View Full Version : Teaching of Christianity 'lacks intellectual development'
The teaching of Christianity can be "incoherent" or "too stereotypical", an academic leading a project to improve lessons in English schools has said.
Lessons can lack "intellectual development", said Dr Nigel Fancourt of Oxford University.
His comments follow a poll finding widespread support in England for teaching about Christianity in schools.
Richy Thompson of the British Humanist Association said schools should also reflect non-religious world views.
Almost two-thirds (64%) of adults questioned for Oxford University agreed pupils must know about Christianity to understand English history.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20468439
Note: 26 November 2012 Last updated at 00:56 GMT
Armistead
11-26-12, 11:41 AM
I have no problem teaching it from a historical/political perspective
I think most people think like you there,:)
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3416/3994550ea15df71d7708a06.jpg
^Hey...no text or image,:hmmm:
^Hey...no text or image,:hmmm:
Hopefully fixed now.
Hopefully fixed now. Great,:)
Takeda Shingen
11-26-12, 01:23 PM
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3416/3994550ea15df71d7708a06.jpg
This one was always my favorite.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/theamazingworldofgumball/images/f/f4/ILikeWhereThisThreadIsGoing.jpg
Randomizer
11-26-12, 01:30 PM
I have no problem teaching it from a historical/political perspective
Leaving aside the sarcastic prophets of thread apocalypse, Armistead's reasoned response is spot on.
One does not need to be a Christian to study the effect that Christianity had on history any more than one should be required to be a Bolshevik to study the Russian Revolution.
TLAM Strike
11-26-12, 01:33 PM
I have no problem teaching it from a historical/political perspective
I agree, I think information on all the major religions should be presented to students in an unbiased and factual way.
Oh and I almost forgot:
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/1619/89244877e6924022afe9ff9.jpg
Hottentot
11-26-12, 01:48 PM
One does not need to be a Christian to study the effect that Christianity had on history any more than one should be required to be a Bolshevik to study the Russian Revolution.
Tell that to all the people who have called me a socialist, communist, Marxist, Stalinist, and all other titles such you can imagine as well.
Takeda Shingen
11-26-12, 03:42 PM
Leaving aside the sarcastic prophets of thread apocalypse
The only thing comments like that do is get us to trouble faster. Or perhaps that was your intention in the first place.
TLAM Strike
11-26-12, 03:46 PM
Leaving aside the sarcastic prophets of thread apocalypse...
:timeout:
I think that should be an actual user group on subsim... :haha:
Randomizer
11-26-12, 03:50 PM
The only thing comments like that do is get us to trouble faster. Or perhaps that was your intention in the first place.
Not at all. The potential was certainly there for acrimony and hate but Armistead's sound, polite and responsible post should had served to put the thread on a reasonable footing.
So the selected memes were unnecessarily sarcastic and others, more irrelevant or irreverent perhaps might have served better. That's all; just one opinion.
Takeda Shingen
11-26-12, 03:55 PM
So the selected memes were unnecessarily sarcastic and others, more irrelevant or irreverent perhaps might have served better. That's all; just one opinion.
The selected memes were apt. This was a pot-stirring thread. The OP knows what topics get the members punching each other and posts accordingly. He then sits back and watches the show, never venturing an opinion one way or another while the other members are played like an accordion. It's all very methodical.
Jimbuna
11-26-12, 04:18 PM
The selected memes were apt. This was a pot-stirring thread. The OP knows what topics get the members punching each other and posts accordingly. He then sits back and watches the show, never venturing an opinion one way or another while the other members are played like an accordion. It's all very methodical.
Thank the Lord there is someone on here of a similar opinion :salute:
Randomizer
11-26-12, 04:36 PM
The selected memes were apt. This was a pot-stirring thread. The OP knows what topics get the members punching each other and posts accordingly. He then sits back and watches the show, never venturing an opinion one way or another while the other members are played like an accordion. It's all very methodical.
Points taken. No offence or trolling was intended.
Skybird
11-26-12, 07:41 PM
I have no problem teaching it from a historical/political perspective
^ Yes, this. In other words: history classes. And that even is desirable, and necessary.
Hottentot
11-26-12, 11:42 PM
^ Yes, this. In other words: history classes. And that even is desirable, and necessary.
We already cover it where necessary. Whereas stuffing the whole Christianity to our classes not only doesn't serve any purpose and is a pedagogically bad move, but also practically impossible timewise.
