Filmed to coincide with the 400th Anniversary of the commission of the King James Bible, this documentary was shown on BBC 1 in February 2011. Jointly produced by Jerusalem Productions and BBC Religion and Ethics, the programme follows Adam Nicolson as he discovers how around fifty scholars from Cambridge, Oxford and London created this astonishing translation of the Bible into English, looking in particular at the seven years from the commissioning of the bible in 1604 to its printing in May and considering the technological, political and cultural circumstances which drove and shaped it.
Resources designed for KS2 (8-11), KS3 (11-14), KS4 (15-16) and KS5 (17-18)
In order to use these resources it is necessary for students to have watched the entire film. In addition sections may be re-shown in relation to each topic. The topic ‘Programme Outline & Synopsis’ contains the timings for each part of the film.
Teachers can select all or any of the resources and activities as suitable for the course they are pursuing. Although closely related to the film there are additional ‘Stretch and Challenge’ topics as well as cross-curricular materials.
There are additional resources on the Bible and Christianity together with The Quest for the Holy Grail.
Additional versions of resources are included:
• Dyslexic (D) wherever appropriate;
Many of the materials are also suitable for
• SEN – Special Educational Needs;
• EAL – English as an Additional Language
This documentary, produced by Twenty Twenty in association with Jerusalem Productions, and shown on BBC 1 in October 2011, follows two young women in their journeys to becoming nuns. Filmed over 6 months, this intimate documentary gives a unique insight into a rarely seen world, challenging stereotypes and exploring what convent life can still offer modern women.
In order to use the below resources it is necessary for students to watch entire film. In addition sections may be reshown in relation to each topic. The topic Programme Outline & Synopsis contains the timings for each part of the film.
Teachers can select all or any of the resources and activities as suitable for the course they are pursuing. Although closely related to film there are additional ‘Stretch and Challenge’ topics as well as cross-curricular materials.
Additional versions of resources have been created:
• Dyslexic (D) wherever appropriate;
Many of the materials are also suitable for
• SEN – special educational needs;
• EAL – English as an additional language.
Video discussing the ontological, teleological and cosmological arguments for the existence of God
This presentation aims to help students investigate the idea of certainty.
This presentation aims to help students investigate the nature of knowledge.
These resources have been created to support the Jerusalem Trust and BBC film Catholics – Priests.
There are resources designed for use with KS3 (11-14), KS4 (15-16), KS5 (17-18) and adults.
In order to use this resources it is necessary for students to watch entire film. In addition, sections may, of
course, be reshown as required in relation to each topic. The Programme Outline contains the timings for each
part of the film.
Teachers can select all or any of the resources and activities as suitable for the course they are pursuing. There
are additional ‘Stretch and Challenge’ topics as well as cross-curricular materials.
Additional versions of resources have been created:
• Dyslexic (D) wherever appropriate
To avoid confusion these are coded in the bottom left -hand corner of each page.
Many of the materials, especially the challenges, are also suitable for
AQA – Religious Studies A: Unit 2; Religious Studies B: Unit 5
Edexcel – Religious Studies Units 1-7
OCR –
WJEC – Religious Studies B: Unit 2
A Level
AQA – Religious Studies: AS Unit H
Edexcel – Religious Studies: Units 1-4
OCR –
WJEC – Religious Studies: RS 3 CS
This is a Faith debate featuring Charles Clarke, James Conroy, John Pritchard, Linda Woodhead, Richard Dawkins and Robert Jackson. It focuses on the religious education and collective worship in schools.
Students could be given the same issues as used in this debate and asked their opinion on them prior to watching the discussion, revisiting them later to see if any of the views expressed had caused them to change their minds. For extension work students may focus on the importance of RE in a world where God seems to play an ever-decreasing role.
This programme is suitable for use with A level students studying philosophy, ethics, and religion and society. For high-achieving GCSE students this could be used to look at religion and equality and the importance of ecumenism in a multicultural / superdiverse society. However, the debate is quite long and it would probably be sufficient for one lesson to listen to the four opening presentations. The Question & Answer section could be a useful second lesson or make worthwhile extension work.
