First I found the article, and its argument, very reasonable, until I came to the sentence “… it is certain that Humanism is the system of thought that appeals strongest to intelligent inquiring young minds as well as the minds of their astute parents” and the sequel. It reminded me of an old joke: Visitors are shown around a lunatic asylum by its director. At the end he comes to a patient, who, he claims “is a very serious case, because he thinks he is Napolean, whereas everybody knows that I am Napoleon.”

In some former Communist countries the public schools offer a choice of, say three, options (e.g. Catholic, Lutheran and a "secularist" or "humanist" Ethical education). Everybody has to enrol in one of them, like you have to enrol in one of, say three, foreign languages offered by the school. The problem is only with small town or village schools where only one-two students/parents would choose a particular option.

APR should note that seemingly rational people also believe in the tenets of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and countless other non-Christian religions. Why should any religious instruction in schools be biased towards Christianity?

I think studies of various religions could be useful in secondary schools. But not as religious instruction. It is one thing to look at how Christianity developed. It is quite another to teach that people can literally rise from the dead.

It is quite legitimate to compare mainstream religions with other belief systems like astrology. For thousands of years, people have attributed events to the movement of the stars. Educated people such as Isaac Newton believed in astrology. It doesn't make it real simply because some people say so. Ditto religion.

APR 8000 years ago 100% of the human population was aministic. You are arguing therefore that animists hold the strongest evidence as to the true nature of the supernatural dimension. Your argument leads to the conclusion that we should instruct school children about animal spirits and how they manipulate life and the universe.

Christians made up a tiny minority of people who have ever existed it stands by the logic of your argument that Christianity is false and therefore blasphemous to animism the one true religion.

RI is child abuse and is distinctive from the belief in Santa Claus. When we believe in Santa Claus we are free to acknowledge evidence and the truth that he does not exist. By the time we are adults we have rejected Santa.

The belief in God requires brainwashing and the denial of evidence and the truth that god does not exist. If a child wavers in his/her belief he/she is punished , either through violence, depravation or social exclusion the worst of wich is family pressure. There is no freedom to accept reality and truth. To believe in god one is bonded and enslaved to the cult. This is apparent in mind as well as we see that Christians cannot accept the premises of science as description of evidence and so must be anti science as nature that science describes contradicts scripture and cult politics.

The belief in god ( a superstition in itself) creates more paranoid superstition, a life long focus on death which is believed to be better than life. The central excusionary nature of the religion/cult which in turn leads to sexism , racism ,classism and social heirachy.
This is especially true of Christianity which was invented to justify the coronation of crime bosses as kings.

RI risks burdening a child with a wasted dysfunctional life. Although churches and cult members are greedily rubbuing their hands to gain more trophy converts so convince themselves their delusions and superstitions are honestly based. The child is the victim. RI in schools is effectively the government abandoning the lamb to the wolves.

DavidJS,
“Why should any religious instruction in schools be biased towards Christianity?” Perhaps because it is a Christian (e.g. Catholic) school. In a state school, as I suggested above, there could be a choice of world-views, ethics or what you call them, one of them catering for secular humanists, whose parents do not identify with any religion in the classical meaning of the world. Everybody would have to choose one. The school’s offering would depend on parents’ wishes and on what the school is able to offer.

“I think studies of various religions could be useful in secondary schools. But not as religious instruction.”
This is like wanting to replace the teaching of foreign languages by some linguistics. There is nothing wrong with instructions, you need them to learn to swim, but also to do maths, etc. However, I agree that it should not be an irrational and emotional condemnation of the alternative. Not only some simple-mined religious instructors are capable of this, as West’s last contribution amply illustrates. Perhaps for older students if the school offers, say, three choices, the first three lectures could be devoted to the instructor of each one of the optional streams talking to everybody - not only of his/her stream - explaining what the beliefs of his/her world-view are about.

You cannot offer a totally objective “study of various religions” without choosing one (including, of course, the secular humanist option) to start from. Like you cannot teach linguistics without first deciding whether you want to do the explanations in English, French etc. In case of linguistics the choice of language of instruction is necessary but not important; in case of religious studies the choice of a “home religion” is both necessary and important.

“It is quite another to teach that people can literally rise from the dead.”
DavidJS, I am sure nobody ever taught you that you could literally rise from dead.

George, firstly the controvesial issue here is religious teaching in state schools. If it's religious instruction in one particular religion you want then there are plenty of churches and Sunday schools that provide that service.

Instruction in maths and swimming is different to religious instruction. Teaching maths and swimming means doing one's best to ensure the student gets it right. That sort of instruction is measureable. In that sense religious instruction is an oxymoron because how can the student demonstrate s/he has got it right? Sure, they can be tested to see if they remember all the books in the Bible. But religion requires belief and with Christianity it does require a literal belief that Jesus Christ rose from the dead (and yes George, funny how that phenomenon hasn't been repeated lately). This is rather different to learning a language I would have thought.

Teaching of any kind won't be totally free of bias given teachers tend to be human beings (apart from some when I went to school). However, the study of how various religions have influenced the world can be useful and interesting - as opposed to dogma.

David, maybe the problem is not the lack of ability to measure but the objectivity of those doing the measuring. Plenty of people willing to measure how well people do in religion, just hard to get an objective measure of what doing well is.

I wonder if those so keen on RE in schools would be happy if political science was not taught by teachers but rather by a party hack from one party (with most others excluded).

Oh and their kids are automatically enrolled and will be made to feel uncomfortable if they as parents don't want them in that class.

Just to make it even better the PM puts resources into party people providing counselling in the schools rather than into professionally skilled councellors.

R0bert