Two 6 year olds: 1) "You have to go to hell if you're not Christian." 2) "But you're going to hell if you're a Christian."

source: http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2012/apr/11/primary-school-religious-edudcation

How to reconcile Christian and Muslim beliefs? Become an atheist!

Religious Education: that’s another sermon

reposted from: http://www.atheismuk.com/2012/04/08/news/religious-education-thats-another-sermon/

Rowan Williams to warn of downgrading of religious education

It is about the worst possible moment to downgrade the status and professional excellence of religious education in secondary schools – but that’s another sermon…

Another sermon indeed, Rowan! The fact is that, with more than half of all secondary schools now academies and free from the strictures of the national curriculum, the Church of England-led locally agreed syllabus regime, for Religious Education, is dead in the water. So also is any idea that the RE orthodoxy should be imposed nationally. 

Academies are free to teach RE in any way they choose, provided merely that it complies with the ill-defined statutory requirement to:-

reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain.

The scope, for unorthodox RE, is almost unlimited. While it is clear that its subject matter must include “the religious traditions in Great Britain” and “the principal religions represented in Great Britain”[1], these elements are not exhaustive and there is no prohibition on absence of religion also being covered. 

Contemporary Religious Education is often characterized as “comparative religion”, as between different religions. If, instead, it is the comparison between religion and that absence of it, the subject is transformed into “philosophy of religion”.

The subject may be further transformed, as there is no prohibition on the inclusion of scientific explanations for religion, such as those (some more convincing than others) offered by Stark and Bainbridge[2], Shermer[3], Sloan Wilson[4], Dawkins[5], Dennett[6] and Ray[7].

Bring on the next sermon, Rowan!

---

[1] It is not clear whether these similar but different terms were intended to convey subtly different meanings (and, if so, what) or whether their distinct usage results merely from poor drafting.

[2] “A Theory of Religion”, 1987.

[3] “How we Believe”, 2001.

[4] “Darwin’s Cathedral”, 2002.

[5] “The God Delusion”, 2006.

[6] “Breaking the Spell”, 2006.

[7] “The God Virus”, 2009.