reddix wrote:

Nora_Leonard wrote:I'm particularly interested to hear whether the Christians/ex-Christians on the forum think I've left anything crucial out, keeping in mind that this is for grade-school kids.

I think something that is missing, probably in the Church lesson, is something about the diversity of Christian beliefs. For instance, my version of Christianity (the real one ), didn't have confirmation as a rite of passage at all and baptism was for adults. The church (as I was taught) is a builing, a community, and all variations worldwide.

Yes, I agree with this as well. Thanks.

All I gave in my post were the learning objectives of the lessons, not the activities. I will have to go through and check the individual lessons, but I think diversity of belief is a 'problem' when teaching all of the religions, and so it might be taught as a separate unit. I do know that it's highlighted either in the syllabus or in background info somewhere.

Our current SACRE chair is from the Armenian Orthodox Church, so he also points out the differences.

HomerJay wrote:
How do you explain why girls are lesser? Or Joos? Or non-believers?

Not something we'd bring up. What, do you expect we'd say "most Christians think girls are of lesser value"? For a start I have no evidence that that is true, and secondly why would you even want to suggest that to a child???

HomerJay wrote:I thought sweet baby Jesus was God in disguise?

The various perceptions of Jesus are discussed in the first lesson...

HomerJay wrote:If it's difficult to explain to 7 year olds, does that suggest it's a bad idea in the first place?

Well, no?

UndercoverElephant wrote:Whether or not anybody here likes religion or thinks the world would be better off without it, the reality is that religion has been a part of human development since roughly the time we learned how to talk, and it's not going away any time soon. It will remain one of, perhaps the, most important factors shaping the course of world history. Given that it is so important and that it is not going away, wouldn't you rather our children were at least given some sort of information about them by a "neutral" source, as opposed to providing no education at all on the subject and thereby leaving it entirely to the proponents of the religion themselves to provide the information?

Also, at least where I live, diversity in religion is very evident in the way some people dress.

One of the reasons I proposed a couple of units on the History of Belief in the UK is so that children could begin to put the rather recent arrival of temples, mosques and gurdwaras (some of them incredibly impressive buildings) in the context of the waves of immigration that have come before, all with their own 'new' beliefs.

UndercoverElephant wrote:I think we need RE lessons. The only sensible question is what they should consist of, and if this thread is about teaching Christianity in an "academically challenging way" then...well, we've got problems. The main one is that to make Christianity academically challenging, you've got to have a pretty nuanced intepretation of what it is about. The mainstream version, to put it bluntly, doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. I didn't find it very academically challenging aged 12 because it looked like a load of unintelligible nonsense about some person saving humanity by being nailed to a cross. OK, so it is more complicated than that, but interpreted the way my sunday school teachers and my CofE church middle school interpreted it, none of it made any sense. It was therefore the exact opposite of "academically challenging."

I think at this level, i.e. primary school, one possible way to make it challenging is in the use of the community of enquiry approach, where some initial information is given, and then the class themselves decide what aspect they which to explore further.

Another way to make it challenging is to engage their imagination. In the first lesson one suggested activity is to break the class into groups, give them a Biblical quote and picture that portrays Jesus in a certain way, (e.g. special child, teacher, healer etc), and then ask the groups to compose a short letter to their family describing meeting Jesus in the context of their given description. They then have to summarise what their quote and picture suggests about what Christians believe.

UndercoverElephant wrote:In summary, I think that making it academically challenging is probably too hard for most of the teachers, and too challenging for most of the kids.

I definitely think that certain aspects of all religious theologies are beyond most peoples' understanding, mainly because they can't be bothered (why should they) to sit down and follow the tortuous logic that got some of the theologians to reach these conclusions.

For instance, I know my Dad, bless him, always had trouble with the Trinity. He used to worry that my questioning would get him in trouble with "the Lords".

Nora_Leonard wrote:
For instance, I know my Dad, bless him, always had trouble with the Trinity. He used to worry that my questioning would get him in trouble with "the Lords".

