h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, currently, we have (as I understand it) 3 subjects:
PSE/PSHE/SHAPE - (Personal, Social, Health) - which covers things like sex education (no tittering at the back, etc.)
Citizenship - they introduced this a while back, I'm not sure if it's a whole subject or part of other things, but I think it's supposed to cover things like politics and human rights
RE - which, at my secondary school, was very much about looking at different religions, although we did get rather a leaning to christianity, and it was boring as

So, add to that the idea of teaching morality/ethics, be it religiously or atheistically based - either by extending RE, or scrapping it and reusing the timetable slot. Oh, and I remember seeing something recently pointing out that children don't get taught much in terms of basic *financial* skills - how to manage your money, how bills and tax and benefits work...

Basically, the whole thing needs a bit of reorganisation, doesn't it? Is finance part of citizenship? Is citizenship part of PSE, or part of ethics&morality? And, as somebody else suggested, is RE really just an extension of Geography (I hadn't thought about that before)? And will it still all be boring as ?

But maybe the new system they're looking into will be able to fit these things in better. As I understand it, they're going to take a proper (several years of planning, as opposed to the rushed failure that was A2-levels) look at how to reorganise GCSEs and A-levels. I haven't heard anything since the first announcement, but the initial idea seemed to be a kind of modular system where you do various subjects at various levels, and accumulate meaningful credit for all of them. I wonder if it'll work.

I'm personally all for far more "blurred" definitions of subjects - humanities, for instance, teach much of the same things from different angles. You can teach about a particular period all around the world (history?), or a particular place at various different times (geography?), or the beliefs of one group of people (RE?), or the nature of belief (philosophy?), or the implications of that belief (morality?), or its applications (citizenship?), or the reactions of other groups of people (which brings us back to history...)

Sorry, I'm rambling rather, aren't I?
[IMSoP]

Why not teach them Accounting, Sex Ed and Platos te republic - covers most things

but of course in our "modern" day education systems, basic maths, English and Writing skill might be a bonus too

At my (state) secondary school, we only did RE for two or three years, mainly taught by a hippy chick who was more interested in ESP than religion. From age 14 almost everyone dropped it as it was optional, and for obvious reasons hardly anyone wanted to do an exam in it.
I'm not sure if it was meant to be compulsory in those days (late 70s), but no-one seemed to complain about the choice to ditch it.

It is distinctly American, Nyss, and I think that other people here don't perhaps understand that...
We didn't have RE in our schools (the Education Act says 'free, secular and compulsory'. All but the free part still applies, and charging $$ is by stealth. To previous governments !)
'Creation science' (an oxymoron) should definitely *not* be taught.

At my school, RE meant Christianity. We covered four major world religions in two weeks, at one hour-long lesson a week, and then did Christianity for the rest of the year.

As a result, I am a raving Atheist and really can't be having with ANY organised religion. But I wish I had been taught what everyone else believes properly, just to understand where my fellow peoples are coming from. I think each major religion (the High Five, as we used to call them) should be very thoroughly taught and no particular one promoted, alongside Philosophy and Society and Culture. And the odd week spent doing more minority religions (Baha'i, Zoroastrianism, that sort of thing) would have been very cool indeed.

I have to say that Re would have been vastly improved if it wasn't just lots of christianity followed up with a derisory glance at other religions usually presented on the lines of "and this is what they believe ho, ho, ho"

Atheism should definitely be taught (and i think it can be taught as it is not an absense of belief but a belief in the non existance of god/gods)It is a far better idea to give arm children with as much info as possible sso that they can make informed decisions.

In the 2001 UK census, a campaign by a bunch of frankly disturbed individuals resulted in "Jedi Knight" becoming a recognised religion in the UK> So should it now be taught in schools?

I'm not sure where someone read something about a bill being passed in California to teach creationism in schools, but I live in southern California and I can assure you that that's not the case. (Yet.) Actually, most states don't have any law like that.
You say it's "distinctly American" to want to teach creationism in schools and to have little knowledge of science, but I think that's an unfair generalization. Yes, there are many Americans whose reason is blinded by religion, and there are many Americans who have little knowledge of science, but fortunately reason and intelligent thought are prevailing in all but a few towns and states.

Personally, I disagree with the idea of atheism being taught in schools. To me, atheism ought to be defined as a lack of religion, not a religion of its own. When I became an atheist, it wasn't because I *believed* in no-god, it was because I *didn't* believe in any god. To teach atheism as if it is a religion is to play on the same field as the creationists who claim that creationism is a science on one hand and argue that atheism and evolution are religions on the other hand.

Well, perhaps then there should be an all-encompasing class on systems or modes of thought that derives material from philosophy, psychology, religion, etc.

Hi Muse,

It was me who mentioned southern California because on another thread some Americans were discussing a law like this going through somewhere there, but I may have confused the state involved.

I wasn't the person who said this was 'disctinctly American' and I agree that that was an unfair generalization.

