Teaching of Christianity 'lacks intellectual development'

[Gerald]

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]

I have no problem teaching it from a historical/political perspective

[Gerald]

I think most people think like you there,

[Oberon]

[Gerald]

^Hey...no text or image,

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Vendor

^Hey...no text or image,

Hopefully fixed now.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Oberon

This one was always my favorite.

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.

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by Oberon

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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:

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

^ 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.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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?

[Cybermat47]

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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.