Your Dad is having trouble with the Trinity now. Rewind 16 or 17 centuries and there will be Christianity itself "having trouble with the Trinity." It wasn't until I was in my thirties, having done some quite extensive research into the early history of Christianity, that I found out that when Christianity-as-we-know-it was being born, the Christians themselves had a massive doctrinal problem regarding this whole idea of how Jesus could be fully human and fully God at the same time, or whether Jesus was unique in the whole of history or whether "anybody could do what he did" (which is apparently what the man himself said.) In other words, Christianity was already a confusing mess by the time Islam was invented. It is a religion invented by a committee, and that's precisely what it looks like.

I'd argue that Christianity is considerably harder to comprehend than the other mainstream religions, mainly because it has such a complex origin and early history. In fact I'd go so far as to say that it is so hard to understand that most Christians don't even understand it themselves, which is why they have such a hard time explaining it to anybody else, let alone children.

Just as a comparison, Buddhism makes the same issue considerably clearer: anyone can do what the Buddha did because the Buddha was just an ordinary man - or started out as one. Buddhism says that the Divine Spirit lives in all of us. And Hinduism makes it even clearer still, by spelling out the metaphysics without any mythology at all: Atman is identical to Brahman. This is not confusing and not hard to understand. The hard bit is living up to the words, not understanding what they are supposed to mean.

Clive Durdle wrote:

Education is not filling a pail but the lighting of a fire.

The source of that excellent idea is actually Plutarch, who said:

The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be ignited.

I've used two other equally inspiring quotes in the draft introduction to the new syllabus. From John Ciardi, an American poet:

A good question is never answered. It is not a bolt to be tightened into place but a seed to be planted and to bear more seed toward the hope of greening the landscape of idea.

And from Maria Montessori:

The secret of good teaching is to regard the child’s intelligence as a fertile field, in which seeds may be sown to grow under the heat of flaming imagination. … We do not want complacent pupils, but eager ones: we seek to sow life in the child rather than theories, to help the child grow mentally, socially, emotionally and physically.

I originally joined RDF forum as I was wanting some non-religious 'backup' in my work with SACRE and religious education. I have actually found a lot of the discussion there and here (i.e. on RatSkep) quite helpful, even the most contentious. It helps me look for the good words.

In the new syllabus we have arranged the material according to themes, or big questions. Here is how this approach is described in the intro:

By linking content in thematic threads we are hoping to show how the traditions being studied are responses by people across the globe to common human experiences and predicaments. It is impossible to understand the nature of religion without acknowledging that it is built round these experiences—the ‘music’ so to speak. It is also important to acknowledge that these experiences can be appreciated and interpreted in non-religious ways. Highlighting the perennial questions themselves is ultimately geared towards encouraging pupils to formulate their own questions and solutions.

Nora_Leonard wrote:

Clive Durdle wrote:

Education is not filling a pail but the lighting of a fire.

The source of that excellent idea is actually Plutarch, who said:

The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be ignited.

I've used two other equally inspiring quotes in the draft introduction to the new syllabus. From John Ciardi, an American poet:

A good question is never answered. It is not a bolt to be tightened into place but a seed to be planted and to bear more seed toward the hope of greening the landscape of idea.

And from Maria Montessori:

The secret of good teaching is to regard the child’s intelligence as a fertile field, in which seeds may be sown to grow under the heat of flaming imagination. … We do not want complacent pupils, but eager ones: we seek to sow life in the child rather than theories, to help the child grow mentally, socially, emotionally and physically.

Oh, by all means, let us use platitudes to construct our educational philosophy, and let us make sure that our interlocutors know that we know the sources of platitudes. AKA, wisdom. By all means, let us celebrate folk psychology and wibble as a model of how the mind works, and how child development works. Give me the boy and I'll give you the man.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Oh, by all means, let us use platitudes to construct our educational philosophy, and let us make sure that our interlocutors know that we know the sources of platitudes. AKA, wisdom. By all means, let us celebrate folk psychology and wibble as a model of how the mind works, and how child development works. Give me the boy and I'll give you the man.

Still waiting for your constructive suggestions as to how it should be done... Or are you just here to troll?

HomerJay wrote:

Nora_Leonard wrote:I printed out the scheme of work I did for Christianity and thought I'd give you a brief account of what we try to do, i.e. the aims (targets) for each lesson.

