logo
   Web Issue 3271 October 13 2008   
spacer
Resurrection of religion in Scots schools
ANDREW DENHOLM, Education CorrespondentAugust 13 2007

It may once have been marginalised as the preserve of those seeking a career in the clergy but religious education in Scottish schools is making a comeback.

The number of pupils sitting Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies at Higher has seen a dramatic increase in the past year with the number of candidates taking the exam increasing by one-third, from 1323 in 2006 to 1751 this year.

The sharp rise follows a revamp of the course in 2005 by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA), which made it more relevant to current affairs and emphasised the contribution of philosophy to the course, which involves the study of world religions and beliefs.

Teachers and academics believe the growing numbers reflect a desire by pupils to think critically about their own beliefs and those of others in what can be a confusing world to grow up. Elements of the course which deal with euthanasia, creationism and genetics have proved particularly popular.

The rise may also reflect the growing interest in the part religion has played in recent world conflicts and a parallel rise in atheism, led by philosopher Anthony Grayling and arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins.

The new-found popularity of the course was welcomed by academics, teachers and church representatives. Stephen McKinney, a religious education lecturer at Glasgow University, said the increased popularity of the Higher course proved the idea that religion was dead was wildly inaccurate.

"It is clear that there is a greatly increasing interest in philosophical debate and an increasing interest in religion and the current discourse about the rise of the secular state may not be as cut and dried as people think," he said.

"Although churches may not be as well attended as they used to be, it seems that those who are not affiliated with a particular religion still have a great interest."

Tommy Hughes, former principal teacher of religious education at Holyrood RC Secondary School in Glasgow, who is now depute head at Turnbull High in Bishopbriggs, said pupils were increasingly interested in the content of the new Higher.

"Many of our young people are confused by the world we live in and the rapid development of science and the issue of the dignity of human beings in early and later life," he said. "This qualification gives pupils the chance to debate these issues for themselves rather than relying on the soundbites and that often characterise public debate in these areas."

Michael McGrath, director of the Scottish Catholic Education Service, said the rise mirrored the greater uptake of courses in philosophy and religion at university.

"The rise highlights a greater interest in religious beliefs and philosophical enquiry," he said. "The notion that somehow God is dead is not born out by the high levels of interest in religion both amongst young people and in society in general."

Dr Gill Stewart, depute director of qualifications for the SQA, also welcomed the growing popularity of the course. "The change in content is attractive to both teachers and candidates," she said.

"The qualification has been revised to make it more relevant and to take account of the fact that Scotland is more multi-cultural.

"We are delighted to see the growing uptake because we believe the course helps young people develop the ability to think independently."


© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.



