SCHOOLCHILDREN will be taught about the “rise of atheism” in a new religious studies GCSE, it has been announced.
According to the Telegraph, lessons will also focus on Druids and Rastafarianism as part of a syllabus designed to boost understanding of religious diversity around the world.
Attitudes by different faiths towards same sex marriages, human rights, gender equality and even GM crops will be among the topics covered.
What is bound to outrage Christian traditionalists is that the course:
Will largely snub traditional lessons on the Bible and other holy books.
It has already been criticised for “pandering to popularity”.
Prof Alan Smithers
Alan Smithers, Professor of Education at Buckingham University, says the subject has been turned into a “pat qualification for political correctness”.
The course includes just two optional units focusing on more traditional material, entitled ‘worship and key beliefs’ and ‘religious philosophy’.
Other units cover ‘religion and relationships’, where students are taught about homosexuality, religious attitudes to contraception and the concept and role of parenting.
Prof Smithers, who is also Director of Buckingham University’s Centre for Education and Employment Training, describes the syllabus as an example of the “politicisation of education”.
Prof Smithers said:
This does not seems to be about religion and spirituality at all. There are just a lot of tenuous connections which teach the preferred attitudes and beliefs of the moment.
I think it comes from the desire of politicians to stamp their influence on everything. It looks as if they are turning RE in to a pat qualification for political correctness.
How is it to benefit the students? It is not going to be a basis for the further study of RE or spirituality to a higher level. All it can do is clock up league table points for the school and keep young people occupied. One has to ask, where is the religion?
And Anastasia de Waal, head of family and education at the think-tank Civitas, said:
We seem to be so desperate to make things relevant – to pander to popularity -that our kids aren’t being taught the underlying knowledge they need to succeed in the world. We are doing a huge disservice to our young people.
Anastasia de Waal
But examiners said the syllabus – by one of Britain’s biggest exam boards – will make the subject more “relevant” to students.
Religious studies is currently one of the fastest-growing GCSEs in the UK and in the last two years the number of entries has increased by 24,000 to 171,000.
Religion and Belief in Today’s World – one of the syllabuses – will:
Challenge students to think about the role of religion in modern Britain and in the worldwide community.
One topic will focus on how atheism has been marked in countries around the world. This includes the influence of the British Humanist Association, which recently backed an advertising campaign proclaiming “There’s probably no God”, and the work of best-selling author Philip Pullman in the UK.
Another topic asks students to study perspectives on relationships, including forced marriage, inter-faith marriage and same sex couples.
Liam Gearon, professor of lifelong learning at Plymouth University, who supports the new course, said:
This is an intellectually exciting new GCSE which will challenge students to think about the role of religion in modern Britain and in the worldwide community. Encouraging the use of historical reflection as well as thought-provoking analysis of contemporary events, it will engage students of all abilities with the many issues that surround religion in the modern world.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
March 25th, 2009 at 9:53 am
‘Another topic asks students to study perspectives on relationships, including forced marriage, inter-faith marriage and same sex couples.’
Shall we have a sweepstake on which schools in which parts of the country will mysteriously lose this part of the syllabus, or perhaps claim the dog ate it?
March 25th, 2009 at 10:38 am
valdemar,
“the dog ate it”
Nice one!
“pandering to popularity”
So in other words, we don’t care about catering for everyone, we just want people brainwashed with our garbage.
These people are so scared of allowing people the freedom to look at all available options and allowing them to choose their own truth. It must have been said a million times but if their version of reality was so compelling, why would they have anything to worry about. Introducing Atheism to the curriculum would not be a threat.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:47 am
The syllabus sounds a lot more enlightened than mine was 50 years ago, when RE meant ‘bible studies’. And that was in a Secondary Modern school, not one of the religious institutions.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:56 am
I’m undecided about this. I think there are valid points raised on both sides. I happen to think that reducing the study of the Bible or the Koran may be a bad thing. The fanatisism we see in the world is produced by a literal reading of these books, which is why every video and photo of a jihadist talking into the camera shows him holding the Koran. The Koran can be read to justify it. Without people studying it, they will not be in a position to challenge people who really do believe in a literal reading of these books. We have to show Christians, for example, that Jesus isn’t all about love and compassion and that it was he who brought the notion of eternal punishment for thought-crime. This can’t be done without studying the Bible. The flip side though, is that you can’t get children interested in the subject without “pandering to popularity”.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:13 am
This is a step, albeit a rather small one, in the right direction; but as valdemar states above, there will be many schools that continue to ignore the syllabus without fear of an Ofsted inspection. As soon as Ofstead criticise certain schools, up goes the persecution shout.
