It would be hard not to draw attention to the unsurprising but embarrassing outcome of the YouGov poll commissioned by the Exploring Islam Foundation. Apparently, 58% of respondents linked Islam with extremism while 69% believed it encouraged the repression of women. 40% disagreed that Muslims had a positive impact on British society.
Not really suprising, though. Islam is represented negatively in the media and with an ignorance that would be deemed embarrasing in any other discipline. See Bishop Alan Wilson’s blog today for just one example – and it doesn’t even come from the nightmare Daily Mail. Alan remind sus of the ninth Commandment:
You will not bear false witness against (lie about/misrepresent) your neighbour…
However, this is simply a symptom of a wider religious illiteracy in our society… and perpetuated in the media (with some exceptions). Perhaps it isn’t coincidental that yesterday saw a further report of the ineffectiveness of some Religious Education teaching in British schools. According to this research, the problem lies with teachers who don’t understand Christianity in particular and can (for example) tell the Nativity story, but can’t say what it means.
The response in some quarters was predictable. For them the problem lies with the requirement to teach anything religious in the first place. But, that misses the point completely. This is not about believing or defending the content of any particular faith (which would demand commitment of some sort), but, at the very least, understanding it.
This harks back to a long discussion last year about the (then) Poet Laureate Andrew Motion’s argument that people need to understand the Bible if they are to stand any chance of understanding art, literature or music. He was not saying that people have to believe it or live by it, but simply to be familiar with it and understand something of it.
The same goes for religion in general. Whether the secularists or so-called New Atheists (they are hardly new…) like it or not, religion is a phenomenon without which politics, economics and culture cannot be understood.
- If, as they attest, religion is purely dangerous fantasy, then it needs to be understood if only to be countered.
- If, as they attest, religion is a loaded worldview whose followers sit somewhere up the loony scale (away from their assumed ‘neutral’ space), then it is all the more vital that it be explored in order to be rubbished intelligently.
It is shocking to encounter some of the popular ignorance in the media and government. All religious groups are lumped into a single misleading category called ‘faith’ and seen as a minority interest for inadequates. Ignorance of finance, business economics, etc on such a scale would not be tolerated and would be a source of some shame. But, when it comes to religion in general – and Christianity in particular – the usual informed, intelligent and curious mind turns to incomprehending blancmange.
I don’t believe for one moment that Hindus have got it right, but I do need to understand Hinduism if I am to understand the politics, culture and societal shapes of countries where Hinduism shapes not only what a large number of people believe, but also how they live, vote, fight, etc.
Islam needs to be taught with integrity (as seen through the eyes of a good Muslim). Christianity needs to be taught with integrity (as seen through the eyes of a good Christian). And the truth claims of these faiths need to be taught – not as commanding inevitable allegiance, of course, but in order that people know (a) what they are dealing with and (b) how such believers are to be understood.
This is an appeal for intelligent and informed understanding – prior to any thought of commitment. The appeal to commitment is the job of the church – those Christians who can do no other than commend and defend their faith. The church has to be evangelistic; schools should be informative. And the media should pay attention to reporting religion accurately and intelligently – unlike the examples given by Alan Wilson and a myriad of others across recent years.
During an interview last Saturday one of the candidates quoted someone as saying
People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.
Unfortunately, we should care (deeply) how much we all know – shoddy understanding, reporting or commentary simply means we don’t care a toss about those with whom we are trying to communicate.
Which is also why I keep urging my clergy and churches to renew their commitment to learning, understanding and growing in confidence in the content of the Bible and Christian faith… which we don’t usually learn by means of (what I like to call) liturgical osmosis.
June 7, 2010 at 11:44 pm
My daughter recently received her GCSE options letter setting out which of her choices she will be studying for the next 2 years. In it the school had mentioned that some subjects were not now being offered to her year group as they had been woefully undersubscribed, and one of these was RE. I wasn’t particularly surprised. She hadn’t chosen this subject as others were more attractive to her and it isn’t on the compulsory list.
My daughter has had more exposure to RE than most of her school peers, as she is a regular parishioner at our local CoE church, and asks intelligent questions about other religions. Most of her friends see religion as irrelevant in modern society, this ignorance will continue to be perpetuated so long as hostile people and some elements of the media argue against understanding religion as worthwhile activity.