Posted by: austin, glasgow on 4:55am Mon 13 Aug 07
Young people hear more about the relation between religion and war, terror and hatred with each passing month. This is the sense in which religion has become more 'relevant'. It is however, entirely irrelevant in finding a solution to the world's problems. Close analytical study of the major religions would expose religion for what it is - medieval superstition. The Abrahamic faiths are, at base, death cults - glorifying death and suffering and are fundamentally anti-human.
Posted by: Plato, High up and low down on 5:43am Mon 13 Aug 07
OK,so what proof is there for religion,or are we still expected to accept the medieval concept of blind faith.There is plenty of proof for the blood shed by adherents of so called religion.Love thy fellow man,gimme a break.
Posted by: Va Gent, Virginia, USA on 5:45am Mon 13 Aug 07
As such I have no problem with religion being taught in schools but what religion is to be taught? In America the separation of church and state is a fundamental of our basis. Our founding fathers (some Scottish) decided that there should be no State sanction religion but religion was left to the individuals. While in some cases this division has gotten to the point of being ridiculous ie. no 10 commandants posted in public schools or displayed on state property the theory of our founders was very wise. It was best to not deal with many religions but rather to not deal with any. This way a person is free to seek his own way and not a State way and feel unencumbered with a choice.
Posted by: wee folding bike on 6:41am Mon 13 Aug 07
Easier than maths or sciences so it makes the school performance look better.
Posted by: bob mckay, glasgow on 7:46am Mon 13 Aug 07
This headline is another herald shocker; a complete distortion of the truth! Religion as all the above posters agree is deid and being buried by the knowledge of world religions and their common grimm brother fairy tales. The article actually explains that kids are interested in moral and legal philosophy, citzenship. And yes its a guaranteed A for most!!
Posted by: clayton-moore on 7:49am Mon 13 Aug 07
The usual spokesmen with the usual agenda.
Might it just be that, unable to deal with proper subjects like chemistry, physics etc., and lacking the talent even for an arts course, a lot of "learners" are signing up for courses that they know cannot be subject to the same scrutiny in their work.
Why should taxpayers money be used to enable what are basically a bunch of scroungers, and the charlatans who have lucrative posts "teaching" them, live off the fat of the land for 4 years at a time.
Posted by: The Doactur, God's Own Country on 8:12am Mon 13 Aug 07
clayton-moore, how did you end up such a saddo?
'proper' subjects, 'scroungers' and 'charlatans'. Perhaps you were persecuted as a child. Who cares? Your comments indicate that your own education is as yet incomplete.
If you were to enrol in some kind of religious/moral type course you might get to learn the bit about casting the first stone.
Bless you, my brother
Posted by: Watchman, Lanarkshire on 8:33am Mon 13 Aug 07
Well, compared to Maths, or Physics or Chemistry its an easy pass, all the better to get to Uni with to do Media Studies !!
Posted by: alexl, fife on 8:35am Mon 13 Aug 07
It sounds more like students are taking these subjects because it is considered to be an easier option unfortunately. alexl
Posted by: Alan, Erskine on 8:55am Mon 13 Aug 07
Regrettably, the headline captures more of the reality than the story suggests.

Religiousity and mysticism are becoming increasingly popular. I read with some alarm at the weekend that White Witches are being licenced in Romania. One need only look at the popularity alternative health remedies to see that science has not won the argument against superstition just yet.

Closer to the mark are the comments on the education system itself. I learned from someone in SQA last week that the sciences are seriously waning, while social sciences increase in popularity. I asked why this is. The answer is two-fold. Proper science (in my view, Chemistry, Physics and Biology) is hard work. No offence to anyone with a social science qualification but the perception that they are easier is borne out by exam results. Secondly, young teachers have the social science qualifications so that is what they teach. Who wants old Mr. Bunsen, the Chemistry teacher, in his tweed jacket battering on about the periodic table when the alternative is young Miss Trendy discussing the moral implications of the wranglings of the Big Brother House?
Posted by: Harry, Glasgow on 9:07am Mon 13 Aug 07
Quite a number of zealots on here aren't there? It's clear from some responses that of course science is "god" and firm faith in it and its "prophets" will in due course save us all, or will it?.... Wouldn't it be good to have a generation that could make a decent philosophical argument without decending into these rabid reactions against the illeducated infidels (i.e. those without a BSc (Hons))?
Posted by: clayton-moore on 9:21am Mon 13 Aug 07
The Doacter
Bit worked up aren't you mate. What happened, have your dogma cells been offended?
I can't help it if you're among the credulous but your childish insults have no effect, so why don't you, or your shaman, just do some magic on me, or pronounce a curse that would stop me being a skeptic?
You obviously haven't had much of an education yourself or you wouldn't be advising others to take a course in fairy stories as if they are going to explain anything in the real world, except the reason for most of the wars.
Keep banging the rocks.

Posted by: wee folding bike on 9:25am Mon 13 Aug 07
Harry,

You have something which explains phenomena better than science?
Posted by: Joe Honest, Scotland on 10:05am Mon 13 Aug 07
As an atheist I find myself supporting such a course. Any kid with half a brain will start seeing through the myths. A full and happy life can be lived without fear of "God" . BTW..most of the above posts would get you barred on the Scotsman site. I wrote about some of the myths in the world's HOLY BOOKS and was barred sin die. (sic)
Posted by: Joe Hon, Scotland on 10:07am Mon 13 Aug 07
As an atheist I find myself supporting such a course. Any kid with half a brain will start seeing through the myths. A full and happy life can be lived without fear of "God" . BTW..most of the above posts would get you barred on the Scotsman site. I wrote about some of the myths in the world's HOLY BOOKS and was barred sin die. (sic)
Posted by: Harry, Glasgow on 10:09am Mon 13 Aug 07
wee folding bike wrote:
Harry, You have something which explains phenomena better than science?
I merely point out that devout scientists (rather than sciencetologists- no offence) can come across as closed off to alternatives - not speaking about rain dancing and whale song here.