Teaching children how to think and question: something the religious don’t want! The religions’ biggest fear in this change, is that their fairy tales and bigotry are subject to more scrutiny.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
‘This does not seems to be about religion and spirituality at all.’
Er, yes it is, as long as the religious use their spiritual belief as a political weapon to oppose laws that benefit others, like same-sex marriage.
‘How is it to benefit the students?.’
Indeed. When I was in school in 1997 I had to do a compulsory GCSE in RE (which I got an ‘F’ in). Almost nobody chose it as an ‘option’ so the whole year had to do it to keep RE teacher occupied. The only benefit we got from each lesson was basically having a nice doss period.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
David L wrote:
“We have to show Christians, for example, that Jesus isn’t all about love and compassion and that it was he who brought the notion of eternal punishment for thought-crime.”
Oh, come on now. That’s not fair, blaming Jesus – it’s the people who made up the stories about him that you should complain about.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
With his gormless attitude you have to wonder what Alun Smithers is doing as Head of Education anywhere. What is he so worried about? Let religious belief, traditional or otherwise, argue its corner and let the debate begin. The stalinist censorship of sceptical opinion on the abysmal Thought for the Day must be another bastion of bigotted bullshit to fall. Any programme which daily offers air time, paid for by the public, to that Anne Atkins woman (wife of a vicar, I hear) stains the reputation of the BBC.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
This development is well timed. Religious Studies has become an mandatory GCSE in many schools (albeit with a parental opt-out) because schools have to teach RS anyway and they want kids to get the points from the exam as otherwise it’s a complete waste of time.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I wouldn’t take ‘Professor’ Smithers too seriously. Buckingham University is the UK’s only private university – set up by various bods who thought traditional unis were a wee bit too progressive, as far as I can tell – have a look at the Wikipedia entry, which seems to have been written by one of the staff.
Also note that when they decided to undergo a QAA inspection (standard for the other UK unis) they got a bit of a trouncing. So – it’s not exactly like any academic from a properly monitored institution has any problems with this syllabus.
And again -Christian ‘think tank’? get real!!
March 25th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
I’m sure RS is as much of a doss now as it was in my day, the intellectually rigorous Seventies! Like theology, RS can mean virtually anything you like. So much easier than awful science with its facts and numbers. It’s about time passes in ‘proper’ subjects got a school more points. Or maybe they do and I’m staggeringly out of touch?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Stuart H. Thanks. Most helpful.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
The main reason the Christians and other religionists get upset about this sort of course is that it encourages people to think about religion.
If you start looking at other religions and thinking “do they really believe that? how ridiculous!” it doesn’t take much to get a teenager to look at their own beliefs (or those they’ve been brought up to accept as ‘normal’) with the same sceptical eye. Talking snakes? Ritual cannibalism? Flying horses? reincarnation?
Once you realise that all other religions look silly to an outsider it isn’t hard to see how ridiculous your own must look to them – and bingo you’re on the road to becoming another irreligionist!
Alun Smithers knows that thought is the enemy of inertia Christianity and that’s why he wants to stop students thinking about religion.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Chris,
Very good point. I stand corrected
March 25th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Actually i have to agree with whatever rentagob tory is quoted in the article (i didn’t even read the whole thing, but can already imagine the gist of his speech). RE lessons should entirely focus on only the core beleifs of each religion – thier teachings on how the world was created, how life appeared and how they worship. And “relevance” should be avoided at all costs.
This will have the effect of showing kids how equally stupid and absurd all religion is, and encourage rejection of it.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
David L,
How else are people supposed to understand these books other than as a literal translation? Anything else is just someone else’s interpretation which means that basically anything goes. Correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to be suggesting that the koran does not condone the actions of the jihadists whereas in fact it does.