He then sits back and watches the show, never venturing an opinion one way or another while the other members are played like an accordion.
What? You mean that posting random smileys in succession doesn't count as expressing your opinion?
:D:wah::timeout::salute::up::-?:yep::hmph:
Cybermat47
11-26-12, 11:53 PM
At my high school, we have whole periods of Catholic education! Dammit, I'm an Anglica...oh, wait, it's a Catholic school.
Should have seen that coming :oops:
Skybird
11-27-12, 06:52 AM
We already cover it where necessary. Whereas stuffing the whole Christianity to our classes not only doesn't serve any purpose and is a pedagogically bad move, but also practically impossible timewise.
I do not object to any of that. ;) What Armistead said and what I also think is that in a secular state, public schools should give dedicated religious classes no room but that the state should stay out of such lobby-focussed religious education. Still, said religions have been influential economic and political actors in history - sometimes in good and more often in bad, and thus are an object to be covered by history courses, like Rome, WWII, the Enlightenment and so. So I do not mean religions should be the only object, but one amongst many objects taught about in history classes. Teaching their history is one of the best ways to demask religions, and teaching it should not be left to religion's representatives - that would be like putting the fox in command of the henhouse.
Hottentot
11-27-12, 07:37 AM
I do not object to any of that. ;) What Armistead said and what I also think is that in a secular state, public schools should give dedicated religious classes no room but that the state should stay out of such lobby-focussed religious education. Still, said religions have been influential economic and political actors in history - sometimes in good and more often in bad, and thus are an object to be covered by history courses, like Rome, WWII, the Enlightenment and so. So I do not mean religions should be the only object, but one amongst many objects taught about in history classes. Teaching their history is one of the best ways to demask religions, and teaching it should not be left to religion's representatives - that would be like putting the fox in command of the henhouse.
I'd make a difference between religion class and religious class. The latters haven't existed in the years I have been in school and I hope it stays as such. The former take a secular view on religions, which I support in a mandatory public school.
But I think such secular religion classes should be kept as their own. First of all, there is the issue of time which I already mentioned: history as a subject is already full of themes that we can't cover and have to make choices. There simply is no room for the theme of religion. We touch the subject, of course, but we don't teach it. That's the job of the religion classes.
Another point is that we are historians. Not experts of religion. I, for one, have only very rudimantary understanding of how Hinduism or Zen Buddhism work, and definitely wouldn't say I'm qualified to teach a lot about them. And if I want to teach their impact on, say, politics or economy, the students will first have to be taught what they are. I'm glad we have people who have specialized on these things during their studies, who understand what they are talking about and can therefore teach it. And of course, I'm again happy we have those people so I don't have to do their work on my class time.
Again, we can and will touch religion in history when necessary, but when the students come to my class, I expect them to know from other classes what kind of religions there are.
geetrue
11-27-12, 08:13 AM
Thank the Lord there is someone on here of a similar opinion :salute:
It was a rare admission of what is really going on in here ... should be a sticky, uh?
As for teaching of the bible old testament or new testament ...
you can't find a better place to start your foundation of truth
to weigh against all other time lines.
The truth doesn't stop at the cross
CaptainHaplo
11-27-12, 10:20 AM
Brace yourselves....
I see no reason that religion should not be taught regarding its impact on historical events. The Inquisition, Crusades, Jihads, even the Buddhist uprising of 66 - all have important historical impacts. Understanding the motivational foundations for how/why societies have acted is necessary to understand and learn FROM history. Thus, basic information about the various faiths - without preference or bias - is necessary.
Yep - that means when your talking Islam or Christianity, you can state simply that both are monothiestic faiths that recognize various historical figures as religious leaders in various forms. You can discuss how each sees the other as a "false" theology, and each has or currently does allow for / promotes violence to achieve its increase in power DEPENDING on the interpretation. If a student wants to investigate a specific faith, they can do so outside the instructive setting of the course. Nor would various interpretations of individual faiths be necessary or fruitful. In essence - treating religion as part of the overall subject - not the subject itself.
Armistead
11-27-12, 11:31 AM
Hottot makes a good point, lot's of better subjects we could spend more time on. Considering the USA is becoming a dumb nation, maybe we need to get rid of a few subjects and start job training about the 10th grade.
Tribesman
11-27-12, 12:57 PM
In all honesty given that this about covering religion in British history in their schools how on earth are they going to fit it in?
Even just covering something major like Establishment in any great detail would probably take every history lesson through their secondary education.