I believe it was Kant who first brought together the idea that what reason tells us and what we experience with our senses are not separate. Each of us percieves the world from our own perspective and regards evidence presented from a particular viewpoint (cultural maybe?) glass half full, rose tinted specs anyone?.

While I am aware that you don't need this explaination, others do and natural philosophy (remember Nat Phil?) as espoused by Newton, Kelvin, Boyle etc whilst establishing laws, didn't suggest that we were near the end of our journey of discovery as some current purveyors of science as religion do.

By preaching rather than engaging, scientists only build frustrating barriers between themselves and the lesser mortals that don't yet understand them or their message. Once we all accept that the only thing we know is that we know nothing, then at least we can begin to educate ourselves.

Science as the new high priests of a secular sect is no more or less sinister than any other religion. To outsiders it still looks like mystisism and a couple of folk on here would do well to stop blaming the uneducated for their lack of knowledge. You don't have all the answers either.
Posted by: Michael, Dalry on 10:10am Mon 13 Aug 07
You have something which explains phenomena better than science?


Of course not. "Science" however employs language, which means that it is purely a social construct - a metanarrative, like others. This means that it is neither "true" nor "false," one of those hegamonic binaries contributors to this post seem obsessed with
Posted by: Sara on 10:18am Mon 13 Aug 07
This increase in numbers does not indicate that the pupils concerned have faith in any particular God. Perhaps it is the case that that pupils without faith now feel they can pursue a course which gives appropriate weighing to texts critical of Christianity?

Alternatively, pupils might view the subject as an “easier” Higher when compared to, for example, mathematics or physics. In England, increased numbers of pupils are sitting psychology and media study A levels (up 20% on last year) and some educationalists believe this is because these subjects are perceived as easier. At some point in the future I believe universities will have to give greater consideration not just to a persons grades (points), but to the actual qualification itself i.e. a grade A in maths is more worthy than a grade A in media studies.

Of course with regard to the Higher in Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies I would like to know what number taking the course believe that praying to a God can change things on earth – even their exam grade!
Posted by: clayton-moore on 10:20am Mon 13 Aug 07
Scientists will change or modify their ideas if a theory is proven to be wrong, and part of being a scientist is being prepared to publish your research, your evidence and your findings before your professional peers for scrutiny and criticism..
Religious people claim that everything they say or claim off the top of their heads is correct, has always been correct will always be correct, and nothing written in their holy books, or uttered by infallible leaders, can be contested.
Is it just an accident that all the commentators within the article are people with a vested interest in upkeeping the employment of religious "teachers" and faith schools?
Posted by: The Doactur, Withdrawn on 10:46am Mon 13 Aug 07
clayton hyphenated moore
Sorry I even responded to you, you are obviuosly a Juan Kerr
Whoops, there I go again!
Posted by: clayton-moore, dusseldorf on 11:14am Mon 13 Aug 07
doacter
You are obviously a Juan Haunder.
You don't have a lot of brains, not able to answer posts are you.
I take it that's a product of your superior religious education.
Posted by: john, Oban on 11:20am Mon 13 Aug 07
yes i agree with the more cynical comments that the R.E. offers an easier way of getting an extra qualification when compared to maths or science. i do not believe that more pupils have suddenly developed an interest in religion.
Posted by: clayton-moore on 11:39am Mon 13 Aug 07
john wrote:
yes i agree with the more cynical comments that the R.E. offers an easier way of getting an extra qualification when compared to maths or science. i do not believe that more pupils have suddenly developed an interest in religion.
I believe through this route you can attain the title of "Doactur".
That it's "Doactur uh Duvina'y" and not a relevant qualification for the real world doesn't matter, just think of "The Wizard of Oz" and the Scarecrow, you don't need brains, just a certificate.
Posted by: Michael, Dalry on 11:48am Mon 13 Aug 07
Scientists will change or modify their ideas if a theory is proven to be wrong, and part of being a scientist is being prepared to publish your research, your evidence and your findings before your professional peers for scrutiny and criticism


