Interfaith Archives

Viewing archives for Interfaith

During National Interfaith week our Imam planted trees outside the mosque alongside the Chief Rabbi, this was part of Mitzvah day which is a day of faith-based action. I, along with some of my students, also participated. I think it is really important for our faith leaders to set examples for the rest of the community and images such as faith leaders working for the common good speaks volumes. Our students have linked up with young people from our neighbouring synagogue and have formed a social club

Outside mainstream education there is an impressive range of initiatives, projects, websites and resources, much of it galvanised by the excellent Inter Faith Network and their growing membership, who have been the pioneers and main inter-faith drivers for almost thirty years.

The Quran commands Muslims to “Vie, then, with one another in doing good works!” Planting trees in Islam is a form of charity and is a step in the right direction for helping reverse the effects of climate change. Muslims are required by Islam to keep the environment around them pure and clean. True Muslims are those who appreciate the beauty surrounding them. This may explain many of the Prophetic hadiths that talk about the merits of planting trees and other acts that benefit people.There is a hadith saying, “There is none amongst the Muslims who plants a tree or sows seeds, and then a bird, or a person or an animal eats from it, but is regarded as a charitable gift for him.” This is a form of sadaqah jariya which means that such an act will continue ton benefit a person after the person dies as well.

Inter-faith activity is defined as ‘the collaborative promotion of dialogue, co-operation, understanding and action of different faith groups in order to develop a more cohesive society’.

A cohesive society is one where there is a common vision and sense of belonging for all communities; the diversity of people’s different backgrounds and circumstances is appreciated and positively valued; those from different backgrounds have similar opportunities; and strong and positive relations are being developed in the workplace, in schools, and within neighbourhoods.

A lot can be learned outside the classroom and young students can meet religious leaders and ask them questions about anything they like.

Visiting sacred space is another excellent way whereby students can get a feel of what it is like to be a follower of a faith. There is awe and wonder when entering the space that is sacred to people of other faiths. I visited East London mosque during a meeting of the Religious Education Council. I was amazed to hear that almost two thousand people use the mosque every day for their daily prayers. Whilst I was there three coffins were being brought in whereby after the mid-day prayers people would then take part in the funeral prayers of the deceased. The mosque had a minaret and there were loudspeakers that were used for the call of prayer. I remember how unusual it was to hear the call to prayer on the streets of London!

There were fantastic displays on the walls where a verse was cited about a particular topic like marriage for example and then a small image was painted to illustrate the topic. Visiting East London mosque was nice for me during National Interfaith week because it is not a mosque I normally go to because I go to a mosque which is nearer to where I live. It was interesting to learn that part of the building used to be a synagogue and before it was sold they there were very good relationships between the two communities illustrating the peace and harmony that can result when people respect each other regardless of their faith or belief.

This resource was written by Aliya Azam, one of RE:ONLINE’s Email a Believer team.

Karen Armstrong explains the concept behind the ‘Charter of Compassion’

An investigation into the relationship between the development of the universal declaration on human rights and some key texts from three religions.

KS4. Originally written by Adrian Skilbeck, updated in April 2019.

Key words and concepts

Human Rights: those rights which are inherent in our nature and without which we cannot live as human beings. Human rights and fundamental freedoms allow us to develop fully and use our human qualities, our intelligence, our talents and our conscience.

Universal: in relation to human rights they are conceptually possessed by all people in the world, by virtue of being human.

Inalienable: again in relation to human rights it is the idea that what we possess should not be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

Responsibilities: In relation to human rights it is the idea that those who are in possession of their human rights have a responsibility to help those who do not. In respect of religious teachings, it is common to all the main religions that followers are taught they have a responsibility for those in need.

Needs: as a variation on the concept of rights they are those things required by human beings because they are essential and not merely desirable. In Simone Weil’s work needs are both needs of the body and needs of the soul.

Obligations: acts or courses of action that a person is morally bound to carry out. In relation to human needs they are the things human beings are required to do for other human beings to ensure their needs are met.