I don't think the article talked about teaching atheism in schools as a religion, or being taught at all. It mentioned atheism being taught 'about' and included in a new programme called religious, philosophical and moral education. Which makes good sense to me, anyhow. I agree that atheism is not any sort of religion or anti-religion, but is a personal philosophy, and I think including it in a course such as this would help people see the difference.

az

Nyssa, I think you're on the right track.

Ivan.

The only time Creationism was ever mentioned when I was at school was in A Level Philosophy of Religion, in the context of the straw man 'half an eye' argument, if I remember rightly.

Our RE (as opposed to RS) classes were mostly about Hinduism I think, as there's a bloody big Hindu community where I grew up, and it was considered a good idea for the white middle class kids to learn about the religion of a good 15% of the nearest city's population. That's probably the best use for RE lessons- to teach about something relevant to the area the school's in.

ReddyFreddy:

"In the 2001 UK census, a campaign by a bunch of frankly disturbed individuals resulted in "Jedi Knight" becoming a recognised religion in the UK> So should it now be taught in schools?"

This is a myth.

Prior to the census someone asked how many members a religion needed for it to be included as a separate category and the answer was 'about 10,000' so an internet campaign was launched to get more than that many people to describe themselves as 'Jedi', with a view to getting it recognised as a religion category within the census results. The plan failed. Plenty of people responded as asked but the category is not recognised.

However the question is valid - what does actually constitute a religion?

F

Hmmm...wonders...should Nighthoover be taught in schools?

OK, question time "If you choose athiesm as your "religion"....where do your moral values etc come from?"

Is that not what should be covered under the inclusion of a study of athiesm at schools?

Oh, and "May the Force be with you"

from one of them wierd Jedi Knights.

Northern Boy: Atheism should definitely be taught (and i think it can be taught as it is not an absense of belief but a belief in the non existance of god/gods).

"Atheism", if you use that word, does mean "belief in non-existence of gods". However, this word is usually applied disparagingly by theists. It is not a word most "atheists" would use about themselves. My own position, and that of many others, is NOT a belief in non-existence, and not even an absence of belief, but a much more important and profound rejection of the very notion of belief in the supernatural in all its various pernicious nonsensical forms, from Uri Geller to the Pope.

Regarding Jedi, I've looked into the numbers on this on the .gov website. I think whoever supplied the "about 10,000" figure must have been answering off the cuff. The internet campaign may have failed in terms of getting "Jedi" any actual 'recognition', but I wonder what constitutes 'recognition' in any case. What I did find interesting about the figures was this: if you asked anyone to name the "top five" religions in this country, I have no doubt that Judaism would be on their list. In fact, the government's own statistics indicate that less than 260,000 people in this country self-identify as "Jewish". In contrast, almost 400,000 people put "Jedi". This speaks volumes about the relative importance of religion in people's lives in the UK today, I think, and how much LESS important it is than we are regularly told by the media and the churches.

Further reflecting on the kind of people "Jedi" are, let's see. The kind of characteristics I'd expect of these people are:

- high awareness of and engagement with contemporary popular culture (in contrast to most "normal" religious people, who tend towards ignorance and conservatism)
- appreciation of spirituality but obviously no strong identification with a particular religion or philosophy
- liking of and skill with technology: gadget lovers: possibly early adopters, the sort of people with the best phones, PCs, iPods, etc.
- tendency towards non-violence but generally appreciative of the need for it in certain situations
- more likely than average to be single
- more likely than average to be male
- more likely than average to be young: I would expect most British Jedi to be under 40, in contrast to other religions where I would expect the population to be, on average, old and getting older.
- issues with their father...

Thoughts?

"If you choose athiesm as your "religion"....where do your moral values etc come from?"

Perhaps its more helpful to talk about humanism rather than atheism as something that can be taught. I understand humanism to be the belief that people are valuable because they're people, not because they're created by a God figure. Humanists are secular and rational, and are generally agnostics or atheists. As I understand it, (and I could be wrong) atheism is a non-belief (as Member said), while Humanism is a positive world view that finds value in people and the world. I share a great many of their beliefs, but I'm probably not agnostic enough to be a humanist.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/

Otto

Hi Member,

"almost 400,000 people put "Jedi". This speaks volumes about the relative importance of religion in people's lives in the UK today"

This is an interesting point. Assuming that genuinely religious people would state their true religion and would not wish to hide it for some reason we could conclude that every person that answered 'Jedi' is either:
- atheist or agnostic, with a sense of humour
- a genuine practising Jedi
- slightly disturbed

Although there must be people who fit into one or both of the latter categories it seems reasonable to suppose most of those who responded were atheists or agnostics (demonstrating a sense of humour). Do the figures also record those who answered 'none' for their religion (like me, atheist not demonstrating a sense of humour)? I can't Google from here unfortunately or I would look it up myself.


I think your analysis of the demography of the Jedi population is going to be pretty close to the mark. I would put the age divide nearer 45 though. The age profile of each religion could be interesting to look at - are some religions more popular with younger people at the expense of others?

F

Member you are most likely correct in your definition of Atheism as i was working form a limited frame of reference i.e. my own personal beliefs which is very much a belief in the non existance of god/gods and i suppose i should probably find another word for it (however atheism seems to get the point across to people.