Viewing archives for Activity

Wednesday, 12th February 2014

Duration: 24:32

A Level

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

Edexcel – 6RS01, 6RS02, 6RS03, 6RS04

OCR – G572, G578, G582, G588

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

This is a Faith Interview featuring Bassma Kodmani, Charles Clarke, Jack Straw, Linda Woodhead, Shuruq Naguib and Toby Matthiesen.

This programme is suitable for use with A level students studying Islam, religion and authority, religion and society and issues of war and peace.

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:

• What is the relationship between religion and politics?
• Should religion and politics be kept separate?
• What can religion contribute to politics and vice versa?
• Is religion a danger to democracy and politics?

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

“Everyone is quoting God,” said Shuruq Naguib, speaking about the Arab Spring in the first Westminster Faith Debate of 2014.

The issue for debate was the causes of violent upheaval occurring across the Middle East and North Africa since 2010. The media often present “sectarian” religious division, particularly between Sunni and Shi’a, as the culprit. However, are the conflicts actually being driven by religious animosities? Most importantly, what can be done to achieve peace?

Taking part in the debate were Bassma Kodmani, director of the Arab Reform Initiative and former head of foreign relations of the Syrian National Council, Toby Matthiesen, Research Fellow in Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at Cambridge University, Shuruq Naguib, Lecturer in Islamic Studies at Lancaster University, and Jack Straw, former Labour Foreign Secretary and MP for Blackburn. The debate was chaired by Charles Clarke and Linda Woodhead.

Matthiesen began by downplaying the importance of religious belief in the Middle Eastern conflicts. While the media portrays an apocalyptic clash between religious rivals, observers should not be fooled by such “essentialising”. Three events were key to the current unrest: the Iranian Revolution of 1979 which “changed the way the Shi’a saw themselves”, the Iraq War which began in 2003 and redrew the balance of power in the region, and the events of the Arab Spring itself.  Insofar as religion was involved, Matthiesen mainly saw it as a political tool used by states and elites.

The manipulation of religious divisions by political regimes was a theme running through the debate. In Dr Kodmani’s view, corrupt rulers have been using religious establishments as a soft security device for decades.

For Naguib, however, a crisis of religious authority, particularly within Sunni Islam, is also a critical factor. She rooted this in postcolonial state-building. Newly independent states with nationalist agendas co-opted religious authorities to bolster support. The result is a crisis of legitimacy for traditional religious authorities. In Naguib’s view, organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are reacting as much against religious elites as against social injustice and political corruption.

This crisis of authority also involves conflict between different generations. Some young people, disillusioned by lack of employment and political voice, turn away from moderate religious figures to those who incite violence. Social media can play an important role here in spreading extreme views.

Woodhead drew parallels with a wider crisis of religious authority affecting all religions. Traditional leaders are questioned or ignored by new generations of believers who have increased access to religious knowledge, particularly through the internet.

The question “who speaks for Islam?” is linked to another: “who profits?” According to Matthiesen and Kodmani, religious conflicts have been stoked by corrupt regimes to undermine united opposition against them. In Syria, Kodmani suggested, the persistent threat of the ‘other’ provides justification for the use of violence against society. On a wider scale, sectarian violence offers major regional players the opportunity to assert their influence, with conservative forces from the Gulf monarchies and Iran casting themselves as the defenders of Sunnis and Shi’a respectively. Jack Straw also believed it was necessary to look behind these religious labels to the political rivalries they support.

What should be done? The panel offered two suggestions. For Matthiesen and Kodmani, a stable and lasting solution can only be found through the establishment of democratic societies on the basis of citizenship. For Kodmani, “Secularism provided it is well understood, is the most important principle we need to hold.” She offered the example of Tunisia, which following its Revolution has avoided extensive violence. Whilst one audience member suggested this was to do with economic pragmatism –“there is no such thing as Sharia-compliant tourism” – Kodmani stressed that Tunisia’s achievement was built on existing institutions of civil society lacking in many other countries – including trade unions and women’s groups. She believed that lasting solutions could only be based on equal citizenship, not ethnic or religious belonging.

Naguib and Straw agreed – but for them, the answer must be religious and well as political. Neither doubted that Islam and democracy are compatible. Naguib thought the issue of “Who speaks for Islam” must be resolved, and enduring solutions must have religious legitimacy. Straw suggested that stable religion-state relations have to be worked out in ways appropriate to each country. He reminded us that only a few decades ago religious “sectarians” from Ireland attempted to blow up the Prime Minister’s residence just across the road from where we were sitting. The history of religious conflict in Europe reminds us that stable solutions can take a very long time to evolve.