It lays it straight that non believers are worthless garbage “the worst of men” and believers, i.e muslims are “the best of men”. Notice that there is no mention of the best or worst of women. It also states “non believers are your open enemy” and urges muslims to make war against them. This is required by allah and muslims who do not take part are described as hypocrites. It states that men should, not can, should, beat their wives.
There is no room for interpretation in these statements, they say what they mean. How do we justify the beating of women? In what context is that ok? In what way to we interpret that statement to find that it makes sense and is justifiable?
This is why we have those jihadists you mentioned in the first place, and why we usually find them holding the koran. Because it justifies everything they do. In fact it instructs them to do these things.
I would have no problem with people studying these books and understanding the literal meaning to understand how vile they are and also that they are completely irrelevant in a modern world and total crap.
As long as the lessons were more about “let’s see what these books say” and “what do you think about what you’ve just read?” rather than religious lessons pushing these vile works of fiction as books to be revered and respected and that the nonsense contained within them was something to be considered as the right way to live your life, it’s fine. That way they can be exposed for what they really are. Worthless, meaningless, racist, sexist shite condoning all kinds of despicable behaviour against anyone different to yourself.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Sorry to spoil a perfectly good rant there Godless, but the issue of wife beating does have room for interpretation within Islam.
Some say that it is perfectly ok, whilst others say you should only ‘smack your bitch up’ with a toothbrush!
I would love to have been present when they were debating that one.
http://www.bible.ca/islam/isla.....hbrush.htm
March 25th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Godless,
I agree with you completely. I was trying to say that the books should be studied in order to point out that the laws written in them aren’t interpretation and are indeed explicit instructions. I would want the books to be taught in such a way that the teacher shows them what the book does say rather than what people think the books say. To do this to show that the content of these books are filled with absolute barbarism.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
We seem to be so desperate to make things relevant – to pander to popularity –that our kids aren’t being taught the underlying knowledge they need to succeed in the world.
Translation: We’re not raising children in a vacuum like I think we should. They’re going to have all the facts instead of thinking there’s only one option. Oh, the horror!
March 25th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Interesting…I have home-educated our three kids since 2000 to get them away from closed thinking and one of the requirements set out by our Local Education Authority was that the education we offered had to be relevant. This surely means being applicable to the age in which we live. Had we been home-educating in the middle-ages then the bible, creation and all manner of other ‘beliefs’ and assumptions would have been ‘relevant’. We examined the bible, Islam, Buddhism etc along with atheism and sciences and we allowed them to make their own decisions based on facts and evidence…and they have all chosen atheism over everything else. They are, I would like to point out to the ‘can’t be good/moral/caring/kind/considerate/ if you are not religious’ contingency of our planet that they are all far better behaved and thoughtful people than a bunch of severe god-botherers who live nearby who have been fed a diet of religion rather than ethics. How can anyone complain about making education relevant…that is real education of course!!!
March 25th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
remigius,
That’s perfectly ok as this is a free speech area and we are all entitled to our own opinion and by debating these points and keeping an open mind to what others have to say, we can all learn. I am going to have to shoot you though.
About this interpretation thing. I agree that it is interpreted in many different ways but the point I was making is that no matter what any of them declare is the accepted way to “smack your bitch up”, it’s the fact that muslim men are given the right to do this at all which is the issue as far as I’m concerned.
If it was an issue of whether or not the koran actually did allow a man to beat his wife, that would be different, but it’s not. It is agreed that it IS allowed; only the actual method is contested.
I have heard that it should be carried out as if you were using a toothpick, or a piece of wood the size of your thumb, or that a ‘man’ should only hit his wife on parts of the body where it won’t be seen (which is probably partly why muslim women are supposed to wear the niqab which means the hubby only needs to avoid poking his wife in the eyes since everything else is covered anyway).
The debate is only about HOW it should be done not IF it should be done. Even muslim women justify it by claiming that it’s only a very light beating, missing the point that it still gives men that right over them, which is my problem with it.
