Plan B Forum

Muslim pupils must study two religions under government plans to tackle extremism in schools following the Trojan Horse plot.

Changes to religious studies qualifications are expected to be set out by ministers next week when the subject criteria for GCSEs is published.

Faith schools are likely to see the biggest impact as they can currently choose to teach their own religion and disregard others.
As well as studying at least two religions, pupils will also be expected to debate moral dilemmas in the context of religious beliefs in class.

The modifications to lessons comes after the alleged Trojan Horse plot by hardline Muslims to infiltrate schools in Birmingham.

It was originally sparked by a leaked letter in March this year - now widely believed to be a hoax - which alleged to be from Islamists in the city plotting to seize control of a number of school governing bodies.

Birmingham City Council revealed a month later that it had received 'hundreds' of allegations of similar school takeover plots - some dating back 20 years.

Tahir Alam, chairman of the Park View Education Trust which runs six schools in the city, resigned after he was found to have written a detailed blueprint in 2007 for the radical 'Islamisation' of secular state schools.

The government hopes by tweaking religious studies lesson criteria it will help tackle cultural isolationism and extremism.

But despite this, schools will be able to decide how much teaching time to give each faith - so pupils could spend three quarters of the course studying one faith and just a quarter on the other.

Religious Education (RE) is a compulsory subject in the state education system in England. Schools are required to teach a programme of religious studies according to local and national guidelines.

Religious Education in England is mandated by the Education Act 1944 as amended by the Education Reform Act 1988 and the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. It is compulsory in all state-funded schools. The subject consists of the study of different religions, religious leaders, and other religious and moral themes. However, the curriculum is required to reflect the predominant place of Christianity in religious life and hence Christianity forms the majority of the content of the subject. All parents have the right to withdraw a child from religious education, which schools must approve.

Additionally, all schools are required by law to provide a daily act of collective worship, of which at least 51% must be Christian in basis over the course of the academic year. However, this activity even if multifaith in nature is often meaningless to non Christians, particularly Muslims, who have specific protocols for prayer. Teachers' organizations have criticized school prayer and called for a government review of the practice. Partly due to the lack of support from the teachers and partly due to the government's unwillingness to attract controversy, only a quarter of secondary schools actually comply, according to education inspectorate Ofsted.

England has a Local Agreed Syllabus which mandate subject teaching for each Key Stage and possibly for each school year. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has also produced the non-statutory National Framework for Religious Education, which provides guidelines for the provision of RE at all key stages, and models the eight-levels as applied in National Curriculum subjects.

The National Union of Teachers suggested in 2008 that parents should have a right to have specific schooling in their own faith and that imams, rabbis and priests should be invited to offer religious instruction to pupils in all state schools

Children in school should be taught that Judaism borrowed monotheism and the idea of the trinity from Zoroastrianism

The controversies between the Christians and the Jews concerning the Trinity centered for the most part about the problem whether the writers of the Old Testament bore witness to it or not, the Jews naturally rejecting every proof brought forward by their opponents

Some education in the history of religion (and other harmful forms of fraud and self delusion) is a good thing. Children in school should be taught that Judaism borrowed monotheism and the idea of the trinity from Zoroastrianism... blah blah blah...

"Step right up, step right up, folks what I've got for you here today isn't just any old god but the ONE TRUE GOD. Why settle for anything else when you can have AB-so-LUTE certainty that you are marching with the elect into Heaven! Just 10%, is that too much to ask for eternal life? 10% (gross not after tax) And you are GAR-UN-TEED results. And did I mention that god hates the same people you do?

"Step right up, step right up, folks what I've got for you here today isn't just any old god but the ONE TRUE GOD. Why settle for anything else when you can have AB-so-LUTE certainty that you are marching with the elect into Heaven! Just 10%, is that too much to ask for eternal life? 10% (gross not after tax) And you are GAR-UN-TEED results. And did I mention that god hates the same people you do?

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. ~ Carl Sagan

Religious people can't mock others and then turn around and complain about being mocked. Puhleeze.

Why is it okay for religious people to mock the nonreligious, or those of a different religion?

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ "

MajGenl.Meade wrote:

Why is it okay for religious people to mock the nonreligious, or those of a different religion?

I don't know anyone who thinks that is OK. What a pity you (and she) had that experience together. Rather than generalize about "religious people", I'd be asking my brother/sister and the spouse why they are failing to bring up their daughter properly.

I do know Episcopalians, RCs, Baptists, Presbies, Methodists, Lutherans who have been born from "above" or "again", since the word means both. Some others, I believe, don't think if it in quite those terms but they have been anyway.

All Christians who have received the Holy Spirit have been "re-born". They must have been because Jesus said so.

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ "

MajGenl.Meade wrote:

Why is it okay for religious people to mock the nonreligious, or those of a different religion?

I don't know anyone who thinks that is OK. What a pity you (and she) had that experience together. Rather than generalize about "religious people", I'd be asking my brother/sister and the spouse why they are failing to bring up their daughter properly. ... "
"