Promised Land: The land that God promised to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 12:7), a land said to flow with milk and honey.

Jerusalem: A holy city for Jews, Christians and Muslims. The name means ‘city of peace’. Israel claims it as its eternal, undivided capital, while the Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. Today Israel controls the whole city, and its ongoing status is disputed.

Homeland: a person or a people’s native land.

Palestine: Often called the Holy Land. Historic region on the east of the Mediterranean Sea, comprising parts of modern Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

Zionism: The belief that Jews should have their own nation. Zionism gained much support in the first half of the twentieth century, leading to the founding of the state of Israel in Palestine in 1948.

Diaspora: the dispersion of the Jews beyond the borders of their country. In general a diaspora refers to any more or less homogenous group of people with a shared heritage or homeland who have moved out to other parts of the world.

Shoah (The Holocaust): a biblical word meaning destruction which has come to stand for the mass murder of European Jewry by the Nazis and their associates during World War 2.

Angel of Death: The figure that appears in the animation is taken from the reference in the Old Testament Book of Exodus Chapter 11 and 12 to the angel who delivers the tenth plague upon Egypt – the death of the firstborn which the Jews are warned to protect themselves against by marking their doors with lamb’s blood. In Judaism the angel of death is known as Samael, Sariel or Azrael, in Islam as Malak Al-Mawt. The visitations of the plagues upon the Egyptians is also described in the Qur’an in Surah al- A’raf 133.

Pupils will need some background information that puts both the animation and the Israeli – Palestinian conflict in context so that they can make sense of it and begin to articulate their responses which will then lead into the rest of this resource.

The song ‘This Land Is Mine’ is taken from the 1960 Hollywood film Exodus, which is about the founding of the state of Israel following World War 2 and in the aftermath of the Shoah (Holocaust). The film focusses on the life of Ari ben Canaan (‘ben’ means ‘son of’) and his attempt to create a peaceful Jewish homeland in Palestine. It is a tale of struggle which does not question the underlying assumptions expressed by the central character and places his actions in an heroic light. Nina Paley’s animation challenges the absolute nature of the statement that ‘This Land is Mine’. Nina Paley is an American Jew and so the animation should be seen as a critical American response to what the Palestinian scholar and writer Edward Said called ‘the main narrative model that dominates American thinking’ with regard to the foundation of Israel, that the Israelis have a God-given right to the land of Palestine. Paley’s film brings out the contrast between the absolute claim to land based on holy scripture and the historical reality of a land that has been fought over by many different peoples for thousands of years. It introduces us to human rights and the complex relationship between religion and politics in the modern world.

This is a stimulus resource that can be used for a range of different pedagogical outcomes. It is used here to facilitate discussion of human rights but it could also be used to explore issues of peace, conflict and reconciliation, the relationship between art and religion, the different ways in which individuals express their beliefs, values and commitments and the conflict between personal and religious/cultural values.

You will need to find ‘This Land is Mine’ by Nina Paley. It is available online.

You will also need to find the following texts online:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Draft For A Statement of Human Obligations by Simone Weil
Luke 10: 25-37, the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

Learning activities

Activity 1: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

(adapted from Susanna Hookway’s ‘Conflict: Jerusalem’ in Questions of Truth)

Before introducing Nina Paley’s ‘This Land Is Mine’, split the class into four or five teams. Each team is presented with five statements about Israeli/Jewish claims to the land and five statements about Palestinian/Muslim claims to the land. Remind pupils that not all Israelis are Jewish and not all Palestinians are Muslims. The following statements are simplified for this activity – not all Jews or Muslims believe exactly this!

Israeli/Jewish

Our history is one of suffering and persecution, especially in the Holocaust. We have been and still are, badly treated and regarded with suspicion by other cultures. We need to establish our identity, freedom and national development and we need to secure the land to do that.
God made promises to Abraham which included that we would live in the land forever.
The Jews are now a political nation with Israel our historic homeland.
For centuries we have prayed that we would celebrate the Passover ‘next year’ in Now our prayers are being answered.
Our ancestors have lived here since the twentieth century BCE.