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. In particular to would be useful to consider media and political responses to Islam and Islamaphobia.

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/debates/religion-sectarian-violence-arab-spring/

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/

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, 8th February 2012

Duration 1:33:33

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, Linda Woodhead, Dominic Grieve, Kim Knott, Therese O’Toole and Trevor Phillips. It focuses on the issues surrounding religious identity in ‘superdiverse’ societies.

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. Extension work could be carried out in relation to sub-cultures.

This programme is suitable for use with A level students studying philosophy, ethics, religion and society, Christianity 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

How do we live well together in an increasingly diverse society, and how does religion contribute for good or ill?

Conclusions from the debate

Since the 1970s the UK has been the most successful country in Europe at integrating an increasingly wide range of religious identities and allowing them agency in society. This achievement should be more widely recognised.

But the success means that religious identities are now so diverse that it is no longer as helpful to think of a small number of ‘world faiths’ which make people ‘Hindu’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Christian’ etc., and which must relate to one another in a ‘multi-culture’. Many people are now religious ‘in their own way’, there are many varieties of Hindu, Muslim, and Christian, and religious identities are inflected by ethnicity, gender and so on. The concept of ‘superdiversity’ may now be more helpful than ‘multiculturalism’.

Research Findings

Britain leads in Europe in successful multi-faith work and integration of religious groups; many such groups are now significant agents in civil society; New Labour achieved a great deal in supporting multi-faith and inter-faith work; the Coalition government is continuing this work with more confidence but less cash.

Religious diversity is no longer a matter of homogenous religious communities (Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc.) living side by side and together. Earlier talk of ‘multiculture’ can be unhelpful if it perpetuates this idea.

The decline of organised forms of religion has been accompanied by a multiplication of religious groups, more individualised religious identities, and multiple forms of belonging.

People do not have singular identities, but mixed ones (religious, gendered, ethnic and so on). It depends on context which aspect comes to the fore – often people ‘mobilise’ one aspect of their identity only when it is under threat.

Practical Suggestions

The UK should be more positive about how much has been achieved in terms of integrating a huge range of different identities, including religious ones – the bad news stories tend to eclipse the good news. Emphasis should continue to shift away from the state giving a small number of religious group identities what they ‘need’, to supporting freedom of conscience of individuals (liberty and toleration), and making sure that the life-chances of people are not limited by their identities (fairness and equality).

Insofar as there is a ‘host culture’ it is, and should remain, one which is hospitable to religious difference and freedom of conscience. This is the majority position, and whilst more exclusivist minorities retain their normal rights, they do so within this broader framework.

With ever-increasing diversity there will be more challenges. In order to meet these there needs to be:

• understanding of the civic ‘rules of engagement’ which make it possible to live peacefully together and to reach agreement
• creative partnerships with the state, including financial support for religious and other initiatives which encourage integration
• awareness of how policies (e.g. on counter-terrorism) can foster the misleading idea that there are homogenous religious identities which wholly define people (e.g. ‘Muslim’)
• better mechanisms, especially at local level, for dealing with religious disputes and reaching agreement.

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 20 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/religious_identity_in_superdiverse_societies/

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, 7 November 2012

Duration: 23:07

GCSE

AQA – Religious Studies B: Unit 2

Edexcel – Religious Studies Units 1-7

OCR – Religious Studies B: B601, B602

WJEC – Religious Studies A: Unit 5; Religious Studies B: Unit 1

A Level

AQA – Religious Studies: AS Unit C

Edexcel – Religious Studies: Units 1-4

OCR – Religious Studies: Unit G571

WJEC – Religious Studies: RS 1/2 CS

This is a Faith Interview featuring John Sulston, Charles Clarke, Andrew Brown and Linda Woodhead. It focuses on John Shulston’s reasons for being a humanist as well as the relationship between science and religion.

Professor John Sulston is Chair of the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation at the University of Manchester. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 2002 jointly with Sydney Brenner and Bob Horvitz, for the work they had done in understanding the development of the nematode (worm) Caenorhabditis elegans. He was among 21 Nobel Laureate signatories of the 2003 document “Humanism and Its Aspirations”. John Sulston was the Founder Director of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Centre from 1992 to 2000, where one third of the task to sequence the human genome was completed. He has campaigned to defend the findings of genome research against private patenting. He chaired the Royal Society Working Group which produced the report “People and the Planet” in 2012.