June 8, 2010 at 5:48 am
I’d love to know what percentage of poll respondents consider themselves members of another faith. Some of the prejudice against Islam or against Muslims that I have seen from would-be Christians has been along the same lines. Most of it seemed to be a sort of justification of very ordinary racism.
I’d love to see a comparative survey with other faiths, too. There are certainly expressions of, say, Judaism or Christianity that could quite rightly be said to be extremist or to encourage the oppression of women or other groups; how much do these minorities (along with media representation) influence people’s ideas of various faith groups?
As far as media representation goes, I’m sure I’ve commented before on the phenomenon of bad news being more “newsworthy” (ie selling more papers) than good news. How can we bring about a widespread cultural shift from a focus on tearing down to one on building up, without becoming a society that refuses to examine flaws?
And as far as learning within Christianity goes, a significant number of people seem to think that it stops after confirmation, or is only for children, or simply that it’s going to be difficult and unpleasant (as school may well have been). How can one convince people that the intellectual or spiritual growth of Biblical study is worthwhile?
June 8, 2010 at 7:57 am
Excellent and encouraging post on this subject. I did write a somehwat negative approach here:
Schools are failing to teach pupils about Christian beliefs in religious education lessons, education watchdog Ofsted said today.
I would love to juxtapose my negativity with your rather more encuraging post above.
Put simply may I requst permission to crosspost this on our blog with links and acknowedgement. No worries if you’d rather not….
June 8, 2010 at 8:32 am
Stuart, please feel free to cross-post.
June 8, 2010 at 8:39 am
[...] is a cross-post by Bishop Nick Baines which contrasts nicely with my rather dour blog post yesterday, detailing the Ofsted report which [...]
June 8, 2010 at 2:23 pm
There is no doubt that religious education is vitally important. Religion is a powerful force across this planet. Its origins, its benefits, its problems, its absurdities, all need to be taught and understood.
So, what do we teach our children?
At secondary school (1963 – 1970), I was taught Anglican Christianity. I remember being puzzled when the children of catholic parents had to have their own morning assembly, because they sang different hymns and said different prayers.
I guess we were lucky in having to cope with only 2 religions. There were no Moslems, no Hindus, no Jews, no Buddhists, and there were certainly no atheists.
Today our schools have to cope with dozens of religious flavours. All of them claiming absolute certainty that they are right, and all the others are wrong..
So, what do we teach our children?
I agree we must teach Christianity, it is the dominant religion in the UK. Its Bishops have an automatic seat in the House of Lords and can influence our laws. Our King must be an Anglican, and by law cannot marry a Catholic (though I gather he could marry a Moslem).
We should also teach Christianity’s basic assumptions, i.e. the virgin birth, the resurrection, walking on water, etc.
We must then teach ‘comparative religion’, why do the Jews & Moslems not believe that Jesus was the son of God? What is atheism, agnosticism? Is Voodoo a religion? What is the difference between a cult and a religion?
We should also teach the difference between ‘belief’ and ‘faith’, one of which is based on evidence, and one of which isn’t.
I think that there is enough material here to occupy one lesson a week for our children. ?
KK
June 8, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Kevin, you say “All of them claiming absolute certainty that they are right, and all the others are wrong.” But, they don’t. Each of those religions sees ways of learning from and respecting those of other faiths (including Islam and the Qur’an’s statements about the ‘People of the Book’). Of course, there are those in every religion who do take a rather extreme line in relation to others, but that says more about them and their mindset than it does about the faiths involved. (A bit like the new atheists, really!)
June 9, 2010 at 4:49 pm
My own son went to university where he was required to take three subjects in the first year before specialising, and when the time came, he chose Religious Studies which he later pursued to Master’s level. It is interesting that when exposed to the subject many find it fascinating.
I am given to understand that Religious Studies is currently a very popular Degree subject because understanding the world around us requires such a dimension – which is of course different from Theology.
Interestingly he has ended up working for a major Advertising Agency which seems to prefer people with breadth of thinking to those narrowly schooled in “Business Studies” or “Marketing”. It is an interesting contrast to those who seemed to think that those interested in religion are somewhat “parochial” in their outlook. In my experience the opposite is usually the case.
June 10, 2010 at 11:20 am
Can I play Devil’s Advocate, please?
My daughter is taking a full RE GCSE this year and I am astonished at the breadth and depth of understanding of the basics of all major faith she is being taught.