I'd rather not see religion mentioned in school at all, even in history class. Just like the subject can't be discussed with any guarantee of neutrality in these forums neither will it be so in the classroom. The biases of the teacher, whether negative or positive on the subject, will always eventually come out.
CaptainHaplo
11-27-12, 04:40 PM
Unfortunately August, you can't teach history factually if you disregard or push relgiion aside. Sadly, religion has been a motivating factor in many of the wars humanity has had since it became "civilized".
Take out the basis for half the wars/conflicts in history - what kind of history will you teach?
Unfortunately August, you can't teach history factually if you disregard or push relgiion aside. Sadly, religion has been a motivating factor in many of the wars humanity has had since it became "civilized".
Take out the basis for half the wars/conflicts in history - what kind of history will you teach?
Hey you don't have to convince me of it's importance but i'd rather leave the hole in the lesson than have some atheist or religious teacher use it to foist their own beliefs on their students which we both know they will do.
Skybird
11-27-12, 05:27 PM
History lessons without reflecting the influence of religions is impossible. You would need to ignore almost every era of European history since Rome. Religion as well as the abuse of it has been the most important motivating factor for developing and hindering arts, for going to war and ending them, for defining the legitimation of kings' rules, for the thirty years war and so many others, the emerging of pour modern understanding of laws and legality oif certain civil rights and freedoms, the way we understand terms like "freedom", "equality", "peace", not mentioning many philosophical concepts. All this is being touched by religion either be religion having fostering it, or because these things have been achieved against the bitter resistance of religion trying to prevent it, thus the conflict with religion having formed the results we have today. Laws. Government forms. Science. Arts. Philosophy. Cosmology.
You cannot imagine "history" without "religion" in good and in bad.
But the role religion plays needs to be understood in a sober, non-missionizing way, like you cannot understand the conception of the Soviet Union without mentioning communism and socialism - while mentioning them and understanding them not necessarily means that you must teach how to like and embrace communism. You mention the pantheon of the Greeks and Romans without trying to convince people of it's reality. You cannot teach Egyptian history without mentioning the old Egyptian concept of the divine nature of Pharao.
You could as well try to teach American history without referring to the independence war or the civil war, and the values and goals declared in those according historic documents. Like "American history" without these is baseless and meaningless, European history for over 2000 years is baseless and meaningless as well. Issues of religious nature have driven people in Europe to do things to a wider degree than anything else, may it be that they did things due to their religious belief, or due to their conflict with and their rebellion against religion.
Being aware of this and seeing it as an important motivational factor of history doe snot need that the confession itself must be missionized.
Some of the biog ancient cathedrals in Europe have been build over several centuries. CENTURIES. We modern Western people do not have that kind of patience and devotion anymore. We expect immediate results, and after ten years maximum we lose interest.
Teaching history, without mentioning the role religions have played, in good and bad? Think again. You could as well teach history without the role craving for money and wealth have played, or the craving for power and influence.
mookiemookie
11-27-12, 05:29 PM
Brace yourselves....
I see no reason that religion should not be taught regarding its impact on historical events. The Inquisition, Crusades, Jihads, even the Buddhist uprising of 66 - all have important historical impacts. Understanding the motivational foundations for how/why societies have acted is necessary to understand and learn FROM history. Thus, basic information about the various faiths - without preference or bias - is necessary.
Yep - that means when your talking Islam or Christianity, you can state simply that both are monothiestic faiths that recognize various historical figures as religious leaders in various forms. You can discuss how each sees the other as a "false" theology, and each has or currently does allow for / promotes violence to achieve its increase in power DEPENDING on the interpretation. If a student wants to investigate a specific faith, they can do so outside the instructive setting of the course. Nor would various interpretations of individual faiths be necessary or fruitful. In essence - treating religion as part of the overall subject - not the subject itself.
Agree 100%. Religion has shaped so much of human history and the two are so intertwined so as to be inseparable. One doesn't have to advocate or denigrate religion in order to recognize and teach about it's significance in history. Just treat it matter of factly and I don't see the problem.
Cybermat47
11-27-12, 05:30 PM
Hey you don't have to convince me of it's importance but i'd rather leave the hole in the lesson than have some atheist or religious teacher use it to foist their own beliefs on their students which we both know they will do.
Imagine having Richard Dawkins or the Pope as a teacher :nope:
TLAM Strike
11-27-12, 05:41 PM
I'd rather not see religion mentioned in school at all, even in history class. Just like the subject can't be discussed with any guarantee of neutrality in these forums neither will it be so in the classroom. The biases of the teacher, whether negative or positive on the subject, will always eventually come out.