Questions for debate
What place – if any – should faith have in our state school system, and in our schools – in both the formal curriculum (what is taught in the classroom) and informal curriculum (wider ethos of the school, including assemblies)?
Conclusions from the debate
There was a new settlement between religion and state school education in Britain in 1944. Since then changes have been implemented in a piecemeal way, attempting to keep pace with the rapid changes in religion and society. This has led to situation of crisis today which is evident in:
Controversy over the existence of ‘faith schools’
Inadequate teacher training to deal with faith
Confusion about the requirement to hold acts of worship in all schools
Patchy RE (Religious Education) teaching and degraded status of RE in the curriculum
There is an urgent need for joined-up thinking about the place of faith in schools and a new settlement as radical as that of 1944.
Research Findings
Faith schools vary widely in nature – they cannot be categorised as a single group. Research shows many to be of high quality, with demand continuing to grow. Many are now taking Academy status. Faith schools’ admissions policies remain contentious.
The research uncovered serious problems with the way RE is taught in secondary schools. Although compulsory, RE is:
under-resourced
squeezed in the curriculum
outside the Eng Bacc (Ebacc), and not always considered a serious subject
subject to local variations in syllabus, and highly variable in quality
no longer guided and resourced by Local Education Authorities, which are in crisis.
The research nevertheless finds examples of excellent practice in some schools, and student demand for RE has been growing strongly.
The statutory requirement to hold Acts of Worship ‘of a predominantly Christian character’ is widely ignored, and there is often fear of dealing with religion at all. There is widely varying practice across schools – from no collective gatherings, to banal notice-giving, to reflective spaces. Primary schools often deal better with Acts of Worship than secondary schools.
As always, after watching the discussion, it is worth returning to the students’ views to find out if and how their personal opinions have been influenced or changed by what they have heard.
After discussion, if there is time, it would then be worth watching the 25 minute summary below to clarify and crystallize the thoughts and views expressed.
WJEC – Religious Studies: RS 1/2 CS; Religious Studies: RS 3 CS
This is a Faith debate featuring Charles Clarke, Julia Neuberger, Linda Woodhead, Lisa Appignanesi, Maleiha Malik, Michael Nazir-Ali and Peter Jones. It focuses on the issues surrounding religious freedom.
Students could be given the same issues as used in this debate and asked their opinion on them prior to watching the discussion, revisiting them later to see if any of the views expressed had caused them to change their minds.
This programme is suitable for use with A level students studying philosophy, ethics, and religion and society. However, the debate is quite long and it would probably be sufficient for one lesson to listen to the opening presentations. The Question & Answer section could be a useful second lesson or make worthwhile extension work.
Questions for debate
On the one hand, how much freedom should religious people and groups have to express their convictions? On the other hand, how much freedom should there be for others to express convictions which may be hostile or insulting to religion and religious people? In both cases, where do we draw the line, who decides and how?
Conclusions from the debate
There is a majority democratic consensus, expressed in part through legislation, which sets limits on religious (and secular) freedoms. Where religious expressions do not cross this line (e.g. display of religious symbols) freedom should be unrestricted. Where they do (e.g. refusing to conduct civil partnerships for gay couples), negotiation amongst the parties involved may be able to reach an accommodation or compromise. Mechanisms for such negotiation may need to be strengthened. There may also be cases where religious people can refuse to act against the democratic consensus on grounds of conscience, but there may be a price to be paid (e.g. those who cannot work on Sundays make up time elsewhere; conscientious objectors in war contribute in other ways).
Research Findings
The issue has come to a head recently because of a number of controversial rulings under new equality legislation in which the duty of equal treatment (especially on grounds of sexuality) has clashed with the exercise of religious freedom (e.g. when a Christian registrar refused to marry gay or lesbian couples on grounds of conservative Christian conscience).
The focus of religious freedom debates has shifted in the last decade from controversy over the right of Muslim women to veil to controversy over the right of Christians to display religious symbols and act (or refuse to act) on the grounds of their faith.
Controversy is currently being stoked by two extreme minority groups: aggressively secular groups on the one hand; aggressively conservative Christian groups on the other. The majority population, both religious and secular, is more ready to reach compromises and accommodations.