1st lesson: Jesus of Nazareth
Targets:They think about teachers and leaders who have inspired them, and what qualities these people possess.

This may suggest to kids that they lack a leader who can possibly inspire as 'the saviour of mankind' can - it's not neutral.

Just to say I'm at work now and don't have the time to give a proper response to this, but I'm not ignoring it. I will respond when I can.

Nora_Leonard wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Oh, by all means, let us use platitudes to construct our educational philosophy, and let us make sure that our interlocutors know that we know the sources of platitudes. AKA, wisdom. By all means, let us celebrate folk psychology and wibble as a model of how the mind works, and how child development works. Give me the boy and I'll give you the man.

Still waiting for your constructive suggestions as to how it should be done... Or are you just here to troll?

Oh, by all means, assume your conclusion that it must be done. Teaching kids to be tolerant of bullshit. What a wonderful idea.

The schools I attended easily filled up a 6 hour school day without it. However the fuck did we fucking manage? Just for grins, imagine me in an RE classroom, asking the difficult questions. You know, as a sweet kid, who knows he has to kowtow to the teacher who's running the show, but only as far as not disrupting the classroom process. Spends most of the day looking bored. Report cards say: If only XXX would pay more attention in class.

Since it is not mandatory (it isn't mandatory, is it, anywhere it is provided?) it gives the slower kids and the inveterate brown nosers a chance at something they can excel in, eh?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Nora_Leonard wrote:Still waiting for your constructive suggestions as to how it should be done... Or are you just here to troll?

Oh, by all means, assume your conclusion that it must be done. Teaching kids to be tolerant of bullshit. What a wonderful idea.

The schools I attended easily filled up a 6 hour school day without it. However the fuck did we fucking manage? Just for grins, imagine me in an RE classroom, asking the difficult questions. You know, as a sweet kid, who knows he has to kowtow to the teacher who's running the show, but only as far as not disrupting the classroom process. Spends most of the day looking bored. Report cards say: If only XXX would pay more attention in class.

Since it is not mandatory (it isn't mandatory, is it, anywhere it is provided?) it gives the slower kids and the inveterate brown nosers a chance at something they can excel in, eh?

As it stands now, it is required by law. So yes, my conclusion is that it will be done. But I can't deny that I also am passionate about the subject.

And as for kids asking difficult questions, Jesus and Guru Nanak were just such children, an observation that I have often pointed out (e.g. in a presentation on gifted and talented on RE, where the most gifted children are often the most awkward in a class).

Other than "don't sodding do it" do you have anything creative to contribute?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... 36185.html

I started the above thread to give some context to this discussion.

Remember this is part of a much larger agenda, including Islamists, equality legislation and the relationship to religion, big society and community cohesion.

We are looking at nudging going on.

There might be local mosques, there might also be Waltham Abbey, with its direct connections to Harold and Orthodoxy and a pre Raphaelite painting of the Zodiac on its ceiling....

Clive Durdle wrote:http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news-politics/faith-and-belief-in-partnership-t36185.html

I started the above thread to give some context to this discussion.

Remember this is part of a much larger agenda, including Islamists, equality legislation and the relationship to religion, big society and community cohesion.

We are looking at nudging going on.

There might be local mosques, there might also be Waltham Abbey, with its direct connections to Harold and Orthodoxy and a pre Raphaelite painting of the Zodiac on its ceiling....

Thanks. Although not sure that you will find my participation on that thread a good thing.

Nora_Leonard wrote:I can't deny that I also am passionate about the subject.

RE is the instrument of a particular establishment, and it is your meal ticket. I don't doubt your passion. What's it doing on a rationalist website passing itself off as rationality? There's nothing much more to be said. An RE bureaucracy is mandated. There are skeptics of that mandate here, and what is it that you'd like to sell them?

If you want to emit the names of Jesus and Guru Nanak in successive breaths, please take it to the HJ thread. I'm not here to be indoctrinated that Jesus (head honcho of the C of E) was once just an ordinary child asking difficult questions. Lots of people on this website seem to think that if Jesus is historical, there will always be an England.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Nora_Leonard wrote:I can't deny that I also am passionate about the subject.

