Atheism to be taught to UK young 'uns...

[camoguard]

They even get humanism wrong. Humanism isn't atheistic, it's secular. It's perfectly possible to be both humanist and Christian.

I don't see why atheism should be taught in RE. It isn't religious, and there isn't really anything to teach. Educators should just make sure to mention that the religious beliefs they teach about aren't universal.

I don't really agree with this. It is possible for Christians to cooperate with Humanists but they aren't the same. Another telling point:

As there are no notable organizations of Christian humanists, claimants of the title are not easily generalized: prominent web pages include both The Christian Humanist: Religion, Politics, and Ethics for the 21st Century, which claims that it is possible to be a Christian without a belief in God, and Teaching Christian Humanism, First Things, which ignores the current use of the term "humanism" in favor of humanities studies. The term is also used sometimes to indicate Renaissance humanists that supported the Catholic Church,[3] such as Thomas More, Johann Reuchlin, John Colet, and Desiderius Erasmus, as opposed to those known primarily for their secular contributions to Renaissance philosophy, like Giordano Bruno or Francis Bacon.

There are actually Humanist and Secular Humanist and Neo-Humanist organizations. Christian Humanists might be a possible category but it isn't a practiced one.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Same old crap from the apologists:

Salim Mulla, chair of Lancashire Council of Mosques, is concerned about the outcome of these teachings.
'We believe it is important to have faith values whether that is Christian, Islamic or any other religion,' he said.
'The values are very, very important. I don't think the non God aspect should be introduced into the curriculum.
'I don't think it is right. People are born into faiths and are brought up in that faith and that's how it should stay.

Reverend Kevin Logan, a local journalist, author and religious community leader, said: 'It is quite a change but it is completely right to recognise atheism and humanism.
'They are religions like any others. It is just that people worship man instead of a god.

"We think your children should be taught something we believe in so we don't look like total fools."

"We believe it is important to have faith values whether that is Christian, Islamic or any other religion, except the ones we don't like."

[Feck]

What is a 'faith value ' ? wife (and child) beating , genocide , slavery ?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What is a 'faith value ' ? wife (and child) beating , genocide , slavery ?

It's about 1.25 pounds of silver if you rape a virgin and don't marry her. The money goes to dad, of course, as he will be stuck with another mouth to feed until she dies as she's now damaged goods. These are the values they're promoting.

[camoguard]

C'mon the real values they are teaching is that there is absolute knowledge of a sort if you have faith in a book. The rest of the values come and go on a more individual or specific community basis.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, do they have a problem with Voudoun being taught in UK schools I wonder?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Jesus has appeared to show the UK that he is worried.

[camoguard]

Jesus is a brown stain.

[JOZeldenrust]

They even get humanism wrong. Humanism isn't atheistic, it's secular. It's perfectly possible to be both humanist and Christian.

I don't see why atheism should be taught in RE. It isn't religious, and there isn't really anything to teach. Educators should just make sure to mention that the religious beliefs they teach about aren't universal.

I don't really agree with this. It is possible for Christians to cooperate with Humanists but they aren't the same. Another telling point:

As there are no notable organizations of Christian humanists, claimants of the title are not easily generalized: prominent web pages include both The Christian Humanist: Religion, Politics, and Ethics for the 21st Century, which claims that it is possible to be a Christian without a belief in God, and Teaching Christian Humanism, First Things, which ignores the current use of the term "humanism" in favor of humanities studies. The term is also used sometimes to indicate Renaissance humanists that supported the Catholic Church,[3] such as Thomas More, Johann Reuchlin, John Colet, and Desiderius Erasmus, as opposed to those known primarily for their secular contributions to Renaissance philosophy, like Giordano Bruno or Francis Bacon.

There are actually Humanist and Secular Humanist and Neo-Humanist organizations. Christian Humanists might be a possible category but it isn't a practiced one.

I personally know several Christians who are also humanists and members of secular humanist groups. Essentially they're Christians who believe that their faith is a strictly personal affair, that has no place in pubic debate. They're Christians that actually take NOMA to heart.

Also, humanism is Christian in origin. The earliest humanists were Christians advocating strict seperation of church and state. Erasmus, seen as the founder of humanism, was a Christian and a bible scholar. Apart from his well known work on secular ethics, one of his most important works is compiling and translating the bible from (at the time) the best sourches available. There still exist such Christian humanists.

There are - as far as I know - no Christian humanist groups, because for Christian humanists, the things humanist groups concern themselves with have no overlap with their religious beliefs.

[camoguard]

I'm aware of the origins of Humanism. I didn't realize there were so many practicing Christians in it.

[MrJonno]

I'm aware of the origins of Humanism. I didn't realize there were so many practicing Christians in it.

Depends on the meaning of humanist, normally these days its a rejection of the supernatural but in the past its been more a case of concentrate on this world not the next (whether it exists or not)

[FBM]

I think there is an important distinction, no matter how subtle, between (secular) humanism and atheism, but elementary and middle school students aren't studying philosophy. They'll have time to work out the finer points later in their education. The blurring of the distinction between the two for purposes for simplification seems age-appropriate in this case. I still think it's a good idea to include in RE a section about people who don't believe in any supernatural deity and at least the basics of why, and I can't think of a more appropriate venue than right alongside explanations of the sort of crap atheists don't believe in. Seems it would be most instructional in that context.

[JOZeldenrust]

I'm aware of the origins of Humanism. I didn't realize there were so many practicing Christians in it.

There aren't many, but there certainly are some.

I think there is an important distinction, no matter how subtle, between (secular) humanism and atheism, but elementary and middle school students aren't studying philosophy. They'll have time to work out the finer points later in their education. The blurring of the distinction between the two for purposes for simplification seems age-appropriate in this case. I still think it's a good idea to include in RE a section about people who don't believe in any supernatural deity and at least the basics of why, and I can't think of a more appropriate venue than right alongside explanations of the sort of crap atheists don't believe in. Seems it would be most instructional in that context.

The distinction is quite simple: atheists don't believe gods exist, humanists think religious arguments have no place in public debate. The distinction doesn't have to be made explicit in RE class, but if you're teaching about ethical systems teachers would do well to adress humanism, not atheism, and if their teaching about metaphysics (though I doubt they would), they should talk about atheism and not humanism.

Both atheism and humanism present alternatives to positions commonly held by religious thinkers, but they present alternatives in entirely different dimensions.

[FBM]

Not quite so entirely, I think. There's a great deal of overlap. The distinction is irrelevant for kids of this age, though they're very important for those to whom the distinction is more meaningful. Adults, mostly. For example: Atheists, at least the ones I know, also think religious arguments have no place in public debate (as they are fallacious), and many/most humanists don't believe gods exist. I don't see how that distinction is as important as just letting the kids know that a whole lot of very smart people reject all sorts of supernatural claims and explaining the basic reasons for it. The kids who care enough will pick up the precise vocabulary when the time is right. Looks pretty age-appropriate to me.

[Pappa]

So, do they have a problem with Voudoun being taught in UK schools I wonder?

Up to now they've never taught about minority faiths in schools. It's not that they have a problem with them, just that RE only takes up a very small chunk of the curriculum and it's seen as more sensible to focus on the World's six largest religions.