Does religion have a place in public schools?
Scroll to see replies
Someone doesn't know what 'public school' means....
Original post by Xotol
I am strongly against any faith schools because they tend to paint a one-sided story to their religion, but I am all for teaching about religion in (as unbiased as they can be) RE classes. However, I think more emphasis should be placed on critically evaluating religion rather than just learning its practices since that's probably more beneficial to children.
I haven't heard of one school that asserts 'God doesn't exist'.
Evolution is a fact btw.
I haven't heard of one school that asserts 'God doesn't exist'.
Evolution is a fact btw.
Despite the pitiful condition in which the state educational system finds itself in, you do realise that the very best state schools in this country happen to be faith schools? What logic then, would deem it sensible to get rid of our best states schools? The fact is, according to the last census at least, 59% of people in this country claim the Christian faith (and of course you have a considerable amount of others who profess another faith) which in and of itself has played a huge role in defining the framework of the United Kingdom . To say we should 'critically evaluate religion' but simultaneously habour an 'unbiased' approach to religion is riduculous. You can't ignore history and the contextual setting of British politics, culture and society. This is a Christian country.
All of my RS teachers were atheists who also believed in the theory of evolution, they were very frank and open about their views, one in particular was often quite satirical when 'teaching' about religion.
Evolution is a thoery, hence the term; 'The theory of evolution'.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by RevolutionIsNear!
Despite the pitiful condition in which the state educational system finds itself in, you do realise that the very best state schools in this country happen to be faith schools? What logic then, would deem it sensible to get rid of our best states schools? The fact is, according to the last census at least, 59% of people in this country claim the Christian faith (and of course you have a considerable amount of others who profess another faith) which in and of itself has played a huge role in defining the framework of the United Kingdom . To say we should 'critically evaluate religion' but simultaneously habour an 'unbiased' approach to religion is riduculous. You can't ignore history and the contextual setting of British politics, culture and society. This is a Christian country.
Evolution is a thoery, hence the term; 'The theory of evolution'.
Evolution is a thoery, hence the term; 'The theory of evolution'.
That's not my point. I disagree with the foundation of a school being based on a faith. Whether it is a good school or not doesn't matter to me. It's possible to abolish faith schools and have other schools replace them that are just as good instead, as long as the same money comes in. You act as if the reason they are good is because they are faith schools, which is nonsense.
Do you understand what 'critically evaluate' means? It doesn't mean to criticise; it means to evaluate the religion itself - including its veracity and impact on society. The latter might be done in classes today, but the former is not. The former will, hopefully, allow children to have a more independent understanding of religions, instead of blindly accepting the religion they are indoctrinated by in youth. This is the only way to harbour an unbiased approach to religion if you think about it carefully.
This country is based on secular principles, and so is most of the West in fact. No one is denying that schools can't teach the historical, societal and cultural impact of religion on schools.
And, last but not least, the theory of evolution only refers to the mechanism by which it occurs (i.e. natural selection). The occurrence of evolution is a stone cold fact, as good as any other scientific fact. It has been observed, observed and observed countless times.
(edited 11 years ago)
I'm of the opinion that religion should only be studied optionally as part of the GCSE/A-level syllabus and beyond. In other words, religious education should no longer be mandatory, but if you wish to study it as a GCSE subject, an A-level or as a degree then by all means do so.
Definitely not, especially in Primary schools. It's essentially brainwashing children into believing into a specific religion, and is very effective. I went to a school where Christianity was very prominent, we had assemblies from a group of old people from a church that used to read us bible stories and sing songs. Quite funny it was though.
Children should be allowed to grow up and make their own decisions whether to follow a religion or not. I no longer believe in religion but don't have a problem with it as long as it's not extremist.
Children should be allowed to grow up and make their own decisions whether to follow a religion or not. I no longer believe in religion but don't have a problem with it as long as it's not extremist.
Original post by RevolutionIsNear!
Evolution is a thoery, hence the term; 'The theory of evolution'.
Evolution is a thoery, hence the term; 'The theory of evolution'.
Please educate yourself on what a scientific theory is.
I think that R.E. lessons should be replaced with something more along the lines of "Culture" lessons, so that we aren't constricting ourselves to just learning about 2 or 3 cultures, but get a better understanding of the world as a whole.