In Christian ethics it’s refreshing to see that her teachers are capable of explaining that Christians don’t all have the same views on hot button issues like euthanasia, abortion and homosexuality, although the popular press as well as the noisier sections of the church would have us believe there is only one approved way of thinking.
The teaching on “can Christians support organ translplants” took in complex arguments about the sanctity of life made by the various Christian denominations and did a lot to explain why people can hold different views with integrity.
In her exams she was expected to substantiate her writings with reference to Scriptures.
When you consider that most children start these courses without ever having set foot inside a church, that’s really quite impressive.
June 10, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Re. Christmas ad: Spot on, +Nick. You’d have thought the image was controversial enough…
I’ve alerted the readers of the Anglican Communion’s News Service http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/ to this in the hope that they’ll pick it up and run with it in their own countries. A baby scan works as an image in any country. And a good idea is a good idea.
Regards,
Jan Butter (ACO Director for Communications)
June 10, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Erika, many thanks for this – helpful slant on the matter.
June 14, 2010 at 5:59 pm
(A bit like the new atheists, really!)
I beg your pardon? Bit of a nasty dig there I think and unwarranted. I am an atheist (although not a new model – if only!) and know plenty of atheists who are not in the slightest extreme i.e. they don’t stone gays and adulterers to death (Islam), burn people at the stake (Christianity), kill people in the same sects (Islam and Christianity!), have strange rituals of wig wearing and food issues (Judaism), encourage misogyny (Islam and Christianity again with Judaism bringing up the rear), deny people their rights (Judaism in Israel), cause immense pain by slaughtering animals alive (Islam and Judaism) etc., etc.
The point I make is that I’d rather be an atheist as we seem, on the whole in history, a much nicer bunch of people and far more civilised.
The majority of religious people are extreme in their views and cannot move from a mindset which is determined to bring their unfounded beliefs onto everyone’s’ heads regardless of the wishes of an individual. To put it simply – religion is a system of beliefs; that is, it has no validity in fact. An individual can believe in god, sky fairies, elves, Guinness or any other crutch but they have no right to foster those beliefs upon others including via the teaching of it in school. Schools should only deal in quantifiable subjects which RE never can become. For example teaching about the virgin birth, really! How about teaching it as more the case of a young girl caught in a dreadfully repressive religious era who, finding herself pregnant, is desperately in need of a husband pretty damn quick, and anyone will do, including the first aged male who happens to be free.
You may consider the previous paragraph as proof of extremism in atheism but no, it is reasonableness personified. I don’t want atheism taught in schools in the same way that I don’t want religions to be taught. In fact I don’t want the minds of young children to be warped by religion of any sort until they are at least sixteen where they can have the chance to make up their own minds. Mind you I have a hunch that not many would take religion up if that became the norm; but who knows.
June 14, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Michael, your response demonstrates (more clearly than I could have imagined) the appropriateness of my charge. I know many atheists for whom I have the utmost respect, but the so-called ‘New Atheists’ are not among them.
You generalise in a way that demonstrates ignorance of religious distinctives (“The majority of religious people…”). You select your easy targets while ignoring the Stalins, Pol Pots, Hitlers and Maos of this world. You assume that atheism occupies some sort of neutral space for which you do not have to argue. And you show staggering ignorance of childhood development (tabula rasa stuff), assuming that it is possible to bring up children to think nothing until they are sixteen.
When I first read your comment I thought it was a spoof. But I thought I would put it up anyway and let people see for themselves.
June 15, 2010 at 2:10 pm
To Nick Baines
So, the gist of what you argue in your first paragraph is that you have respect for atheists who do not challenge your concepts, ideology or beliefs. I have to conclude that because, though New Atheists are somewhat aggressive in their tone, it seems that you want only a nice genteel discussion around the topics of your choice. Now that does sound somewhat arrogant to me and I know from mutual contacts that you are not disposed to arrogance (or so I’m led to believe).
Regarding your second paragraph. Of course they’re generalisations. It’s an answer to a blog. If you want an essay, dissertation, letter or thesis on the matter I will be happy to oblige. Blogs and their answers are by definition generalisations of peoples thoughts, ideas and ramblings. If they’re not then they belong in educational establishments.
