FH,
So we teach ethics and philosophy from a background of shari'ah law? Certainly not the universal appeal of freedom secularist desire with prayers five times a day.

AJ, I fully agree.
Even the most fervent atheist must admit that religion has played an enormous role in the history of Mankind. Has there ever been a culture which didn't have a religion?
I quite often listen to 'the philosopher's zone podcast, presented by Alan Saunders. Each week he presents a different subject in philosophy, and brings in a guest speaker, expert in that subject. Saunders of course, asks the pertinent questions.
This, I think could be a reasonable framework for religious and ethical studies.

A.J. Phillips writes
'Otherwise, how could we possibly distinguish between the (mostly) peaceful sentiments of Jesus and the petty, irrational, murderous and blood-thirsty sentiments and acts of the Old Testament God?'

Once again AJ paints the wonderfully moral evolved man as the the good and moral while displaying the loving merciful God as the ugly One. When you are blind to your own corruption you tend to do this. It would be hilarous if it were not so sad to think that evolutionist believe that somehow man's character is improving.

The fact that AJ can't accept that God is God has not stopped millions from having their lives influenced and changed by knowing the Only true God and His Son. These people are able to 'think' beyond the dogmas continually preached by secularist like AJ. They can see that the morals of secularist inevitably lead to murder (abortion) suicide, drug taking, lying,immorality and perversion. An outward morality which often embraces earth worshiping and 'concern for the planet' is often used to mask the inward corruption and hypocrisy. The secularist High Priest are really one deluded bunch of self righteous men and women. The God of Abraham Isaac
and Jacob must be so merciful to allow these puny fists to continue to obey their father (father of lies) in discrediting His character.

DreamOn,
To children of what age does the teacher have to “present in a clear, objective, analytical manner” the five points you listed? To six, ten or twelve year olds?

I agree that it is not REQUIRED to be a practitioner in any particular religion to contribute as a scholar to the field of comparative religion. However, we are not talking about an academic audience but about teenagers, or even younger children, who need guidance. A maths teacher should teach children to think (and solve problems) for themselves, however they will need the teacher’s guidance, the more explicitly, authoritatively, the younger they are. The same about teaching religions, or religions “comparatively”, or “ethics” or “philosophy” at that level. Lest the teacher become completely boring to the young audience, his/her personal world-view will have to exert influence on them.

Also, you cannot be a good maths teacher if you yourself are convinced that learning maths does not contribute more to understanding reality than learning the rules of playing chess. The same with religion.

I am sure that e.g. Catholic teachers who teach “comparative religion” to teenagers think they offer objective information, as there will be secular humanist teachers who will think that they treat religion as a concept (and particular religions) fairly. In both cases the final test is whether they succeed or not in educating the young into intelligent, tolerant and worthwhile members of our society: the difference is only that we have had much more experience - good and bad - with the former than with the latter.

Do you really think that "I try to be open minded (about what to believe)" is comprehensible to, say, a six-year old? Will he/she not interpret naively “open-mindedness” the same way pelican’s daughter interpreted the exhortation that “she could do anything she wanted”? And for high school students, do you think they need an extra subject just to teach them to be “open minded and always ready to learn new things". Is that not an obvious background to learning most any subject?

AJ Philips,
>> one can still teach a religion from an objective perspective<<
I am sure not only aspiring secular humanist teachers of comparative religion, but also most teachers of RE will claim they teach “from an objective perspective”, whether the “objectivity” is defined as seeing the world from the perspective of “my” religion, or from a perspective that sees all religions only in their anthropological, pre-rational form and/or reduced to its private sphere. It used to be “truth” that everybody claimed to possess, now its is “objectivity”. In both cases - let me repeat this is not about scholarly discourses but about teaching high school or primary school children - the teacher’s attitude, including an attitude dismissive of ALL religion, will, and must, show through.

>>those children ... need to be answered with: “It doesn’t matter what I believe. It only matters what you believe.”<<
I am not an educator, I only know this would be a disaster if you taught maths this way, and I suspect even worse if applied to teaching of ethics. However, I do not know for sure, and as said before, only time will tell what the outcome will be, if/when these rules are implemented.

>> religion needs to be taught comparatively and objectively if we are to teach children in a way that is not unfairly influencing (or indoctrinating) the child <<
This depends on what you call “unfairly influencing” the child: By providing guidance towards a wold-view - based on Christianity, secular humanism or what-you-have - whence he/she can judge other world-views? Again, only time will tell, whether the approach to ethics and fairness placed above religion will lead to a better society. I have experienced an education system, where all religions were dismissed, at best seen as private matters, and even twenty years after its collapse its repercussions are still being felt.

AJ Philips, DreamON,
I do not want to argue against an inevitable, compulsory RE-replacement subject. I am just sceptical about your expectations from it.

George,

<<I am not an educator, I only know [answering children with: “It doesn’t matter what I believe. It only matters what you believe.”] would be a disaster if you taught maths this way, and I suspect even worse if applied to teaching of ethics.>>

I don’t think it’s fair to use maths or ethics as an analogy here.

Firstly, with maths, you’re dealing with facts, proofs and theorems. So it would be absurd to tell a child that what they believe is all that matters. Religion has no right or wrong answers and holy books are too open to interpretation.

Secondly, people don’t form radical beliefs based on maths. No one blows themselves up based on the absolute belief in the accuracy of pi. No one shoots-up abortion clinics and leaders don’t base their decisions on, or declare war in the name of mathematics.

With ethics, there are no dogmatic doctrines that are so blatantly contradictory and open to interpretation, and ironically, being taught as the absolute truth (in most circumstances). Nor can I see how ethics could inspire the hatred and violence we see from religous radicals.

<<I am just sceptical about your expectations from [an inevitable, compulsory RE-replacement subject].>>

So am I, George.

I realise that what I’m suggesting is an unrealistic expectation. It is for this reason that I think religion should be kept away from small children (and the parents get a babysitter for when they go to church if they have to), and if parents want to teach or introduce their children to it, then they should wait until their children are old enough to think critically for themselves.

But that, to most Theists, would be totally unacceptable - for obvious reasons.