If we removed subjects that can't be taught without controversy or bias from school we might as well just send the students home.
^With you as a teacher, you will be home soon,:up:
If we removed subjects that can't be taught without controversy or bias from school we might as well just send the students home.
Not all subjects have the same potential for controversy and there are subjects that are already too controversial for school so what is one more?
One doesn't have to advocate or denigrate religion in order to recognize and teach about it's significance in history. Just treat it matter of factly and I don't see the problem.
Fine theory except that it ignores human nature. I've yet to meet an atheist who could talk about religion without injecting denigrating little comments about it and i'd expect that many religious folks would act similarly in promoting it even if unconsciously.
Skybird
11-27-12, 07:36 PM
It's not a question of human nature. It's a question of good and competent teachers, versus lousy and incompetent ones. The latter also often tend to have a lacking sense of responsibility.
Solution: fire bad teachers. Not possible if they are holding status of "civil servants". Maybe that should be changed then, for reasons of quality control. It must be possible to sport out bad teachers. Leaving them were they makes hundreds of children and students paying the price. And that is unacceptable, since the interest of the many in this case clearly outweighs the interest of the one.
Takeda Shingen
11-27-12, 08:21 PM
It's not a question of human nature. It's a question of good and competent teachers, versus lousy and incompetent ones. The latter also often tend to have a lacking sense of responsibility.
Solution: fire bad teachers. Not possible if they are holding status of "civil servants". Maybe that should be changed then, for reasons of quality control. It must be possible to sport out bad teachers. Leaving them were they makes hundreds of children and students paying the price. And that is unacceptable, since the interest of the many in this case clearly outweighs the interest of the one.
No, it would be a question of various factions within the local community jockeying to have their view of the contentious subject be the dominant and last word, just like it is with sex ed. You could fire every teacher you consider to be bad and you still have the problem. Hell, you could fire every teacher in America, replace them with individuals that you have personally chosen and the problems will still remain.
The real issue is that no one will agree with how they want it taught. Many communities can't even agree with how they want math taught, and numbers are numbers.
No, it would be a question of various factions within the local community jockeying to have their view of the contentious subject be the dominant and last word, just like it is with sex ed. You could fire every teacher you consider to be bad and you still have the problem. Hell, you could fire every teacher in America, replace them with individuals that you have personally chosen and the problems will still remain.
The real issue is that no one will agree with how they want it taught. Many communities can't even agree with how they want math taught, and numbers are numbers.
Exactly.
Hottentot
11-28-12, 01:14 AM
I must have had really weird teachers, since I had religion classes in school for 12 years and history classes for, what, 8 years or so, and to this day I can't even begin to guess if any of my many teachers in those years were religious or atheists.
As long as they did a good job, it does not matter if they are religious or atheists, if this does not affect teaching.
kiwi_2005
11-28-12, 07:51 AM
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3416/3994550ea15df71d7708a06.jpg
:haha:
Skybird
11-28-12, 07:54 AM
I must have had really weird teachers, since I had religion classes in school for 12 years and history classes for, what, 8 years or so, and to this day I can't even begin to guess if any of my many teachers in those years were religious or atheists.
That compares to my experiences (Gymnasium, West-Berlin, finished school winter 1985).
That compares to my experiences (Gymnasium, West-Berlin, finished school winter 1985). West Berlin, outside the communist regime,:)
Skybird
11-28-12, 08:44 AM
West Berlin, outside the communist regime,:)
West Berlin, the thorn right in the heart of the communist regime. ;)
West Berlin, the thorn right in the heart of the communist regime. ;) Where your roots grown with Marxism elements,:cool:
Penguin
11-28-12, 05:05 PM
West Berlin, the thorn right in the heart of the communist regime. ;)
I wouldn't call the GDR the heart of the communist regime, more the buttocks. :know:
Jimbuna
11-28-12, 05:10 PM
I wouldn't call the GDR the heart of the communist regime, more the buttocks. :know:
Possibly/probably :)
I wouldn't call the GDR the heart of the communist regime, more the buttocks. :know::salute:
I wouldn't call the GDR the heart of the communist regime, more the buttocks. :know:
Either way it would have been a tough nut for the Warsaw pact to crack. They would likely have done it eventually of course but they'd have paid dearly so say my friends who served in the Berlin Brigade. :yep:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.