Palestinian/Muslim

Our ancestors have lived in the land for at least thirteen centuries.
Jews and Palestinians are blood brothers. We share the same father, Abraham, and the same God.
The 1922 mandate said the rights of non-Jews should be protected. American presidents promised to consult Arabs. These promises have been broken and continue to be ignored, creating suffering and misery.
We have a stake in Abraham’s heritage. Abraham himself never tried to take away anyone’s land. The only land he owned was the field he purchased in order to bury his wife Sarah.
We have suffered greatly and been cruelly treated. We need to establish our identity, guarantee our basic human rights including our right to respect, our freedom and our right to self determination as a Palestinian people.

Ask the teams to group their facts under three headings: Religious, Historical and Political. Explain that there will be overlaps but the teams should aim to recognise the close connections between the three.

Encourage the pupils to develop their reasons for their groupings. Do they find any of the statements more persuasive than the others?

Activity 2: ‘This Land Is Mine’: the song and the animation

Bring up the lyrics of the song on a whiteboard. [These can be found on several lyrics websites, but note that although Nina Paley freely shares her material, the lyrics of the song are copyright and should only be used for educational purposes within your Use the information provided in the Key words and concepts section above to provide the relevant context but take care not to reduce the impact of the animation by saying too much about it at this stage.]

Ask pupils for their initial impressions of the lyrics – the thoughts and sentiments expressed, images invoked, the tone of the lyrics.

In small groups, ask pupils to make a list of all the positive words, phrases and images in the lyrics. As a follow up ask them to consider whether there is anything negative in the lyrics.

Play the song (it can be found on You Tube and is the version sung by Andy Williams). Did the music bear out their thoughts? What words would they use to describe the mood or feeling of the song?

Tell the class they are now going to watch a short animation in which the song is Play the animation.

What are students thoughts about the animation? Were they shocked?

Suggested questions:

What kind of images do the words of the song evoke?
What kind of feelings/emotions/thoughts do they express?
What were your reactions to hearing the song?
What kind of impression did the song and the music make on you?
How surprised or shocked were you by the video?
What images were memorable?
How has it changed your understanding of the song?
Leaving aside the violent action of the animation, how is the land represented?
What is the position of the film-maker in relation to conflict in general and the Israeli – Palestinian conflict in particular?
Does she favour one side over the other?
Is this a biased or unbiased video?
What is the film maker saying about the conflict?
How does the film help us understand the religious nature of the problem?
The animation has been described as ‘facile’. This means it is too simple and avoids the complexities of the conflict. Do you agree?
How is the artist using the figure of the angel of death in the animation?
Which people did you recognise in the animation? [It might be worth identifying the section from the appearance of the British onwards as the important one for the discussion of human rights.]
The animation uses stereotypes to make a point. Which stereotypes did you recognise?
The animation is both shocking funny. Why do you think Nina Paley has used humour to make a serious point?

Activity 3a: What is human in ‘Human Rights’?

(adapted from the Human Rights Resource Centre)

Write the words ‘HUMAN’ and ‘RIGHTS’ at the top of chart on a Smartboard. Below the word ‘human’ draw a circle or the outline of a human being. Ask pupils to suggest what qualities define a human being and write the words inside the outline. For example, ‘intelligence,’ ‘sympathy.’

Next ask pupils what they think is needed in order to protect, enhance, and fully develop these qualities of a human being. List their answers outside the circle.

and ask participants to explain them. For example, ‘education,’ ‘friendship,’ ‘loving family.’ [Note: save this list for use in Activity 3b.]

Explain that everything inside the circle relates to human dignity, the wholeness of being Everything written around the outline represents what is necessary to human dignity. Human rights are based on these necessities.

Explain that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) sets the standard for how human beings should behave towards one another so that everyone’s human dignity is respected. Display these two sentences from the UDHR and ask pupils to read and reflect on them for a few minutes:

…recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of the freedom, justice, and peace in the world…

Preamble, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 1, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Activity 3b: What do we mean by rights?

Ask pupils to suggest different meanings the word ‘right’ can have (e.g., ‘correct’, ‘opposite of left’, ‘just’.) Ask them to consider common expressions like ‘We’re within our rights’ or ‘You have no right to say that’. Record these different meanings on the board. What is the meaning of ‘right’ when we speak of a human right?

In small groups, ask pupils to suggest a definition for human rights: write these possibilities on the board. Negotiate a definition that gains class consensus and write it on a chart sheet by itself.

Write on the whiteboard this definition of human rights:

Human rights belong to all people regardless of their sex, race, colour, language, national origin, age, class, religion, or political beliefs. They are universal, inalienable, indivisible, and interdependent.

Ask the pupils what they think is meant by: ‘universal’, ‘inalienable’, ‘indivisible’, ‘interdependent’? and then to look up these terms in a dictionary and to write down their meaning.

Write ‘SURVIVAL/SUBSISTENCE,’ ‘HUMAN DIGNITY,’ and ‘CONVENIENCES AND LUXURIES’ on another part of the whiteboard. Discuss the meaning of these terms, then remind pupils of the list of things needed in order to protect, enhance, and fully develop the qualities of a human being that they created in Activity 3a. Ask them to place each item under one of the headings. For example, is education necessary to survival? To human dignity? Is education a convenience or a luxury?

Activity 4: Ranking rights

Provide pupils with a simplified version of nine of the articles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are:

No one should be held in slavery.
No one should be tortured.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression of that opinion in any way they wish.
All human beings are born free and equal and should treat all people as if they are brothers.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living that allows for good health.
Everyone has the right to be taken care of if they are unemployed, sick, disabled, widowed, old or unable to look after themselves.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
Everyone has the right to education.

Using the Think-Pair-Share strategy, encourage pupils to decide on what they think is the most important human right from the list provided. As a pair they then rank the others. A good approach to the second part of this would be to do it as a Diamond Nine activity. Where does freedom of thought, conscience and religion figure in their ranking?

Activity 5: What Is a Universal Right?

Show pupils the comments of Eleanor Roosevelt, Chair of the UN commission that drafted the UDHR, on the importance of universal human rights standards:

Where, after all, do universal rights begin? In small places, close to home – so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere.

Without concerned citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.

Eleanor Roosevelt: The Great Question

Engage pupils in some reflection on Eleanor Roosevelt’s words.

Ask them then to suggest examples of how someone’ s human rights might be infringed on a local level and to identify which article in the UDHR is being infringed.

Encourage pupils to work in small groups to develop and role-play a scene in which they show the infringement of the right. Techniques such as marking the moment and thoughts aloud can be employed to explore the significance of the moment and the thoughts of those involved. Who does the person appeal to in order to redress the wrong? Are they taken seriously?

Activity 6: Religion and human rights

Explain that in order to gain a full picture of human rights they will now have the opportunity to investigate teachings from Judaism, Islam and Christianity about the importance of social justice, our responsibilities for others, particularly looking after the most vulnerable in society and to compare the teachings with the Declaration of Human They will be making decisions about which article best matches the religious teaching.

Provide pupils with the following quotations and give them time to read and reflect:

Islam

It is righteous to …spend of your substance out of love for [Allah], for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves (Surah 2:177).

And of his signs is this: he created you of dust and you are now human beings dispersed everywhere (ar-Rum 30:20).

You who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of any one lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is closest to being God-conscious. (Surah 5:8).

Judaism

[The Lord]… secures justice for those who are wronged and gives food to the hungry (Psalm 146:7).

Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ (Genesis 1:26).

If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: (Leviticus 25:39).