Religion is a personal choice, so if you want to learn about your personal choice of sky-magician you should do so outside of school, where it isn't being paid for by the state, such as at a sunday school or equivalent. We should not let religions try to brainwash children at a young age.
Religion is a personal choice, so if you want to learn about your personal choice of sky-magician you should do so outside of school, where it isn't being paid for by the state, such as at a sunday school or equivalent. We should not let religions try to brainwash children at a young age.
Original post by Xotol
That's not my point. I disagree with the foundation of a school being based on a faith. Whether it is a good school or not doesn't matter to me. It's possible to abolish faith schools and have other schools replace them that are just as good instead, as long as the same money comes in. You act as if the reason they are good is because they are faith schools, which is nonsense.
Do you understand what 'critically evaluate' means? It doesn't mean to criticise; it means to evaluate the religion itself - including its veracity and impact on society. The latter might be done in classes today, but the former is not. The former will, hopefully, allow children to have a more independent understanding of religions, instead of blindly accepting the religion they are indoctrinated by in youth. This is the only way to harbour an unbiased approach to religion if you think about it carefully.
This country is based on secular principles, and so is most of the West in fact. No one is denying that schools can't teach the historical, societal and cultural impact of religion on schools.
And, last but not least, the theory of evolution only refers to the mechanism by which it occurs (i.e. natural selection). The occurrence of evolution is a stone cold fact, as good as any other scientific fact. It has been observed, observed and observed countless times.
Do you understand what 'critically evaluate' means? It doesn't mean to criticise; it means to evaluate the religion itself - including its veracity and impact on society. The latter might be done in classes today, but the former is not. The former will, hopefully, allow children to have a more independent understanding of religions, instead of blindly accepting the religion they are indoctrinated by in youth. This is the only way to harbour an unbiased approach to religion if you think about it carefully.
This country is based on secular principles, and so is most of the West in fact. No one is denying that schools can't teach the historical, societal and cultural impact of religion on schools.
And, last but not least, the theory of evolution only refers to the mechanism by which it occurs (i.e. natural selection). The occurrence of evolution is a stone cold fact, as good as any other scientific fact. It has been observed, observed and observed countless times.
Cannot like this enough!
Original post by SleepySheep
Someone doesn't know what 'public school' means....
in fairness, most people who think they know what 'public school' means in the British context typically don't and think the term is only co-extensive with private school or independent school.
Original post by Willbean
if you want to learn religion, it should be teached at a separate school.
perhaps you should as well be "teached" at a separate school.
Original post by Xotol
Evolution is a fact btw.
Evolution is a fact btw.
Did your school teach you that?
Sorry, sorry, I'm just playing around. I know that was a low blow, but you kind of left yourself open for that one and I couldn't resist. No harm meant
In all fairness, even science can offer very few absolute facts. What it's best at is observing the world and offering theories of increasing likeliness. We adopt the most likely theory until it is superceded by another, at which point we change it. The example you bring up, evolution, is a great one. Darwin's original theory of evolution has undergone several key ...erm... evolutions, and is still not a perfect theory. It's pretty solid these days, but still has some plotholes to work out, and we're discovering more all the time.
This infographic explains it quite nicely: http://static.themetapicture.com/media/cool-science-explained-graph.jpg
I agree that religion should not be taught in a science class, but equally I do feel that my science teachers were overly forceful in telling us that science was the one and only fixed way of understanding the world, instead if showing that's one of science's greatest strengths is how it is constantly open to adaption. Essentially, and I used the phrase very deliberately, they were religious about their science, and it made things very confusing for me.
Original post by Willbean
No it doesn't. Religion does not help you understand Maths, English or Science which are required to advance up the career ladder. If you want to learn religion, it should be teached at a separate school.
Is that all that's important? Certainly schools must teach us the skills we need to begin making our way in the world, but there is a larger and more important goal than that - to help us evaluate and understand the world around us, so that we can live as part of a larger global society. Faith and religion plays a huge part in that society, so I think to ignore it completely would be to the detriment of the students.
Even if you never follow a faith yourself, learning about the differing views of others helps to teach empathy, communication skills (important in business and politics, especially when people disagree with you!), compassion, social skills, negotiating with other cultures, critical analysis as you compare these differing views to one another and evaluate their validity. All of these have uses in the wider world, and even in the narrower 'career world' you mentioned. Why would we not introduce students to these ideas when there are so many beneficial results?
