on both counts. I went into advertising. Posted by: fouro at February 15, 2004 11:58 PM | PERMALINKfouro, Our RE teacher in Scotland was called Mrs Kant - Winifred if memory serves, wife of Everard, the local minister - aka Ev The Rev. Anyway, her attempts at even handedness didn't go down too well with the local Holy Joe who used to parade outside the school with sandwich boards on (my favourite proclamation - "Condoms Won't Protect You From The Fires Of Hell" - it's the image...). Anyway, he had what seemed like an endless supply of kids - Daniel, Nathaniel, Ezekiel, Zachariah etc etc - and eventually took Timothy, who was in my year, out of school as he wasn't getting enough RE in his opinion. Not long afterwards he was up on his roof painting "Jesus Saves" in 8 foot high letters when he fell off and broke his arm. Never daunted, he informed the local paper (which obviously picked it up as the funniest story of the year) that, were it not for Jesus, he'd have broken his neck. Magic stuff. Posted by: Al at February 16, 2004 09:00 AM | PERMALINK"Everard, shoooot that doooor!" Heh. Lost on anyone of a certain age or nationality, but I enjoyed the flashback, Al. Harry, can't say Brighouse rings a bell but I'm sure the face would, small town, school system and whatnot. Manvers, and my fourth form home teacher, Mr. Bromwich are the ones that stick with me. He was a science teacher from the mold of bricoleurs and Junkyard Wars. He was legend. We did rudimentary battling robots and he was sponsor of the control line model airplane club. Great guy, good times. Then we went on to Newmarket Upper and bumped into the aggro boys, '74-'75. Not so good times. Posted by: fouro at February 16, 2004 11:31 AM | PERMALINKLarry Brennan's experience pretty much matches mine from the sane state (NY) about the same time (late 70s). Religion was folded into a world survey of cultures as part of "Social Studies." We were taught a good deal about Hinduism and Buddhism and Islam and Shintoism and Taoism and even (IIRC) Judaism. Though there was one conspicuous exception, which I don't think anyone will find it difficult to guess. Maybe it was assumed that we all knew all about Christianity already, though I don't think even the Christians (I wasn't one at the time) could have distinguished Catholicism and Protestantism and Orthodoxy with any reliability. But the result of this weird education was that I graduated high school knowing more about Hindu belief (NB I have no notion whether what I was taught was accurate or not, but we were taught something) than I did about the religion of 95% of my neighbors — about which I was taught absolutely nothing. A friend made up a crossword in the eighth or ninth grade, and it was just the usual sort of crossword, some puns, some obscure words, &c., but one clue was "Billed himself the 'Son of Man,' " and even when I'd figured out from the vertical clues that the answer was "Jesus," I had no idea what it meant. It seems bizarre to me that anyone would teach every religion except the majority religion. I'd say that even the majority could stand to hear a little of its history; and the minority aren't going to be taught it anywhere else, unless they take it upon themselves to teach themselves. Posted by: Michelle Dulak at February 16, 2004 02:27 PM | PERMALINKI'm an American living in China, and I teach Religion at a British University (one class). I teach Korean kids though, mostly, and find it to be a welcome freedom of expression from America. I'm pretty much convinced that the Constitutional "protection" of religion in schools contributes in some way to an unhealthy religious paranoia -- the same paranoia that results in not being able to teach History of Religion in public schools. Cause, you just have to wonder if it's a coincidence that in Britain they have an RE class and no "extremist" religious groups starting schools. Posted by: Adam Morris at February 16, 2004 11:41 PM | PERMALINKRE at a Northern Irish Catholic school: O-level: St. Matthew's Gospel, Genesis, Exodus, and a bit of Acts (IIRC). Not much theology (that I can recall). No discussion of differences between Catholicism & other denominations, nor discussion of non-Christian religions. The curriculum shied away from anything that would have been considered controversial. Posted by: Tom at February 17, 2004 10:46 AM | PERMALINK"I wonder what they teach in these religious education classes?" "I wonder what they *do* teach them at these schools." Sorry, couldn't resist. Carry on. Posted by: RT at February 22, 2004 04:55 PM | PERMALINKChurches are hospitals for sinners, rather than hotels for saints. Posted by: Smith Rakoff Joanna at May 3, 2004 09:40 AM | PERMALINKA bigger penis enlargement Adult He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither. Posted by: Stockert MaryMargaret at June 30, 2004 10:58 AM | PERMALINKfortune room | gaming club | genealogy detective | golden palace | golden reef casino | golden riviera casino | golden riviera poker | golden tiger casino | gold gate casino | gold key casino | grand banks casino Posted by: fortune room Casino at July 1, 2004 12:17 AM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - Best XXX Sites - 730 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 08:45 PM | PERMALINK8550 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 01:28 AM | PERMALINK5376 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 25, 2004 08:22 PM | PERMALINK3568 Look at http://oncas.tramadol-web.com/ its the hizzy for online casino action any where! Posted by: online casino at August 27, 2004 07:35 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 |
||||