There are three separable issues in this debate:
the freedom of religious individuals
the freedom of religious groups
free expression which may involve insult to religion
Cases being brought under Equality Law have to do with (A). Some exemptions from equality legislation have been granted to religious groups (B).
With regard to (A) the question is how far this freedom extends, and whether it ever gives grounds for not obeying a law, or flouting majority opinion and sensibility. What rights can be granted minority views, and who bears the cost of individuals or groups acting against a majority position on the grounds of conscience?
With regard to the freedom to insult religion (C), where insults do not amount to incitement to religious hatred, this can only be a matter of voluntary restraint rather than legislation. Recent cases of ‘censorship ‘ (e.g. closure of the play Behzti which insulted some Sikhs, or the Mayor of London’s refusal to allow Christian anti-gay advertising on buses) seem arbitrary (why not stop other things which insult e.g. Jerry Springer the Opera which was insulting to Christians?) suggesting that the threat of public protest on the part of those who are ‘offended’ is more influential than consistently applied standards (e.g. respect for those whose deeply-held beliefs are being insulted).
After watching the discussion, it is worth returning to the students’ views to find out if and how their personal opinions have been influenced or changed by what they have heard.
After discussion, if there is time, it would then be worth watching the 18 minute summary below to clarify and crystallize the thoughts and views expressed.
WJEC – Religious Studies: RS 1/2 CS; Religious Studies: RS 3 CS
This is a Faith debate featuring Charles Clarke, Linda Woodhead, Ed Husain, Marat Shterin, Mark Sedgwick, Matthew Francis and Mehdi Hasan. It focuses on the issues surrounding radicalisation, with particular reference to Islam.
Students could be given the same issues as used in this debate and asked their opinion on them prior to watching the discussion, revisiting them later to see if any of the views expressed had caused them to change their minds. For extension work students should look at the different meanings of radicalisation, extremism and terrorism. They might also consider the life of e.g. Adolf Hitler, as a case study, because of the ‘positive’ impact of Mengele’s work on genetics.
This programme is suitable for use with A level students studying philosophy, ethics, religion and society and Islam. However, the debate is quite long and it would probably be sufficient for one lesson to listen to the opening presentations. The Question & Answer section could be a useful second lesson or make worthwhile extension work.
Questions for debate
What is ‘radicalisation’ or ‘extremism’? Is it unique to Islam? Is it always religious? Is it a new and unique phenomenon, or just a new label for certain forms of terrorist violence? And what can research tell us about its causes and how to prevent it?
Conclusions from the debate
As currently used ‘radicalisation’ often includes too much and too little. Too little, because it focuses attention only on Islamic or religious forms of terrorism, and too much because radical ideas and ‘Islamism’ do not usually lead to violence and are too widespread for security initiatives to counter (attempts may be counter-productive).
As for what causes recent incidences of extremist violence, there is a growing consensus that there are multiple causes including: a sense of grievance and isolation, belief that violence can remedy a perceived problem, and contact with networks and images that glorify the use of violence.
Research Findings
‘Radicalisation’ is a new word, but the process whereby groups and individuals with religious or secular commitments turn violent is not new, and past and present research, e.g. that on New Religious Movements and various forms of terrorism, should not be ignored.
What needs to be explained (and countered) is not the embrace of radical ideas, which is widespread and always has been, e.g. communism, but why some groups and individuals embrace violence, which is rare.
It is impossible and often counter-productive for states and their security forces to counter radical ideas. This does not mean that extremist beliefs do not need to be contested, but there are more effective ways to do this, e.g., good education, including in religion and theology, and active initiatives in civil society.
Violence is always over-determined – there are multiple causes, many paths, and no single ‘conveyor belt’ to violence. There are situational, strategic, social and individual causes. This means that the move to violence can be explained in retrospect, but not accurately predicted in advance (two people with exactly the same circumstances may act violently in one case and not in another).
One dynamic observed in some of the research is the existence of an ‘us-and them’ (minority/majority) mentality combined with a sense of grievance. If the ‘minority’ then starts to attract criticism and repression by agents of ‘the majority’ this can lead to a vicious cycle of escalation.
