British Humanist Association wrote:A new survey published today has found that more UK adults consider religious education (RE) to have been the ‘least beneficial subject’ they were taught at secondary school than any other subject. The survey found that 21% of UK adults considered RE to be the least beneficial, ahead of art (16%) and gym/PE (10%). Conversely, under 1% of people said sex education was the least beneficial subject – fewer than any other. 1% also said this about biology.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) strongly supports teaching about different religions and non-religious beliefs in school, but believes the subject of RE needs reform. BHA Education Campaigner Richy Thompson commented, ‘It is vital that RE remains relevant to young people today, and with surveys showing that between half and two-thirds of young people are not religious, this means teaching about non-religious beliefs such as Humanism alongside religious beliefs in a manner which does not seek to proselytise but instead aims to impart information in an objective and balanced way... (continues)

Scot Dutchy wrote:When I was at school is was called RI.

Disagree with the BHA. It is a complete waste of time as who really cares about mumbo-jumbo of any clour.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Sorry did you not know. Religious Instruction. No education just told what to do.

this means teaching about non-religious beliefs such as Humanism

CdesignProponentsist wrote:I'm sure most home schoolers put RE at the top. It will come in real handy when applying for a job.

Calilasseia wrote:Shouldn't the whole subject be re-labelled "comparative mythology"?

orpheus wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Shouldn't the whole subject be re-labelled "comparative mythology"?

Whatever the label, I certainly think it should be taught. Indoctrination — no. Education — yes, absolutely. Any school curriculum that doesn't teach about such a huge and omnipresent force in world history, politics, art, literature and philosophy is woefully deficient. You can't really understand much of the world without understanding something of the various religions, their tenets, their places in history, their influences and interactions, etc.

Edit: Moreover, Dennett said that after writing his book on religion he was wary of making any policy recommendations save one: that comparative religion should be required in all schools. He pointed out that learning about all the various claims to The Truth is a an excellent inoculation against indoctrination into any particular one.

orpheus wrote:He pointed out that learning about all the various claims to The Truth is a an excellent inoculation against indoctrination into any particular one.

orpheus wrote:Whatever the label, I certainly think it should be taught. Indoctrination — no. Education — yes, absolutely. Any school curriculum that doesn't teach about such a huge and omnipresent force in world history, politics, art, literature and philosophy is woefully deficient. You can't really understand much of the world without understanding something of the various religions, their tenets, their places in history, their influences and interactions, etc.

Shrunk wrote:

orpheus wrote:Whatever the label, I certainly think it should be taught. Indoctrination — no. Education — yes, absolutely. Any school curriculum that doesn't teach about such a huge and omnipresent force in world history, politics, art, literature and philosophy is woefully deficient. You can't really understand much of the world without understanding something of the various religions, their tenets, their places in history, their influences and interactions, etc.

Which, I think, is an argument against separating religion off into a subject of its own. If you cover all of those other topics you list adequately, you must also be discussing the role that religion has had in them, so it's covered there.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

orpheus wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Shouldn't the whole subject be re-labelled "comparative mythology"?

Whatever the label, I certainly think it should be taught. Indoctrination — no. Education — yes, absolutely. Any school curriculum that doesn't teach about such a huge and omnipresent force in world history, politics, art, literature and philosophy is woefully deficient. You can't really understand much of the world without understanding something of the various religions, their tenets, their places in history, their influences and interactions, etc.

Edit: Moreover, Dennett said that after writing his book on religion he was wary of making any policy recommendations save one: that comparative religion should be required in all schools. He pointed out that learning about all the various claims to The Truth is a an excellent inoculation against indoctrination into any particular one.

Disagree. Where do you draw the line? Just ignore the lot. If a child wishes to know then they should be able to do so.

It should not be a mandatory subject. Here it is not in public schools.

BTW the same is true of philosophy. A waste of time and money.