Comments on recommendations 1 and 2

This year I mark thirty years of teaching about religion. I hope various pupils and students have learnt something along the way. However, what I am certain about is that I have learnt far more than I have taught. The questions and comments of learners of all traditions and none around the planet have made me examine what I consider religion to be and to revel more in the complexities of connecting with the practices, stories and ideas people can hold most dear.

RE should reflect the messiness of the worldviews that people hold. I have yet to meet any adherent of any religion who agrees with everything their “leaders” (whatever that may mean) espouse, let alone what a text book describes. The current name of our subject is trite and makes it sound as if religion is something that can simply be learnt. It has also been devalued by its link to “Philosophy and Ethics” that almost succeeded in driving the study of religion out of the classroom and furthering the views of a very narrow manipulative chorale.

The proposed name change is a step forward. Religion as an idea is put centre stage and this is held in tension with the ambiguous and difficult idea of worldview. The inclusion of humanism as a positive, inclusive way of looking at the world is obviously right. Only religious bigots could object to this. What is much more interesting is how the unpacking of this name change could create interesting learning about how cultures and religions intertwine. Is homophobia, for example, central to a particular religious tradition, or to some cultural expressions of it? Can there be a pure form of a religion separated from its expression in a worldview? What is do we mean by words like “religion,” “culture” and “worldview.” The learning here could be vibrant.

Understanding the diverse complexity of religions and worldviews is important for us all – and this needs to be learnt. In the same way as young people need a comprehension of History and Geography so they do of Religion. It is a shame that humanities subject groups can not work together to promote this entitlement. An entitlement that needs to be taken out of the hands of politicians and zealots and into the hands of teachers and academics.

Much of recommendation 2 speaks sense and wisdom. It still wishes to promote respect – and I do not believe those who mutilate the genitalia of others, oppress women or keep people poor should be respected – but in engaging with critical enquiry we have an opportunity to develop the subject so that it is rigorous and intellectual. This is an opportunity. It is an opportunity, however, that is being opposed by some religious groups that already seem to have exerted their influence on their member, the Secretary of State. Even if we do not achieve this excellent name change we could gain a lot by thinking about why the religious power-brokers dislike it. If we reflect on that, and put our learning into practice this recommendation, unimplemented, could still revolutionise learning about religions.