Christianity

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me (Matthew 25: 35-36).

Human life is precious (Luke 12: 6-7).

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

Explain that the three religions here do have much more to say about rights and responsibilities, but that these verses are a focus for the current investigation.

Ask pupils to decide in pairs which articles of the UDHR may be linked to different quotations and to offer some analysis of how religious teachings such as these, which predate the UDHR by hundreds of years, may have been influential in the formation of the Declaration.

Encourage them to make some notes on the similarities and difference they have noticed in the statements.

Activity 7: Comparing Simone Weil’s idea of needs and obligations with human rights via the parable of the Good Samaritan

Explain to pupils that they will have the opportunity now to gain some real depth in their understanding of the possible relationship between religion and human rights through a ‘triangular activity’ in which they compare versions of two texts through the medium of a third:

The two texts are extracts from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Draft For A Statement of Human Obligations by Simone Weil

Mediating text: Luke 10: 25-37, the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

Introduce pupils to Simone Weil’s work in the context of human rights and the period in which she was writing and provide them with copies of (a) the UDHR.

Remind pupils of the Parable of the Good Samaritan by reading Luke 10:25-37 and encourage them in twos or threes to read through the UDHR and Simone Weil’s essay, picking out features that could be related to the Parable. Ask them to share their connections in a brief class feedback session.

Ask the pupils to then imagine that following a human catastrophe that has wiped out most of humanity, they have been tasked with providing guidance in the setting up of a new human community. Working in two groups or in larger groups that are then split into two, ask one group to draw up a set of ten fundamental rights, and the other to draw up a set of ten fundamental needs and corresponding obligations, with justifying wording in the appropriate language. Encourage each group to then decide on recommendations for ensuring the guidelines can and will be met, how they are to be kept under review and a mechanism for revising them.

Provide an opportunity for the groups to relate their proposals, e.g., as posters displayed on the walls, or as a digital presentation, and ask the class to work out how they will decide on which set of proposals would be the most effective.

Set pupils an evaluation questions, such as, ‘How far do you think some Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachings are consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?’

Face to Faith brings students of different religions and cultures together using digital technology to connect schools in 19 countries.

Many users of RE:ONLINE may be interested in using Face to Faith, a fantastic resource provided by the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. Find out more about it here and visit: http://tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/projects/facetofaith

What is Face to Faith

Face to Faith is the Tony Blair Faith Foundation’s Global Schools programme, active in a wide range of schools in countries across the world.

Face to Faith:

– gives students the opportunity to interact directly with their peers from around the world to dialogue about the range of faiths and beliefs, values and attitudes that they hold. This occurs safely through facilitated videoconferences and a moderated online community.

– supports teachers by providing a rich range of high quality, engaging and appropriate materials to help them prepare their students for dialogue.

– talks about culture and identity, but always emphasises Faith and Belief, because those two things can play a very positive role in our world, yet are almost always referred to in a negative way.

– emphasises Similarity and Difference – finding the ways in which we are similar to other people is often easy, but discovering the ways in which we are different gives us much more opportunity to learn.

– supports the development of key skills for global citizenship, including respectful dialogue, information technology, cooperation, conflict mediation, reflection, global awareness and faith literacy.

– is a set of flexible materials; designed to fit alongside, and enhance existing curriculum requirements.

Read the following for more information on video conferencing:

Face to Faith and an Introduction to Video Conferencing

Curriculum Materials

Examples of Modules

Face to Faith have kindly provided the following example materials to illustrate the modules available to subscribers:

GCSE support materials designed to give a thorough introduction to Islam for GCSE students and teachers.

Setting the Scene

What is Islam

These materials and links were provided for RE:ONLINE with the kind assistance of the University of Lancaster ‘s Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religion

Wednesday, 22nd February 2012

Duration 1:45:10

GCSE

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.