Original post by JackS94
Religion is a personal choice, so if you want to learn about your personal choice of sky-magician you should do so outside of school, where it isn't being paid for by the state, such as at a sunday school or equivalent. We should not let religions try to brainwash children at a young age.
Religion is a personal choice, so if you want to learn about your personal choice of sky-magician you should do so outside of school, where it isn't being paid for by the state, such as at a sunday school or equivalent. We should not let religions try to brainwash children at a young age.
I'm playing devil's advocate here (oh look, I made a pun :P) but I've often wondered if it's possible for children to be brainwashed with belief in secularism from a young age the same way they can be brainwashed with belief in a 'sky-magician'. Parents will always want to teach their children about the things they think are true, whether that be religion or non-religion, we absorb much of our knowledge from the surrounding culture anyway, and the only real argument for or against either 'brainwashing' (other than the argument for promoting an objective truth, which of course can never be definitively proven/disproven in order for us to promote is) would be that worldviews effect on society at large. Could make for an interesting study.
Original post by jsmithy11
All schools should eb founded in Christianity, no need to talk about the other religions apart from showing that they are inncorrect.
christianity is just as wrong as every other religion.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by FlyingTeapot
Did your school teach you that?
Sorry, sorry, I'm just playing around. I know that was a low blow, but you kind of left yourself open for that one and I couldn't resist. No harm meant
In all fairness, even science can offer very few absolute facts. What it's best at is observing the world and offering theories of increasing likeliness. We adopt the most likely theory until it is superceded by another, at which point we change it. The example you bring up, evolution, is a great one. Darwin's original theory of evolution has undergone several key ...erm... evolutions, and is still not a perfect theory. It's pretty solid these days, but still has some plotholes to work out, and we're discovering more all the time.
This infographic explains it quite nicely: http://static.themetapicture.com/media/cool-science-explained-graph.jpg
I agree that religion should not be taught in a science class, but equally I do feel that my science teachers were overly forceful in telling us that science was the one and only fixed way of understanding the world, instead if showing that's one of science's greatest strengths is how it is constantly open to adaption. Essentially, and I used the phrase very deliberately, they were religious about their science, and it made things very confusing for me.
Sorry, sorry, I'm just playing around. I know that was a low blow, but you kind of left yourself open for that one and I couldn't resist. No harm meant
In all fairness, even science can offer very few absolute facts. What it's best at is observing the world and offering theories of increasing likeliness. We adopt the most likely theory until it is superceded by another, at which point we change it. The example you bring up, evolution, is a great one. Darwin's original theory of evolution has undergone several key ...erm... evolutions, and is still not a perfect theory. It's pretty solid these days, but still has some plotholes to work out, and we're discovering more all the time.
This infographic explains it quite nicely: http://static.themetapicture.com/media/cool-science-explained-graph.jpg
I agree that religion should not be taught in a science class, but equally I do feel that my science teachers were overly forceful in telling us that science was the one and only fixed way of understanding the world, instead if showing that's one of science's greatest strengths is how it is constantly open to adaption. Essentially, and I used the phrase very deliberately, they were religious about their science, and it made things very confusing for me.
It is important not to confuse the theory of evolution with the facts of evolution. The former is the body of knowledge regarding processes of variation and natural selection and how these things work, and like all scientific theories is subject to ongoing revision and improvement. The latter is the observation that living things change over the generations, and all living things that we've been able to look closely at share a common ancestor.
I like the infographic
I guess what I'm saying is that the dots shouldn't be ignored even if the lines are in doubt, and that very often happens with evolution because people struggle to distinguish the theory from the fact.Original post by RevolutionIsNear!
Despite the pitiful condition in which the state educational system finds itself in, you do realise that the very best state schools in this country happen to be faith schools? What logic then, would deem it sensible to get rid of our best states schools? The fact is, according to the last census at least, 59% of people in this country claim the Christian faith (and of course you have a considerable amount of others who profess another faith) which in and of itself has played a huge role in defining the framework of the United Kingdom . To say we should 'critically evaluate religion' but simultaneously habour an 'unbiased' approach to religion is riduculous. You can't ignore history and the contextual setting of British politics, culture and society. This is a Christian country.
