Atheism & RE

An open Letter to the Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP, Secretary of State for Education
from Dr Philip Barnes, Dr Marius Felderhof, Revd Dr William K Kay and Mrs Penny Thompson.

24 March 2004

Dear Mr Clarke

We are writing as academics concerned about the future of Religious Education (RE) in England and Wales.

We believe that the recent call for non-religious beliefs to form part of a syllabus for Religious Education must be resisted. It is contrary to law, contrary to logic and could lead to a profound sense of disorientation amongst children, particularly those brought up within a religious family.

There is a history of resistance to Religious Education in England and Wales on the part of the non-religious and the religious. In the early days of state education the idea of “religion on the rates” was anathema to humanists. At the same time, worries amongst Christians about denominational “poaching” meant that it was difficult to get the subject off the ground. However, the first agreed syllabuses in the early 1920s allowed Christians to work together productively and the agreed syllabus system has survived to this day. The proposed new framework for RE cannot replace the current system, inscribed in legislation, which presumes the balanced co-operation of teachers, faith groups and representatives of the local authority.

In the 1960s, humanists persuaded the profession that RE should not be a Christian monopoly. Now they are agitating that RE should not be a religious monopoly. The law does not allow the teaching of non-religious beliefs in their own right within Religious Education. This was the opinion of counsel in the 1975 case where Birmingham City Council had prescribed Humanism for study alongside Christianity and other religions. The syllabus was altered to allow non-religious beliefs to be studied in contrast to religions: “such contextual studies contribute towards a critical appreciation of the distinctive features of religious faith.” The carefully worded QCA statement reported in The Observer on 15 February 2004 reflects this: “young people in the context of Religious Education should be studying non-religious beliefs.” The advice of Circular 1/94 is clear: “The inclusion of belief-systems such as humanism, which do not amount to a religion or religious denomination, on Committee A of an agreed syllabus conference or Group A of a SACRE would be contrary to the legal provisions.”

It is illogical to have a subject called Religious Education which purports to teach a religious view of life alongside a non-religious view of life.  It would be like trying to introduce children to the benefits of business studies by declaring that business is ecologically unsound and that children need to be helped to adopt a “green” lifestyle. Humanists do not like the title Religious Education and would prefer Beliefs Education.  As Keith Porteous Wood said, “It's philosophy that we really want to be teaching.” To allow non-religious beliefs to be taught alongside religious beliefs is the thin end of the wedge, and has, up till now, been resisted.

There is a further problem. Where do we draw the line? Marilyn Mason, in her paper to the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), argues that new religious movements, cults, the Baha'i faith, paganism, deep green environmentalism and many other life-affecting philosophies are part of the current scene in Britain. And so they are.  Are children to learn about them all in Religious Education? And are children to be taught to “respect” all these mutually conflicting beliefs regardless of what they represent? What this amounts to is creeping relativism. At some point we will have to face up to the question as to what is good and true in the matter of religion, if only to have some means of discrimination.  To promote relativism through Religious Education is particularly damaging to children brought up in religious homes, but it is damaging to all children. Relativism teaches that there is no sound reason to choose one religion rather than another. Anyone who thinks that there is good reason to be a Christian, or a Humanist, must be simply wrong. Anyone who thinks that their religion has a hold on what is of great value and beauty must be mistaken. Indifference will be the end result.

If, by contrast, we take a particular religion to be the source of truth and value, we immediately have a means of discrimination. We may affirm truth and value in other religions (and non-religions). By taking a particular religion to be our standard, we implicitly give a certain credence to other religions. The fact that we take one religion to be true means that other religions might be true. This is surely a better approach than one which implicitly denies truth to them all. There is a prima facie case for this religion to be the Christian religion. The law expects the syllabus to “reflect the fact that the religious traditions of Great Britain are, in the main, Christian.” This seems to have been borne out by the fact that 71.7% of those answering the question about religious affiliation (92.3% answered it) in the 2001 census said they were Christian.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Philip Barnes, Lecturer in Religious Studies and Education, University of Ulster.

Dr Marius Felderhof, Senior Lecturer in Theology, University of Birmingham.

Revd Dr William K Kay, Senior Lecturer, King's College, London, and Director of the Centre for Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies, University of Wales, Bangor.

Mrs Penny Thompson, Visiting Lecturer at Liverpool Hope University College.

Posted on 24 March 2004