Additional content is available at http://faithdebates.org.uk/debates/2012-debates/religion-and-public-life/richard-dawkins-faith-in-schools/

These materials and links were provided for RE:ONLINE with the kind assistance of the University of Lancaster ‘s Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religion

Wednesday, 18th April 2012

Duration 1:46:15

A Level

AQA – Religious Studies: AS Unit H, A2 Unit 3F

Edexcel – Religious Studies: Units 1-4

OCR –

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.

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.

Additional content is available at http://faithdebates.org.uk/debates/2012-debates/religion-and-public-life/what-limits-to-religious-freedom/

These materials and links were provided for RE:ONLINE with the kind assistance of the University of Lancaster ‘s Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religion

Wednesday, 7th March 2012

Duration 1:42:01

A Level

AQA – Religious Studies: AS Unit A, A2 Unit 3F

Edexcel – Religious Studies: Units 1-4

OCR –

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.

Additional content is available at http://faithdebates.org.uk/debates/2012-debates/religion-and-public-life/what-have-we-learned-about-radicalisation/

These materials and links were provided for RE:ONLINE with the kind assistance of the University of Lancaster ‘s Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religion

Wednesday, 2nd May 2012

Duration 1:35:31

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 Aaquil Ahmed, Charles Clarke, Cole Moreton, Grace Davie and Linda Woodhead. It focuses on the main trends in religion and values in Britain.

Questions for debate

How has religion in Britain changed since 1945? What are the main differences between the 1950s, the 1980s and the 2010s, and what are the continuities? How does all this relate to wider social trends? How are these changes being reflected in the media and what part might be played by social media?

Conclusions from the debate

There are significant continuities, including the fact that a half to two-thirds of the population still identify as Christian, and the churches continue to play an important role in society. However, the overall profile of religion in the UK – and of Christianity and the churches – has become far more diverse. Most importantly, the form of religion and the way in which people are religious has changed: there is much more individual choice and selection, less traditional ‘belonging’, and religion supports a much wider range of identities.

Research Findings

The myth of secular progress received a series of shocks from 1979 (Iranian revolution) through 1989 (fall of communism) to 2001 (twin towers attack) which revealed the limitations and blind spots of a perspective which held that religion would inevitably decline and that the rest of the world would follow where secular Europe had led.

The religious profile of the UK has changed significantly, and change has been most evident since the 1980s:

the historic churches have suffered severe decline (attendance has more than halved since the 1980s)
the overall profile of the Christian churches has changed: there are now more Baptist and independent church goers than there are Anglicans or Roman Catholics
non-Christian faiths have grown in numbers and profile, with Islam being the largest. These are not merely ‘imports’, but take distinctive forms in the British context
alternative spirituality has grown dramatically since the 1980s, and its wide influence is most evident in the world of holistic or alternative healthcare (‘mind, body and spirit’)
numbers identifying as ‘non-religious’ have grown, though not all of these are secular (some also identify as ‘spiritual’). Atheists remain small in numbers, but are increasingly vocal in the media and public debate.

Overall, the religious and secular profile of the UK has become increasingly diverse since 1945. It is not merely that there are more ‘religions’, but there is much greater diversity of religious identity, even in relation to the same religion.

Maybe, as always, after watching the discussion, students should also consider Islamophobia and Muslim teachings on equality.

After discussion, if there is time, it would then be worth watching the 24 minute summary below to clarify and crystallize the thoughts and views expressed.

Additional content is available at http://faithdebates.org.uk/debates/2012-debates/religion-and-public-life/main-trends-in-religion-and-values-in-britain/

Detailed lesson plans based on the Westminster Faith Debate on religion, peace and conflict, linked with GCSE and A Level exam specification

Wednesday, 14th May 2014

Duration: 26:19

A level

AQA – RSS08, RSS10, RST3C, RST3F, RST3H, RST4B

Edexcel – 6RS01, 6RS02, 6RS03, 6RS04

OCR – G572, G575, G578, G579, G582, G585, G588, G589

WJEC – RS1/2 CS, RS1/2 ETH, RS1/2 CHR, RS2/2 CS, RS2/2 ETH, RS2/2 CHR, RS3 CS, RS3 ETH, RS3 CHR, RS4 HE

This is a Faith Interview featuring John Brewer, Keith Kahn-Harris, Jonathan Powell, Ian Reader, Charles Clarke and Linda Woodhead.