RE is the instrument of a particular establishment, and it is your meal ticket. I don't doubt your passion. What's it doing on a rationalist website passing itself off as rationality? There's nothing much more to be said. An RE bureaucracy is mandated. There are skeptics of that mandate here, and what is it that you'd like to sell them?

If you want to emit the names of Jesus and Guru Nanak in successive breaths, please take it to the HJ thread. I'm not here to be indoctrinated that Jesus (head honcho of the C of E) was once just an ordinary child asking difficult questions. Lots of people on this website seem to think that if Jesus is historical, there will always be an England.

Providing food for trolls?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Nora_Leonard wrote:I can't deny that I also am passionate about the subject.

RE is the instrument of a particular establishment, and it is your meal ticket. I don't doubt your passion.

I'm not passionate about it for either of those reasons, but go ahead and tell me that those are my motives.

Cito di Pense wrote:What's it doing on a rationalist website passing itself off as rationality?

What's the coffee drinking thread or the haiku thread or the let's talk about the weather thread doing on a rationalist website?

Cito di Pense wrote:I'm not here to be indoctrinated

It's really quite simple then, Cito. Don't read the thread.

Who are you to attempt to dictate what can and cannot be discussed here on this forum, or what is or is not appropriate? All you seem to do is wander around poking your nose in and sneering at not only what people say, but the people themselves. That you do so keeping just within the FUA doesn't mean that you are not doing it.

Just what are you here for? It certainly doesn't seem to be rational discussion.

Nora_Leonard wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Nora_Leonard wrote:I can't deny that I also am passionate about the subject.

RE is the instrument of a particular establishment, and it is your meal ticket. I don't doubt your passion.

I'm not passionate about it for either of those reasons, but go ahead and tell me that those are my motives.

Cito di Pense wrote:What's it doing on a rationalist website passing itself off as rationality?

What's the coffee drinking thread or the haiku thread or the let's talk about the weather thread doing on a rationalist website?

Because this is a Politics & Current Affairs thread, and not a Social thread, your argument is misplaced. There has been a bit of talk lately from those seeking to re-make the entire forum into a social website, in accordance with their passions.

Of course you're not passionate about it simply because it is your meal ticket. You contribute to threads skeptical of mystic claims in defense of mystical experience. A main focus of RE is indoctrinating kids to be tolerant of other people's woo, and their own, if they have any. What a valuable enterprise.

You and I both know there isn't any actual woo out there. We have only a person's passionate feelings for his/her passionate feelings. It's a bit recursive, so an enterprise dedicated to goosing the feedback loop is bound to get lots of customers.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Nora_Leonard wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Nora_Leonard wrote:I can't deny that I also am passionate about the subject.

RE is the instrument of a particular establishment, and it is your meal ticket. I don't doubt your passion.

I'm not passionate about it for either of those reasons, but go ahead and tell me that those are my motives.

Cito di Pense wrote:What's it doing on a rationalist website passing itself off as rationality?

What's the coffee drinking thread or the haiku thread or the let's talk about the weather thread doing on a rationalist website?

Because this is a Politics & Current Affairs thread, and not a Social thread, your argument is misplaced.

And what I'm talking about is germane to the subject of the teaching of Christianity in UK schools, is it not? Or is that not the topic of this particular Politics & Current Affairs thread?

Anyway you didn't specify this thread, you said "rationalist website".

Cito di Pense wrote:There has been a bit of talk lately from those seeking to re-make the entire forum into a social website, in accordance with their passions.

Ooooooh! Where, where? I must have missed that!

Nora_Leonard wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Because this is a Politics & Current Affairs thread, and not a Social thread, your argument is misplaced.

And what I'm talking about is germane to the subject of the teaching of Christianity in UK schools, is it not?

Don't you mean "the teaching of the content of Christianity"? Bit of a slip there, Nora. Anyway, even had you been more precise in your language, it conveniently bypasses the need to listen to people talk about their beliefs in favour of hearing in their words the canonical version of what one has been told their beliefs consist of.

So, no, it's not germane to 'the teaching of Christianity' in UK schools. The thread title really gets us off on the wrong foot. The OP, Simon Gardner, and not you, is responsible for that, but you don't have to underwrite the mistake.