Religious education gets real
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews...
Thought it a fair question myself, but of course it's not right and fair to ask a question of the negative points of religion.
Thought it a fair question myself, but of course it's not right and fair to ask a question of the negative points of religion.
A perfectly valid question, especially as it is in the syllabus.
Religious prejudice, as with all prejudices, should be confronted and what better way of doing it than this way?
We could come up with the answer that there is hatred against them because they didn't kill Jesus. The Romans needed someone to blame when they invented their form of religion, nowadays called roman catholicism, something almost, but not quite, entirely unlike christianity, and they were handy.
Or we could say racial, religious, national or other forms of prejudice are used to make a person or group feel superior without all that tedious effort of actually doing something to make them worthy of it. Hard work is so, well, hard isn't it.
Religious prejudice, as with all prejudices, should be confronted and what better way of doing it than this way?
We could come up with the answer that there is hatred against them because they didn't kill Jesus. The Romans needed someone to blame when they invented their form of religion, nowadays called roman catholicism, something almost, but not quite, entirely unlike christianity, and they were handy.
Or we could say racial, religious, national or other forms of prejudice are used to make a person or group feel superior without all that tedious effort of actually doing something to make them worthy of it. Hard work is so, well, hard isn't it.
Michael Gove the Education Secretary said:
“To suggest that anti-Semitism can ever be explained, rather than condemned, is insensitive and, frankly, bizarre."
Feckwit, if you can understand something you might be able to do something about it, just condemning s
t is going to change nothing.Derek Smith said:
A perfectly valid question, especially as it is in the syllabus.
Religious prejudice, as with all prejudices, should be confronted and what better way of doing it than this way?
We could come up with the answer that there is hatred against them because they didn't kill Jesus. The Romans needed someone to blame when they invented their form of religion, nowadays called roman catholicism, something almost, but not quite, entirely unlike christianity, and they were handy.
They didn't, but their leadership at the time did.Religious prejudice, as with all prejudices, should be confronted and what better way of doing it than this way?
We could come up with the answer that there is hatred against them because they didn't kill Jesus. The Romans needed someone to blame when they invented their form of religion, nowadays called roman catholicism, something almost, but not quite, entirely unlike christianity, and they were handy.
Taking all of the miracles as correct (the romans would have) Jesus' represnted one of the biggest threats to the roman occupation of Judea, perhaps the empire - a man who can feed 5000 men plus dependants with a boy's lunch, could feed an army. A man who could raise the dead, could make his soldiers unkillable. A man with the correct lineage to be descended from David could unite the Jews in an effort to overthrow the empire. These three being the same bloke...
Let alone how the locals felt...
His threat to the Jewish leadership was more complex, however, it's fairly easy to get. Just read one of Jesus' many statements on the subject of hypocrisy...
The fact is it was a Roman crucifixtion, and with or without the jews say, they would have killed him. The leaders just made it a bit easier...
As to the Catholic requirement of a scapegoat (ironic that it's a jewish term perhaps) there is no need. He was always going to die.
I don't see what the problem is with the question really. It's a really simple answer.
TheHeretic said:
Perfectly valid question, and one you could answer quite easily. No different than the question "Why we're blacks deemed to be sub-human". The reasons behind them are entirely irrational, but historically, easily answered.
Does "because some people are just a***les" count as a valid response?Jasandjules said:
TheHeretic said:
Perfectly valid question, and one you could answer quite easily. No different than the question "Why we're blacks deemed to be sub-human". The reasons behind them are entirely irrational, but historically, easily answered.
Does "because some people are just a***les" count as a valid response?Michael Gove said:
“To suggest that anti-Semitism can ever be explained, rather than condemned, is insensitive and, frankly, bizarre."
Of course it can be explained, you moron! The explanations may not be particularly paletable, or even rational, but they aren't difficult to fathom.Can't just be me that finds a senior member of the government saying that very uncomfortable?
Symbolica said:
Of course it can be explained, you moron! The explanations may not be particularly paletable, or even rational, but they aren't difficult to fathom.
Can't just be me that finds a senior member of the government saying that very uncomfortable?
No, he has merely fallen into the trap that saying anything about this subject is anti-Semitic, or even talking about anti-semitism is somehow anti-Semitic. Can't just be me that finds a senior member of the government saying that very uncomfortable?
I am reminded of an interview with Spike Milligan on late afternoon TV. Eamon Andrews, a brilliant boxing commentator but rather slow, was chatting to Spike about his experiences in Australia and Spike mentioned some racist abuse his daughter had been subject of.
Eamon asked how she had taken it and Spike said that she'd been distraught until he could explain to her why they had said it. Our Eamon, struggling with an important subject, not something he was used to, said to him; And what did you say to her.
PAnyone who had seen Milligan would have known that this was dangerous. My wife actually said: Oh no!
Spike said: I told her it was because they were all ignorant bds.
Eamon asked how she had taken it and Spike said that she'd been distraught until he could explain to her why they had said it. Our Eamon, struggling with an important subject, not something he was used to, said to him; And what did you say to her.
PAnyone who had seen Milligan would have known that this was dangerous. My wife actually said: Oh no!
Spike said: I told her it was because they were all ignorant b
ds.TheHeretic said:
No, he has merely fallen into the trap that saying anything about this subject is anti-Semitic, or even talking about anti-semitism is somehow anti-Semitic.
Of course it's not.I don't know the context of the question. The Telegraph article, in quotation marks, suggests that the question was 'why do some people hate Jews?', “why some people are prejudiced against Jews” and “Explain, briefly, why some people are prejudiced against Jews”. Which one was it?
It seems an odd question to ask without any context, and other sources seem to be just as vague. As it's an RE exam I would have thought that it would have some historical reference, yet all the questions seem to be phrased in the present tense, so I don't see how it would be suitable for an RE exam.
It might be that it's a perfectly justified question, but it could equally be a horribly hamfisted screw-up. I somehow doubt that it had the same implied anti-Semetic meaning that some are suggesting.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff