If taught, it should never be presented as fact. Children need to be aware that religion is something the people choose to follow, or not to follow, and that the choice one makes does not make them better than anyone else. Personally, I would rather that it was not taught at all, but there aims to a vocal group who thinks that it does.

RE at my school was taught by a vicar, so it was all rather one sided. What he didn't seem to like was people not "getting" it, so if you questioned it, he got a bit defensive. We had to write about what we though about Jesus being the son of god (or some such subject). He didn't like my writings (which was probably about him being a space alien and appearing magical because be was more advanced). I clearly remember his comment he wrong in my book: "doze your idea fit the facts?" I really wanted to write "what facts?" underneath, but I knew I'd get in trouble for that.

Mock GCSE RE, a question said "can you name eight of the ten commandments?"
I wrote "No".
Got a bollocking for that one.

Perhaps, but then look at something like the 10 Commandments.
Not hard are they?
Follow those, something nice happens when you die, we think.
What does science tell us? Try it, see what happens, let us know if you survive.

Neither's that bad really.

That's the annoying thing about being an atheist, if you're right about the big picture, you'll never know.

But the point is that they are not.... few people who claim membership to a religion will be all of those things... and it is hardly as if any of those are more prevalent inside the church than outside.
When talking of religion, and religious people, a distinction must be made between those who fully believe in the religion, and those who see the religion as a means to further their own agenda, often unsupported by religious text, hence over the last few years, the term 'Islamist' has been coined, because it was unfair to keep using the term 'Muslim' to apply to such a small minority of radicals.

And yes, people hear a lot of what goes wrong with religion, but aren't we all obsessed more with the exception than the norm? The media is, certainly. 'Priest works for good in community' is hardly going to grab headlines compared to 'Priest abuses choirboy'.

More obscure and historic religeons.

Occultism FTW!

In order:

1. I am the Lord your God, You shall have no other gods before me
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol
3. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

So, hmm... I guess those are the important ones? More so than...

5. Honor your father and mother
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour
10. You shall not covet your neighbour's ass

I prefer the Bill & Ted version myself.

And if a theist is wrong, they will never know either. Actually, there is no telling them they are wrong anyway

Because it's all a load of hokum.

Brilliant display of reasoning there. There are plenty of things that we know to be rubbish that are talked about in schools to aid understanding of other ideas. In history, for instance, some Nazi philosophy and it's origins are taught so that then can put their actions into some sort for context. The philosophy itself is despicable, and few but the most twisted thinkers would agree with all of it, but that does not devalue it as a tool to get to grips with that area of history.

I apologise for the following brain fart - I'm having serious issues with organising my head today.

***The following is just my opinion - I'm not having a go at anyone***


I agree - however the same should be true of the sciences and history.


I absolutely agree.


Personally I think that it's vital that everyone has a basic grounding in why others do, say, think or believe certain things. I am of the opinion that people fear other cultures because they don't understand them. Consequently a modest education in such matters could help reduce friction between different parts of the population.

The focus, however, should be on how belief systems impact on the lives of those who believe and those who believe something else. This has many practical applications. For instance, a salesman may need to know that he shouldn't knock on the door of the Goldstein house in Cheetham Hill on a Saturday morning or a Friday night.

I also think that

• there should be no bias w.r.t. certain faiths
• no faith (or lack of it) should dominate and nor should any faith system be subjugated to the others
• pupils should be taught the massive differences between non-theism, secularism and anti-theism
• there should be no talk of right or wrong

The emphasis should be belief systems in general rather than on the beliefs of the individual pupils i.e. questions should be of the form "What do Jews believe about...?" rather than "What do you believe about...?". To be frank I have no time for so-called teaching where pupils are challenged on their beliefs and asked to reveal them to someone else - it should be a private matter for the individual. However I also have difficulties with the premise of never educating children about the beliefs of others. Religion still plays a huge role in the affairs of this country and the world; to enshrine ignorance of it in the education system is sociological madness. After all, arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand.

Agree about the science bit. Generally, science is considered to be 'correct', as it is based on observation, experimentation and fact. However, the way most people relate to science is not far removed from how they relate to religion.... 'if a man in a white coat says it, then I will believe it', with no ability, or know-how, of questioning. And a lot of 'scientific' research is sponsored by big companies who are hoping to make big money, regardless of the outcome, and with an incredible ability to make the results say what they want. And yes I am sounding like Ben Goldacre.
Okay, school science is a lot more solid (although simplified). While I am not advocating the teaching of Creationism in science lessons, most peoples understanding of evolution is that 'that is what scientists say, therefore it is true and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid'. It should be taught as a theory, and like any theory, with it's own limitations, differences of interpretations of available data, the fact it will probably never be proved (indeed, some think it cannot), and the fact that, because it is a scientific theory, new evidence could completely discredit it as a theory.
I think my point is that there is science done well, and science done badly, and schools should look more at the difference between them. And I think the same should be true of religious education too.

Yes they would. They would be aware of any after life regardless of what it was.

Sorry, mistyped, meant to put
And if a theist is wrong, they will never know either.

Rastafarianism!

History of Ganga; Science of Ganga; RE, Persecution of the Ganga; Home Economics, how to make munchies; Maths, How to add fractions; Craft, study how to roll a Camberwell Carrot.