All of my RS teachers were atheists who also believed in the theory of evolution, they were very frank and open about their views, one in particular was often quite satirical when 'teaching' about religion.
Evolution is a thoery, hence the term; 'The theory of evolution'.
All of my RS teachers were atheists who also believed in the theory of evolution, they were very frank and open about their views, one in particular was often quite satirical when 'teaching' about religion.
Evolution is a thoery, hence the term; 'The theory of evolution'.
Why is critically evaluating religion and being unbiased ridiculous. All it means is that when it comes to R.E you describe the core beliefs of the major versions of that religion and then allow the students to decide for themselves. It doesn't mean ignore british history. All my R.E teachers were christians who believed in evolution. In fact one as very open in in condemning less common christian sects.
Also you are mistaking theory with hypothesis and evolution with natural selection. Evolution has been observed many times and is scientific fact. Natural selection is the theory to describe why. It describes all evidence found, no one has found a flaw in it. A theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and has a large amount of evidence to back up.
Original post by FlyingTeapot
Did your school teach you that?
Sorry, sorry, I'm just playing around. I know that was a low blow, but you kind of left yourself open for that one and I couldn't resist. No harm meant
In all fairness, even science can offer very few absolute facts. What it's best at is observing the world and offering theories of increasing likeliness. We adopt the most likely theory until it is superceded by another, at which point we change it. The example you bring up, evolution, is a great one. Darwin's original theory of evolution has undergone several key ...erm... evolutions, and is still not a perfect theory. It's pretty solid these days, but still has some plotholes to work out, and we're discovering more all the time.
This infographic explains it quite nicely: http://static.themetapicture.com/media/cool-science-explained-graph.jpg
I agree that religion should not be taught in a science class, but equally I do feel that my science teachers were overly forceful in telling us that science was the one and only fixed way of understanding the world, instead if showing that's one of science's greatest strengths is how it is constantly open to adaption. Essentially, and I used the phrase very deliberately, they were religious about their science, and it made things very confusing for me.
Sorry, sorry, I'm just playing around. I know that was a low blow, but you kind of left yourself open for that one and I couldn't resist. No harm meant
In all fairness, even science can offer very few absolute facts. What it's best at is observing the world and offering theories of increasing likeliness. We adopt the most likely theory until it is superceded by another, at which point we change it. The example you bring up, evolution, is a great one. Darwin's original theory of evolution has undergone several key ...erm... evolutions, and is still not a perfect theory. It's pretty solid these days, but still has some plotholes to work out, and we're discovering more all the time.
This infographic explains it quite nicely: http://static.themetapicture.com/media/cool-science-explained-graph.jpg
I agree that religion should not be taught in a science class, but equally I do feel that my science teachers were overly forceful in telling us that science was the one and only fixed way of understanding the world, instead if showing that's one of science's greatest strengths is how it is constantly open to adaption. Essentially, and I used the phrase very deliberately, they were religious about their science, and it made things very confusing for me.
When you casually throw an apple in the air, it falls down to the ground. Repeat it 100 times and it will fall down 100 times. This is an observable fact. The explanation behind this is the theory of gravity. In the same vein, the progression of changes of organisms is an observable fact. The theory behind this is the theory of evolution - natural selection.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with me saying that evolution is a fact. Because it is. Theories change when facts change. If we find out that, one day, anything we throw up goes sideways, the theory of gravity needs to be changed to accommodate for that change. Equally, if we find out that a bacteria cell transforms to a cow in one generation, we need to change the theory of evolution because that observation contravenes the theory.
Anyway, I digress, this isn't really a discussions suited to this section of the forum. The point is that evolution - and science - is an evidential based system. It will change according to the results of experiments and discovery of new observations. And I believe this is taught in schools, even if implicit. Off the top of my head, isn't Lamarck's theory taught as an antecedent to Darwin's in GCSE? Or the photoelectric effect leading to the particle theory of light instead of the wave in Physics? All of these show progression in science. And no science teacher, in their right mind, would ever deny that science is not subject to change.
Religion, on the other hand, does not belong in the same boat. There's nothing wrong with teaching about it. But not in science, in RE.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