Would any ladies reading like to comment on a man’s god given right to beat you and whether or not you are happy to accept that situation given that he will only beat you where the neighbours won’t see the bruises – if he causes any. I mean that’s ok isn’t it. I’ll beat you because I own you, but only a little bit.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
David L,
Sorry. I must have misunderstood your post. I thought you were trying to say that the koran is misunderstood by jihadists and that if they read it with the proper instructions on how to read/interpret/understand it, they would see that it’s message is not violent.
I sit corrected.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Kev,
I admire your commitment. Home educating cannot be easy. How did you manage to work and do that at the same time? Did you have checks by the education authority? Did they provide some of the material or were you responsible for providing all books and other materials and for setting out the curriculum (albeit within their guidelines I would imagine).
March 26th, 2009 at 10:14 am
remigius,
I think I got caught up in my own opinion of that particular sura in the koran rather than the point you were making, which was about interpretation. What is really more relevant to this issue is that, so called moderate muslims claim that this particular sura instructs a man to beat a woman lightly. My point is that it says no such thing.
I’m sure you are familiar with it and know that it says something along the lines of “to those from whom you fear desertion, banish them to the sleeping quarters AND BEAT THEM”. Not “and beat them lightly”. There is no mention of toothpicks, toothbrushes or thumbs.
In my humble opinion, genuine interpretation of this is only in HOW a muslim chooses to beat his wife. The extent of the beating and what instruments may be used and what part of the body he will hit is never mentioned and therefore IS open to interpretation.
Therefore it is not right for these people to claim that the koran INSTRUCTS them to do it lightly, or any other way for that matter, as there is no further elaboration. It’s nice and simple, just beat them.
This is what I meant by interpretation meaning anything goes which then means it is fairly irrelevant. Anyone can put their own slant on it but that is really moving away from the literal meaning. It’s fine for someone to say “yes, we can beat our wives, but in my opinion, it should be a light beating but this is for each man to decide for himself”. (Well, it’s not actually fine to say that but you know what I mean!) This would also allow for a man who wants to beat his wife hard, to do just that and this would still be in concordance with what the koran actually says.
So, you are right in that there is room for interpretation if someone wants to do that, but this can have little to do with what the book actually says or means. It is precisely in this way that muslims claim that islam is tolerant and “the religion of peaceâ€. Anyone can interpret anything they read any way they want. It doesn’t mean it’s right though. Does it?
Feel free to slap me down again though!
March 26th, 2009 at 10:51 am
The western “values” suggest equality and freedom for all, that means society must allow religious freedom. The Christians and Jews have Church/ Jewish schools as well as kosher meat, yet when Muslims simply ask for the very same treatment,the Islamphobic secular right wing jump up and down screaming that somehow western values have been attacked.
The Jews throughout the western world have their own religious courts. Christians have been enjoying the right to be married in Church. Muslims should have the same right to get married in Masajid as well as they need Sharia Courts, dealing in marriage, civil matters and divorce.
It is easy to say” Go back to where you came from”,but do not forget that British Muslims are actually born and educated here. They are in the unenviable position of trying to combine two diffent worlds. That is no easy.
Multiculturalism is not about separation, ghettoisation or balkanisation. It is, instead, a recognition of both diversity and the need for common ground, mutual respect,and cultural engagement.
Muslims all over the world never opposed English as a language what they did was opposition of the Western culture and their system of education. In Pakistan, the medium of instruction is Urdu and English and the official language is both English and Urdu. Pakistan is going to send English teachers to Korea for the teaching of English language.
Muslim parents would like their children to be well versed in standard English to follow the National Curriculum and go for higher studies and research to serve humanity.
Majority of Muslim children leave schools with low grades because state schools with monolingual teachers are not capable of teaching English to bilingual children.At the same time, they need to learn and be well versed in Arabic, Urdu and other community languages to keep in touch with their cultural roots and enjoy the beauty of their literature and poetry.
I am concerned with the education of the Muslim children. It is nothing to do with integration or segregation. Those state as well as Church schools where Muslim children are in majority, in my opinion, may be designated as Muslim community schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models.
Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.