This programme is suitable for use with A level students studying Christianity, Christian thought, Islam, Judaism, religious ethics and religion and society.

In order to get the most out of the programme it would be worth first showing students the two minute preview below and then brainstorming them on questions such as:

To what extent can religion help in peace-building?
What might be the disadvantages of religion being involved in peace-building?
Would you agree that ‘Violent conflicts in the modern world which appear to be rooted in religious divisions are in reality “power and resources dressed up as religion”’?
How far would you agree that women have a particular and special role in peace-building?

All of these issues are addressed in the discussion and the Question and Answer section.

Violent conflicts in the modern world which appear to be rooted in religious divisions are in reality “power and resources dressed up as religion”, according to Jonathan Powell at the final Westminster Faith Debate of the season. He argued that religious organisations can play a part in bringing about peaceful resolutions – but other members of the panel were doubtful. The lively discussion showed that the role of religion in conflict situations is highly ambivalent.

This debate provided academic insight into what is a very contemporary controversy. In January 2014 former Prime Minister Tony Blair warned that religious extremism will be the biggest source of conflict in the 21^st century; and in our first Faith Debate of the year we explored the interactions of religion, politics and armed conflict in the Arab Spring. But are there ways in which religious organisations can be agents for ending violence? Or do religions mainly act as catalysts for conflict and stumbling blocks for peace?

On the panel tackling these questions were John Brewer, Professor of Post Conflict Studies at Queen’s University Belfast; Keith Kahn-Harris, a specialist on dialogue within the Jewish community and on attitudes to Israel; Jonathan Powell, former Chief of Staff for Tony Blair and the chief British government negotiator on Northern Ireland during his time in office; and Ian Reader, Professor of Religious Studies at Lancaster University, with research interests in the connections between religion and violence. The debate was chaired by Charles Clarke, former Home Secretary, and Linda Woodhead, Professor of Sociology of Religion at the University of Lancaster.

Underlying much of the debate was the crucial question – what exactly is meant by ‘peace’? According to Brewer, an important factor that can exacerbate conflicts is that different players may have different ideas about what ‘peace’ is. He argued that in the Northern Ireland peace process, Catholics were often pushing for a broad “positive peace”, or “social transformation” – the securing of “justice, fairness, equality of opportunity”. Protestants, however, were focusing primarily on simply ending the violence – “negative peace”, or “conflict transformation”. Kahn-Harris cited the example of Israel and Egypt to demonstrate another interpretation – “cold peace” – a situation where the different sides do their best to avoid and ignore each other rather than actively seek to resolve their differences. For Powell, these more pessimistic notions of peace were exemplified in the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland – simply signing a peace agreement does not necessarily mean the end of social conflict.

For Brewer and Powell, it is precisely because ‘peace’ means more than the cessation of violence that religious organisations can play important roles in ‘peace-building’. Brewer divided this term into two processes: “state-building”, or the “political peace process”, which involves the reintroduction of government structures and the re-establishment of institutions of justice and politics; and “nation-building”, or the “social peace process”, where former enemies learn to live together after conflict. Most important in his view are the contributions of faith-based institutions to nation-building – they can lead communities in dealing with issues of forgiveness, memory, truth and justice. Powell suggested that religious institutions do not tend to have very useful roles in brokering the end of violence itself, though religious individuals have played important parts. Religious institutions can, however, be important for creating a context for dialogue between different sides. As Brewer noted, in Northern Ireland churches provided sacred spaces where political enemies could be brought together to engage in, and implement, the processes of ‘state-building’.