He is the son of an Anglican priest. However, he began to question his faith and at university ‘came out’ as a humanist.

This programme is suitable for use with A level and GCSE students studying personal belief, religion and science and religion and society.

In order to get the most out of the programme it would be worth brainstorming students beforehand on questions such as:

• What is the relationship between religion and science?
• Should religion and science be kept separate?
• What can religion contribute to science and vice versa?
• Why do we have religions?
• Is religion a danger to the flourishing of human society?

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

Shulston argues that it is in human nature to create religions. He says that humans are social animals and also pack animals. Religion unites people. However, for him, there is nothing of importance in religious teaching except for the ‘Golden Rule’ which is found in almost every religion. He believes that there is no need for belief in a ‘Higher Power’. Indeed, he argues that such a power essentially removes responsibility from humans who can always blame or attribute something which happens to that power. In this way he considers that the presence of religion stunts human development and leads to people making decisions which are not necessarily the best for society or not taking the necessary steps to improve society. He says that human beings are transcendent in their own right and that they do not need dogma, myth and story to live fulfilled lives.

It is worth noting that, although it may be a slip, at one stage he seems to be implying that Christianity necessarily requires a belief in creationism.

As always, after watching the discussion, it is worth returning to the students’ views and find 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 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 crystallize the thoughts and views expressed.

Additional content is available at http://faithdebates.org.uk/debates/2012-debates/faith-interviews/john-sulston-andrew-brown/

Westminster faith debate on religion and gender, featuring Charles Clarke, Fatima Barkatulla, Harvey Belovski, Linda Woodhead, Mary Ann Sieghart and Rod Thomas.

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

This is a Faith debate featuring Charles Clarke, Fatima Barkatulla, Harvey Belovski, Linda Woodhead, Mary Ann Sieghart and Rod Thomas. It focuses on the role of women in religion and gender issues in relation to God.

Students should complete a table showing what they know about the roles of men and women past and present.

The poll carried out prior to the debate shows what are perhaps surprising views about the role of women in religion:

YouGov survey for Westminster Faith Debates, 2013

Online survey

Total sample size 4,437 adults.

Fieldwork undertaken 25th – 30th January 2013.

The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).

Approval of the Church of England (CofE)’s current policies towards women

16% of practising Anglicans 11% of nominal Anglicans 8% of the general population

Only 20% of Anglicans approve of how women are treated at parish level

Approval of RC Church’s current policies towards women

31% practising Catholics

22% Catholics

6% of the general population

Would religions be better if women held senior positions?

Answering “no”:

• 2% of ‘nones’
• 2% of Hindus
• 5% of Anglicans
• 10% of Catholics
• 11% of Jewish respondents
• 18% of Muslims

Students could be given the same issues as used in this poll 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, religion and society, sexual ethics and Christianity.

The debate focuses on two separate but related issues.

First:

The background for this debate was a recent vote by the General Synod (decision-making body) of the Church of England not to allow women to become bishops, which was met with dismay both within and outside the church. In the Roman Catholic Church women cannot be ordained at all, and leadership roles are reserved for men in many of the other world religions.

The majority of people in Britain think that religions would be better if more women held senior positions. If you rely more on God, religious leaders and teachings than you do on your own judgement, then you are much more likely to disapprove of women leaders in religion. Of the 5% among the population who do disapprove of women’s leadership, there are twice as many men as women.

Church leaderships and hierarchy are increasingly adrift from consensus views on gender equality among their own membership and the population at large.

Second:

Should God continue to be described as male within the Abrahamic faiths?

All the expected arguments are rehearsed on the difference between the roles of men and women in life as well as religion. However, a key stumbling block appears for the Evangelical Christian position when discussing the language to use of God. It appears here that although it might be desirable sometimes to refer to God as female or as genderless this cannot be done because (a) people cannot think of a genderless God and (b) because Christianity is a revealed religion and so the gender used of God in the Bible cannot be varied.

Students can now add more information to their tables and discuss them with others, adding more information as appropriate.

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 crystallize the thoughts and views expressed.

Additional content is available at http://faithdebates.org.uk/debates/2013-debates/religion-and-personal-life/religious-inequality-between-sexes/