Talk:Religious education in primary and secondary education

message: The 'ostensible' purpose of the program? NPOV? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.212.38.146 (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ostensible? 

message: "The aim of most RE is to indoctrinate students, hidden under a mask..." - NPOV! Owl (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see from the history that that was the result of a couple of malicious edits made by a single user. I have reverted these and added a note to his talk page. Owl (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV dispute 

message: I am afraid I have deleted rather a large chunk of text from the UK section of this article which dealt with supposed controversy surrounding the teaching of RE. It was rather biassed in its presentation, and offered little by way of reference, other than a single Home Office document which included fairly limited sampling.
I do think that a controversy section would be appropriate, but needs to be better written, in my opinion. The details of the text I removed are listed in the history section of the article. Tafkam (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if (you believe that) the presentation is biased, it is irrelevant if it is properly sourced from verifiable sources. Correct way to counter what you perceived to be biased presentation is to add counter information from verifiable sources. Vapour (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree if the source had backed up any of what had been written but it didn't - it merely used a quotation out of context in an effort to give weight to it. Tafkam (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If one think a quote is taken out of context, then correct move is to add other contents from the same source which put the original quote into better context. Standard of inclusion is always about judgment about the validity of sources, not about what we consider about the truthiness/appropriateness of what is written in the source. Otherwise, everyone could start deleting any content claiming that the material is taken from the source out of context.   
I would like to restore sourced material. Feel free to add  to anything unsourced. And feel free to add sourced material which put my addition to better context. But please leave any sourced material unmolested. Vapour (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of controversy information 

message: I have heavily edited comments made regarding the NUT proposals on faith schools and faith in state schools. I have removed the speculative comment, which was not supported by the reference, and have brought the reference in line with others on the page. I had previously removed the whole paragraph since it was neither neutral, nor - in my opinion - was the source article related to Religious Education as it stands within the scope of this article. Rather it is about the faith adopted by particular schools, and the inclusion of faith groups within state schools, not within RE education. However, these edits were reverted by the original editor. Thought it best to justify my actions here, and will do so also on the editor's page. Tafkam (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit of comments 27 March 2008 

message: From the article:
:Additionally, all schools are required by law to provide a daily act of collective worship, of which over the course of the academic year at least 51% must be Christian in basis. However, this activity even if multifaith in nature are often meaningless to non Christian, particularly Muslim, which may have specific protocol to prayer.
The second sentence is ungrammatical and very unclear. Is it meant to say that Muslims and other non-Christians may find "collective worship" meaningless because it does not conform to Muslim protocol? Or is it meant to say that the specific collective worship protocol may be meaningless to Muslims and other non-Christians? Or something else? --FOo (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar and confusion 

message: Aside from the terrible grammar etc., there are a few problems with the section, and it just seems to be badly put together. The statement that 'the curriculum is required to reflect the predominant place of Christianity in religious life' differs from the official wording, and looks to me as if it has been deliberately reworded to make it sound as if Religious Education is somehow teaching Christianity as 'right'. I feel that a direct paraphrase or quotation from the Education Act 1996 would be more appropriate:
:Every agreed syllabus shall reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain.
In other words, any Religious Education syllabus should be representative of the broader religious nature of the country as a whole – majority Christian, but also of many other faiths (and none). Sithemadmonkey (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not exactly accurate that RE is a compulsory subject. The school is required by law to provide it, but the pupils are not required to take it. All pupils (or their parents) have a right to opt out of RE lessons. The school must make it available, but it is not compulsory for the pupil.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.238.153 (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with United Kingdom Section

message: Why does Moral Education redirect here? They're not nearly the same thing. Could we have a more inclusive article that could encompass non-religious moral instruction such as ethics, Aesop's Fables, etc.?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.238.43 (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moral Education DNE Religious Education 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Religious education in primary and secondary education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080630193803/http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/atoz/r/recollectiveworshipandtherighttowithdraw/ to http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/atoz/r/recollectiveworshipandtherighttowithdraw/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080112044304/http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/atoz/c/collectiveworship/ to http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/atoz/c/collectiveworship/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211211245/http://www.nc.uk.net/webdav/harmonise?Page%2F%40id=6004&Subject%2F%40id=7881 to http://www.nc.uk.net/webdav/harmonise?Page%2F%40id=6004&Subject%2F%40id=7881
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stortinget.no/en/In-English/About-the-Storting/The-Constitution/The-Constitution/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131232848/http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=70211 to http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=70211
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.erp.org.za/pdf/religion%20booklet_WEB.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: How do people learn about religion 41.223.116.245 (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE