VERSION|0.5.1|NAME|Dinah|DATE|1359806778|CONTENT|‘What I found disturbing was that Martlew just assumed that he was entitled to walk into a school and, in effect, attempt to indoctrinate primary school pupils.’  (Broga)

Well, if it was a Church of England school his sense of entitlement would, on a purely legal basis, have been justified.  Stonyground’s explanation about how RE is taught in schools must surely only apply to secular schools.  I can’t imagine it going on quite that way in Muslim, Catholic or other ‘faith’ schools. 
 
Teaching religion in schools is obviously a Good Thing if it is educating children about the different religions in a disinterested (as opposed to an uninterested or biased) way, encouraging them to think critically about the claims made by the proponents of different beliefs.  No one cannot reach an informed opinion about something which they know nothing about. 
 
The trouble is, how many teaching this subject would find it possible to throw off all their own preconceptions and/or prejudices, even if they wished to do so?  As atheists although we might strive to be fair, how even-handed could we be in practice?  How open could we be, (or be allowed to be), when discussing the claims of Catholicism or Islam if the pupils we were teaching were predominantly Catholic or Muslim?  Looking at it the other way, how fair could convinced believers be when discussing atheism or humanism? 
 
I watched a programme on BBC3 the other night about three young British women who had converted to Islam.  We, the viewers, were allowed to form our own opinion.  Mine was that if the women in question had been better informed and better educated they would have been much less likely to have come to the decision they did.  You might consider my opinion prejudiced or justified depending on your own education, opinions and prejudices.
|IP-ADDRESS|79.66.220.124|MODERATIONFLAG|