Schools failing in RE

[avidcameron]

According to today's Mail on Sunday (so it must be true...) 'A whole generation of children have only a very limited and superficial knowledge of Christianity.'

Based on evidence from 200 schools, some didn't know who Jesus was, and many more couldn't say why he was important.

 

In a Country which played a large part in the formation of the modern Christian Church,- forming its own Church of England, I find this disturbing. With the upsurge in militant Islam surely it's important to arm children with at least the basics in order to combat what seems to be a dogmatic, and intransigent branch of the Islamic faith.

 

I would prefer to live in an easy going Christian country that respects other faiths, than a hardline Islamic one that crushes all opposition.

 

You don't have to be a Church goer to realise that Christianity, and the Church of England, subtlely underpins much of what we value in this country. We have to be much more proactive to protect that freedom, and look after what we have.

 

Can you name one such country?Most islamic countries have practicing christians.

[Anna B]

I think people who were killed and burnt at the stake for not worshiping Christanity might have something to say about that..

 

The Church of England was formed because King Henry wanted to get divorced

 

To the best of my belief, people have not been burnt at the stake (for their Protestant beliefs please note,) in England for more than 500 years. I hardly think that compares with Modern Christanity in England today. Whereas todays Muslim hardliners indulge in practices which are totally incompatable with tolerance and with life in the 21st Century.

 

Protestantism came over via Martin Luther from Germany and the Netherlands and was well established as an alternative sect of Christianity well before Henry Vlll separated from the Church of Rome and founded the Church of England. As Alien 52 says, it was far more complex than him simply wanting a divorce.

[altus]

The USA might be officially secular, but I think I'm right in thinking that they are much more church going than we are, and defend their Christian faith loudly and vociferously, while still being tolerant of others. It also permeates through society in a way that is being lost here. Extremism of any persuasion (including fundamentalist Christians) have a much harder time of penetrating a solid wall of practising Christians who en masse far outnumber them.

Go and work in an abortion clinic in the US if you want to see how tolerant the more fanatical end of US Christianity can be. It's the officially secular nature of the state that is stopping them imposing their religious views on others.

 

 

Turkey is pointedly secular, but Muslim hardliners are taking control there.

Militant extremism will always overcome tolerant passivity.

 

I understand your point that without disestablishment, other faiths might demand parity, but I disagree. While state and church are linked through Church of England we have the ultimate get out clause. They can insist all they want, but we don't have to allow it. Church of England is the default setting, all other faiths are welcome but not necessarily of equal importance.

 

We are seeing what happens when you compare a C of E schools with the recent Muslim Free school, that has just been closed down. The C of E schools promote love and tolerance, the Muslim school exactly the opposite. And we have allowed it to happen in the name of tolerance, same with Abu Hamza. I can't see that happening in the USA.

It won't happen in the US because their state schools are legally prevented from being religious. That doesn't stop individuals, schools and even whole school districts constantly trying to bring Christianity into the curriculum where it doesn't belong (c.f. creationism in science lessons). In this country, you can't tell any other religious group they can't have state funded schools for their religion because they'll just point to the state funded Christian schools and say that's discriminatory. Then you have the problem of small religious minorities who don't have enough children in an area to make a school viable so they get discriminated against. The only way to treat everybody equally is to not have state finding for ANY religious schools - teach about religion in comparative theology classes, but leave instructing in a religion to home.

 

As for teaching RE, it's quite possible to teach comparative religions, and the History of Faiths without bias. Atheism and Creationism also deserve a slot in there.

 

Atheism also has a very militant wing believe it or not, which I personally think is quite destructive, but can you ban Atheism?

Describe what people in your "very militant wing" of atheism do that is very militant.

 

I personally don't want to see a school that doesn't take into account the spiritual welfare of the children which is a concept without religious parameters, although some might disagree.

 

You can't have the concept of spiritual welfare without religious parameters. One ideology's idea of spiritual welfare is another ideology's definition of condemning to burn in hell. The only way to treat everybody fairly is to teach about various religions without providing the ability to favour any of them.

[Anna B]

Can you name one such country?Most islamic countries have practicing christians.

 

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

Islam is a fine and tolerant faith with many millions of good, devoted followers and a proud history and reputation.

 

However certain sections in some countries have been been highjacked by militants who are determined to bring their own brand of hardline fundamentalist dictatorship to the fore with an agenda of it replacing the tolerant version. In fact a Jihad, or Holy War.

 

While they may be relatively small in number they are growing, and as I said before militant aggressive extremism will always dominate passive tolerance to the point of anihalation.

 

A good example would be World War 2: I'm sure most Germans were ordinary decent people, but that didn't stop a small group of aggressive extremists, the Nazis, from dominating to the extent that they took over politically, almost exterminated the jews and ended up causing the deaths of millions.

 

---------- Post added 06-10-2013 at 23:06 ----------

 

 

You can't have the concept of spiritual welfare without religious parameters. One ideology's idea of spiritual welfare is another ideology's definition of condemning to burn in hell. The only way to treat everybody fairly is to teach about various religions without providing the ability to favour any of them.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes you can. I've never attended Church in my life, but I consider myself to be a Spiritual person.

 

Spiritual and Religious are not necessarily the same thing. I am not an Athiest, but neither am I religious, it causes problems and divisions as people have said. Religion is a man-made power trip. I love God but hate religion. I don't believe God wants anybody to burn in Hell, just to live a good life, appreciate life and help others where ever they can.

 

I have also taught comparative religion without favouring any particular one.

[Marx]

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

Islam is a fine and tolerant faith with many millions of good, devoted followers and a proud history and reputation.

 

How can the belief in anything that has no evidence to support it be considered fine? As for Islam, it is a theocracy that treats women as inferior to men. Do you want that endorsing in education?

 

Which one true faith are teachers supposed to endorse in schools? Does it depend on the majority or the faith of the school?

 

If we are a Christian country and this needs teaching in schools, what about Muslim, Hindu and Sikh children? Do they get a dispensation? The whole thing is a mess and will only become more of one until religious practice and endorsement is banned in schools.

[Anna B]

How can the belief in anything that has no evidence to support it be considered fine? As for Islam, it is a theocracy that treats women as inferior to men. Do you want that endorsing in education?

 

Which one true faith are teachers supposed to endorse in schools? Does it depend on the majority or the faith of the school?

 

If we are a Christian country and this needs teaching in schools, what about Muslim, Hindu and Sikh children? Do they get a dispensation? The whole thing is a mess and will only become more of one until religious practice and endorsement is banned in schools.

 

I certainly agree it's a mess.

 

So much for Multiculturalism. When it began in the fifties did people think that it would end in the downgrading of the Church of England to just another also ran? Were they ever consulted?

 

America which has been used in this thread as an example may have a form of multiculturalism, but they insist on people being American first, whether it be Irish American, Latin American, Afro American etc. But American nontheless. They ALL salute the American flag every day.

 

We have nothing like that to compare, just an inate Englishness that is wrapped up inexplicably (and not particularly religiously) with the Church of England. I'm afraid that if we lose that we also lose a sense of what it is to be English.

 

That's why I think it should be defended.

[Marx]

Tea, the sound of leather on willow, lazy Sunday afternoons? It reads like you have one foot in the past, hankering for a time when people knew what was expected of them.

 

Your place of birth is out of your control, as is the religion you are brought up in. I don't understand the patriot thing. It has a nasty side effect of people wanting to kill each other because they live in a different country, ditto religion.

 

Now, teaching all of that in the context of the slave trade (and biblical references), the British Empire and the spread of Christianity would be interesting, particularly when you compare it to the spread of Islam now.

[janie48]

I certainly agree it's a mess.

 

So much for Multiculturalism. When it began in the fifties did people think that it would end in the downgrading of the Church of England to just another also ran? Were they ever consulted?

 

America which has been used in this thread as an example may have a form of multiculturalism, but they insist on people being American first, whether it be Irish American, Latin American, Afro American etc. But American nontheless. They ALL salute the American flag every day.

 

We have nothing like that to compare, just an inate Englishness that is wrapped up inexplicably (and not particularly religiously) with the Church of England. I'm afraid that if we lose that we also lose a sense of what it is to be English.

 

That's why I think it should defended..

I agree Anna. I don't even want to contemplate the probability of replacing what we have with something much worse.

[Chris_Sleeps]

I think being a 'Church of England' country protects us from the worst excesses of other faiths.

How?

Tolerance is built in, but it also prevents other faiths taking over.

Tell the Irish that.

Nobody is forcing you to worship.

Their generosity knows no bounds.

and you know what they say about a vacuum - something will come along to fill it. And we might be unable to prevent it. Look at the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt - how did that happen?

The Muslim Brotherhood was an example of what you like. Church and government combined.

 

You seem to be arguing for what you like with the worst examples of what you like.

 

--

Christianity is the basis of "Great Britain" It may be a little "Old Hat" for todays Children, but the fact remains our society, as it stands today comes from our beliefs in the BIBLE - This book gave us our Laws, our Tolerance of others, and our ability to accept

Indeed. An empire built on the morals of "Thou Shall Not Kill".

 

How did that work out?

Without Christianity the UK has nothing, and maybe, just maybe, without the UK Christianity will die.

What a pile of nonsense.

This has alway been a Christian Country and will/should remain so.

No it hasn't.

[avidcameron]

I certainly agree it's a mess.

 

So much for Multiculturalism. When it began in the fifties did people think that it would end in the downgrading of the Church of England to just another also ran? Were they ever consulted?

 

America which has been used in this thread as an example may have a form of multiculturalism, but they insist on people being American first, whether it be Irish American, Latin American, Afro American etc. But American nontheless. They ALL salute the American flag every day.

 

We have nothing like that to compare, just an inate Englishness that is wrapped up inexplicably (and not particularly religiously) with the Church of England. I'm afraid that if we lose that we also lose a sense of what it is to be English.

 

That's why I think it should be defended.

 

The degradation of the Anglican church is the fault of its members,both clergy and congregation.The clergy have lost touch and the congregation stopped attending.You are trying to blame it on third parties.A rose left unattended and unfertilised will soon wither - a poor gardener will simply blame the other plants.