The importance of (individual) belief as a driver of action tends to be overestimated. Involvement in social networks is arguably more important. Also important and underestimated is access to images, aesthetics, cultures and practices of violence which are not exclusively Islamicist but can be harnessed to Islamist ideas – as well as to anti-Muslim ideas.
There is no evidence to support the reality of ‘brainwashing’, nor of de-programming or de-radicalisation where these are equated with quick processes which bypass normal modes of socialisation, cognition and volition.
Practical Suggestions
‘Radicalisation’ includes too much. The holding of radical, intolerant attitudes, is widespread in all societies. It is the move to violence which needs to be understood and countered.
Counter-radicalisation policies have spread the net too wide. This is both ineffective and can be counter-productive when it engenders an us / them mentality and sense of grievance in a ‘target’ community.
Counter-radicalisation should follow established counter-terrorism pathways, which rely on gathering good intelligence and looking in a focused way for indications of interest in violence, involvement in networks advocating such violence, and other indicators of a move to violent action.
It is not the business of the state to prescribe or proscribe particular theologies, any more than particular political ideologies – so long as they operate within the law. It is, however, legitimate to educate and argue against false beliefs.
The model of human behaviour which holds that beliefs are the ‘drivers’ of action is misleading; practices, emotions and relationships are just as important as beliefs.
After watching the discussion, students should revisit their views to find out if and how their personal opinions have been influenced or changed by what they have heard.
After discussion, if there is time, it would then be worth watching the 22 minute summary below to clarify and crystallize the thoughts and views expressed.
AQA – Religious Studies A: Unit 2; Religious Studies B: Unit 2
Edexcel – Religious Studies Units 1-7
OCR – Religious Studies A: B604; Religious Studies B: B603
WJEC – Religious Studies A: Units 1, 3, 6-8; Religious Studies B: Unit 2
A Level
AQA – Religious Studies: AS Unit C, A2 Unit 3A
Edexcel – Religious Studies: Units 1-4
OCR – Religious Studies: Unit G572
WJEC – Religious Studies: RS 1/2 CS
This is a Faith debate featuring Abdul Majid Katme, David Albert Jones, Gerard Hughes, John Harris and Linda Woodhead. It focuses on stem cell research and abortion.
The poll carried out prior to the debate shows that an increasing majority of people in the UK are in support of abortion:
YouGovThose in favour of:
2005
2011
2012
2013
Raising or retaining 24 week limit
29
42
39
46
Reducing the 24 week limit
43
37
37
28
Banning abortions altogether
12
6
6
7
Don’t know
16
15
17
19
Students could be given the same questions as used in this poll and others which can be found in the pdf (see below) and asked to vote on them prior to watching the debate, revisiting them later to see if any of the views expressed had caused them to change their minds.
All the people polled were 18+ so it could be worth comparing both the initial and final views of students with the YouGov results to see if there are any indications that young people, possibly more ‘modern’ in their outlook, give very different answers to the questions.
This programme is suitable for use with A level and GCSE students studying ethics, medical ethics, religion and science and sexual ethics.
The debate is suitable for high-performing GCSE students though may need explanation.
A projected summary and conclusion of the statistics produced is:
There are essentially two groups
– Pro-life anti-abortionists
Bare life
– Pro-life pro-abortionists
Fulfilled life
Not a religious / secular issue, but between two competing understandings of ‘life’
The debate focuses mainly on the question of when life begins. The distinction drawn here is between a human being and a human person. It is argued that the foetus becomes a human being and is recognisable as such but does not become a human person until it is able to function as a person with related senses etc. There is some discussion of ensoulment from a Muslim viewpoint. Questions are also raised about abortion following rape, a pregnancy which can harm the mother and also a foetus which is known to have severe disabilities or other conditions which may seriously limit its quality of life.
The law on stem cell research is also discussed and to what extent it could or should be changed.
After watching the discussion, it is worth returning to the students’ views to find out if and how their personal opinions have been influenced or changed by what they have heard. For extension work students might consider how these ideas might affect different Christian denominations e.g. Roman Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).
For 6th formers it might well be possible to watch the discussion straight through, however, for younger students it might be advisable to watch each segment at a time (there are clear breaks between each part). After discussion, it would then be worth watching the two-minute summary below to clarify and crystalize the thoughts and views expressed.