To your comments in the second paragraph. No I did not ignore those that you quote –
Hitler – No atheist – “I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord’s work” “For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will.” Mein Kampf (There are more)
Pol Pot – Education as an influence -Pol Pot’s Education: 1934 – 1935 Buddhist monastery Wat Botum Vaddei in Phnom Penh 1935 – 1943 Catholic school in Phnom Penh École Michel
Pol Pot – Beliefs –”Pol Pot does not believe in God but he thinks that heaven, destiny, wants him to guide Cambodia in the way he thinks it the best for Cambodia, that is to say, the worst. Pol Pot is mad, you know, like Hitler.” – Prince Norodom Sihanouk – Therefore, he could not be an atheist as atheists do not believe in heaven.
Those are the facts for those two. The others, yes they were atheists and so what. Neither committed the terrible deeds and crimes because they were atheists; they committed them because they were mad i.e. they were not defined by their atheism whereas all the examples I stated were all defined, and indeed were/are pursued, according to religious principles and beliefs (and I concede, they were/are probably also mad as well – madness isn’t just for atheists). Therefore I had no need to include them. It really is shoddy and lazy thinking on your part to use this tired old argument about the atrocities of so-called atheists and something of a cliché depended on by religious people to try and subvert the dreadful things that happen in the name of god. I really did expect more from you rather than this silly playground manner of failing to address the argument by introducing a spurious element to it (yah, boo, sucks – you’re just as bad as we are – nah, nah, nah, nah, nah).
I have absolutely no ignorance of childhood development (I was one once) and I have no idea how on earth you extrapolated that I believed that all children should be empty vessels until the age of sixteen from what I wrote. I just don’t believe that religion, of any form, should be taught or allowed an influence over a child’s formative years. I have done some primary studying of childhood development as part of a sociological education and my partner, who had to study the psychology of childhood development for his degree, is always there to correct me when I’m wrong. So all in all I probably have as much knowledge of childhood as you do. My main argument is that I believe children should be brought up to question. However, the teaching of religion at an early age precludes that in relation to the subject matter. The reasoning for this is that religion is a “taught” subject allowing no questions to be put forward as a challenge to the established hegemony and orthodoxy (one only has to think of the catholics’ catechism to make the point). I remember my own RE and not once, as a class, were we led to any form of dichotomous thinking to explore alternate views.
“a spoof” – how very dare you!
Many apologies for the length of this but I found your comments rude and disrespectful. I am not a new atheist and I don’t condemn any one for believing in, well whatever they believe in, but with this caveat – as long as it doesn’t hurt or malign anyone else. Too many people think they have a right to foster their views and beliefs on others, often to the detriment of society, including atheists at times. But, and it is an important but, we all have the right to challenge others’ views no matter what.
No doubt this will not make it to your page as it directly challenges what you stated but I can assure you that with my other half at my side I will never be in ignorance of religious distinctives!
Peace and goodwill
June 15, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Michael, a quick response as I am only home for a very short time and am not sure when I’ll get online for long enough to respond properly.
If I feared responses, I wouldn’t be blogging or engaging in the wider world where I get ‘shot at’ all the time. There are atheists whose atheism is intelligently thought through and who articulate their position (including being honest about their own assumptions and inconsistencies) well; but, the so-called ‘New Atheists’ (although, as I have suggested, there is little that is new about them) get away with philosophical murder by shouting loudly and not engaging with integrity with theists. However, as I hope some of these blog threads demonstrate, there are atheists who enagage helpfully and well and take our conversation forward. In this respect, atheists can be as wise or mad (and rude) as religious people. I think we might agree that crazy fundamentalism or irrational arrogance is not attractive in either case.
You say: “My main argument is that I believe children should be brought up to question.” So do I! I argue this case week in, week out in churches and elsewhere. I am on record as saying that curiosity and questioning are the ‘keys to the Kingdom’ (in Christian terms). I have always run groups that start with the questions people have, rather than the ones I think they should have. I have argued in schools that children must never stop questioning. But that is all different from arguing that there is some neutral ground which it is safe for children to be taught (in the abstract) whilst religious worldviews are somewhere up the loony scale and inherently destructive or dangerous. But, to not teach children about faith (or to bring them up in a particular faith – including atheism, but don’t let’s get into an argument about whether atheism is or is not a ‘faith’) is not to leave them with neutral ground; rather, it is to teach something definite about an otherwise assumed world view.
Sorry this is brief and to the point. You wrote: “No doubt this will not make it to your page as it directly challenges what you stated…”. It did. It always does. The only stuff I ever screen out is crazy, abusive, racist or illegal stuff. You might be surprised at what comes my way on here…
Thanks for coming back to me.