But the role of religions in conflict areas is not simply benevolent. Powell insisted that religion’s influence on the causes of conflict is often exaggerated – “Northern Ireland was not about religion” but about access to power, traditions and identity. Reader and Kahn-Harris, however, felt that religion often plays a much greater role in causing conflict than reducing it. Reader challenged Brewer by arguing that it is precisely when religion becomes involved in “nation-building” that problems arise. “Religious nationalism” is driving the attacks by Buddhists on Muslims in South East Asia. When the land itself forms part of a sacred landscape, which cannot be negotiated in religious terms, peaceful solutions can only be found in the ‘political sphere’.

Kahn-Harris was also critical of the capacity for religious organisations to reduce conflict. He suggested that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had originally been between two movements that were essentially secular – the Zionist movement and the leftist liberation movement of the Palestinians. In the last few decades, however, the conflict has taken on increasingly religious elements. Religions can function by giving the “nitty gritty stuff” of daily life “transcendent implications” – which in Kahn-Harris’ view can make disputes over such temporal issues as land and power much more difficult to resolve. He also noted that peoples in diasporas, including Jews and Palestinians, can give conflicts universal significance, drawing in the support of other states like the USA and hindering resolution. Peace-making is best achieved when conflicts are relatively isolated and localised. Similarly, interfaith dialogue achieves most on the local, grassroots level – there is a danger that global, elitist interfaith dialogue can simply work as an “alibi”, enabling religious leaders to “feel good about themselves” without making practical progress.

A number of other structural factors were noted by the panel and audience members that might inhibit efforts for peace-building. International justice bodies can, ironically, impact detrimentally on the ending of conflict. Both Powell and Reader noted that the threat of facing justice and imprisonment makes it less likely that key figures involved in conflict atrocities will accept peace processes. On another note, Brewer stressed that the relations between particular states, civil societies and religions can affect in various ways the capacity for religious organisations to aid in peace-building. In the Northern Ireland case, he suggested that the established churches aimed at “negative peace”, the ending of violence, but were constrained by their allegiance to state players from pushing further. The “minority” churches and “maverick” individuals led the way towards broader “positive peace”. The variability of the structural relations between states, societies and religions means that it is important to approach conflict situations case-by-case – the peace-building model from one place may not be appropriate in a different context.

A final point raised by an audience member concerned the connections of gender, religious organisations and peace-making. The UN Security Council Resolution 1325, adopted in 2000, affirms the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and post-conflict reconstruction. It was suggested to the panel that some of their pessimistic views on religion’s capacity to resolve conflict overlooked the importance of religiously-orientated, grassroots women’s movements in peace processes. Whilst the panel agreed with this point, Kahn-Harris cautioned against stereotyping women as ‘the peace-makers’ – both men and women can contribute to conflict, and both should engage in peace-building processes.

Ultimately, it seems that if religious organisations are to have practical successes in resolving conflicts, these are best achieved on the local, grassroots level. The panel generally agreed that religious groups are unlikely to broker the end of violence by themselves; but they can provide spaces for the establishment of dialogue, and in some cases they can aid the healing of social wounds after formal peace agreements are signed. In other cases, however, the influence of religion is clearly more likely to exacerbate conflict situations. As Clarke summed up, we need to disentangle religion’s precise role in the origins of individual cases. Sweeping statements about the functioning of religion only exacerbate the ignorance and distrust which lie behind much of the world’s conflicts today.

As always, after watching the discussion, it is worth returning to the students’ views and finding out if and how their personal opinions have been influenced or changed by what they have heard.

For 6th formers it might well be possible to watch the discussion straight through, however, for some students it might be advisable to watch one segment at a time. After discussion, it might be worth getting students to listen to some of the podcasts provided on the website.

Additional content is available at http://faithdebates.org.uk/debahttp://faithdebates.org.uk/debates/religion-an-agent-in-peace-building-in-conflict-areas-of-the-world/tes/2012-debates/faith-interviews/john-sulston-andrew-brown/