Iftikhar Ahmad
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk
March 26th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Iftikhar.
Please refer to my comment on the “More trouble on the ‘faith school’ front” thread. March 26th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
It’s about you and your fucked up ideology.
March 27th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Iftikhar: Bunch of excuses and a lot of smoke and mirrors. What cannot be excused is when a child who was born un the UK, joins a primary school and cannot comprehend English, having been brought up on Urdu and foreign satellite TV. The parents then complain that the child is a victim of western imperialism and is being discriminated against. Under these circumstances it is the parents who should be made to pay for the English language tuition they didn’t receive while being kept within the confines of their ghetto. It is not the responsibility of the UK to adapt. Either the foreigners should become absorbed or leave for a country where everyone thinks that it is 1300 AD and bacon sandwiches are forbidden.
March 27th, 2009 at 11:32 am
remigius
I think you’re wasting your time with this retard. I have had a look at that link you posted and it seems that he never replies to any comments. There was also very little support for his ideas amongst those who commented. Even from muslims.
He knows he’ll not not stand a chance with you anyway. So he’ll just pull his religious blanket over his head and hide from the truth as usual.
March 27th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Newspaniard,
Well said. The problem of course, as I am sure you are very well aware, is that this is all very deliberate. It’s all part of the global jihad to bring down and take over the west and the rest of the planet just a little bit at a time. By crying racism and islamophobia every time something doesn’t suit them, they persuade the politically correct fools amongst us to pander to their every whim, thus imposing islam on us all by stealth.
I’m not sure how it would be achieved, but governments and local authorities should never allow these ghettos to be created in the first place. We have a growing problem here, nearish to me, where the local council, eager to get their hands on handouts from the Eu, took in loads of asylum seekers and stuck them all onto one already violent and crime ridden council scheme (estate if you live in England).
This has caused problems with attacks (and murders) on the people trying to settle here and then of course reprisals. This area is now predominantly African. I have absolutely no objections to anyone coming to settle in my country as long as they are here for genuine reasons and are willing to work and integrate, but all the council have done here is to create a ghetto which is not good for either community.
We have seen the results of this mistake many times in many countries, but people never seem to learn.
I do understand that people coming into any country from another, especially if the culture is very different, will want to stick together, and I know that Brits do it abroad too, but it doesn’t really work. It divides and causes friction and is not at all conducive to multiculturalism, mutual respect and understanding.
As I said, I have no idea how this can be achieved, but somehow, these ghettos, including the self created muslim ghettos, need to be broken up if true integration is to be achieved. The trouble is, that’s not what muslims want.
March 28th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Children should be taught the Koran, Bible etc to make them realise that not all religions can be true (and also what a crock of shite religion is). My dauaghter got an GCSE A* in RE – Islam and Christianity. She said it was easy; Islam you just had to know the rules and Christianity you made it up as you went along based on your own moral values. She is an atheist, which she arrived at by her own free thinking conclusions and rational thought because I never gave her the answers, just made her question those ancient texts.
The problem is not the subject taught at schools, but the indoctrination by fear children receive at a young age both from parents and places of worship.
March 28th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Iftikhar
I am atheist now but I was raised a catholic and went to a catholic school in Africa. It was a private fee paying school and Protestant, Muslim and Hindu parents sent their kids there not only to learn English but also to get a good education – which they did. The school ruled that only English was to be spoken not any other language which all children abided by. When the catholics had catechism (severe indoctrination) other denominations learnt about other religions. We were placed in classes of our standard ability and not of age. We were moved up upon passing each year’s standard ability exams in all subjects.
You will find that Christian schools in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and other eastern countries do the same.
Unfortunately it is not the case here in the UK.
March 28th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Iftikhar,
I hit the submit button before i finished.
Unfortunatley it is not the case here in the UK, because public sector schooling is funded by the taxpayer. In Muslim countries not all children have access to education; it is privately funded by their parents. So count your lucky stars that all children have access to a good education if they and their parents are willing to go the extra mile. If they cannot learn the English language to be educated in English spoken subjects then why don’t you or the parents fund private English tuition instead of moaning about the education system in place.