Exactly - Science is a social construct. Ideas are changed or modified under peer pressure. These ideas have nothing to do with reality - just with how reality appears to us

Posted by: Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld on 11:59am Mon 13 Aug 07
Great news.
And yet another one in the eye for those anti-religious bigots who would seek to stop kids even from having the choice to study these subjects.
Posted by: Eternal student on 12:06pm Mon 13 Aug 07
I'm not so happy with the phrase that religion in schools is being resurrected as in coming back to life, since religion in schools was never alive before.
The fact that church leaders were already denying the resurrection, is an indication of the extent to which false teaching, of the very worst, had crept into the church.
Where do we find prove of this fact in the world that the resurrection of the founder of our faith had actually taken place, not in religion!
Not religion should be taught, but merely wisdom, just as the proverbial utterances are exclaiming: WISDOM is the prime thing. Acquire wisdom; and with all that you acquire, acquire understanding.
To your head it will give a wreath of charm; a crown of (real) beauty it will bestow upon you.
Posted by: clayton-moore on 12:10pm Mon 13 Aug 07
"Science is a social construct"?
Is mechanics a social construct?
Physics?
Chemistry?
Biology?
All those are part of science.
Ideas aren't changed or modified through peer pressure but through examination of the evidence.
Religion is the social construct , a body of beliefs that have been fabricated from the fears and superstitions of the primitive human are presented as eternal truths.
Posted by: Andrew Morton, Lockerbie on 12:43pm Mon 13 Aug 07
The usual dogmatic posts from the usual dogmatists, I see. Any hint that their belief in the secularist myth that religion is doomed and they are out in force. I wonder if it has occured to them that the intolerance and bigotry that they exhibit makes atheism and secularism very unattractive. Maybe that's why interest in religion is increasing.
Posted by: Alexander, Aberdeen on 12:50pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Mondays are bad enough without having to read this depressing drivel. All religions are for people who are scared of the dark.
Posted by: zeno, Glasgow on 12:50pm Mon 13 Aug 07
I agree with bob mckay. The title of the article is not supported by the text of the article. Even then, surveys show that over 50% of under 18s are not religious and that that percentage is increasing.

Let no one be in any doubt, religion in the young is decreasing - and a good thing to.

However, they also seem to want to be engaged in philosophy and morals. This is also good, but has (as several readers have already pointed out) nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
Posted by: Melanthios on 1:17pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Watchman wrote:
Well, compared to Maths, or Physics or Chemistry its an easy pass, all the better to get to Uni with to do Media Studies !!
...or to put it another way,

http://www.cartoonst
ock.com/lowres/ndi07
09l.jpg
Posted by: Melanthios, here for a wee change on 1:19pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Joe Honest wrote:
As an atheist I find myself supporting such a course. Any kid with half a brain will start seeing through the myths. A full and happy life can be lived without fear of "God" . BTW..most of the above posts would get you barred on the Scotsman site. I wrote about some of the myths in the world's HOLY BOOKS and was barred sin die. (sic)
What was your moniker? I've had to change mine 3 times over there.
Posted by: Hugh Kleinan-Sinqhar, The Carp Pond on 1:21pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Working well today chaps. The war of words rattles on.
If polymathic literati such as yourselves were to be elected into democratic systems of government the problems of the world would be solved in short order.
However I suspect it's all just empty bluster.
The absence of moral and spiritual values is the crux of social deconstruction in the Western world today.
Discuss.
Or don't bother.
God will provide.
Posted by: The Doactur, The Locked Ward on 1:28pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Clayton-moore!
What a nintilect! You are Such a Clever Guy!
Wish I was half as smart as you.
I must try harder right enough


Posted by: To whom it may concern on 1:29pm Mon 13 Aug 07
What is your contribution to make this world a better place for our children and ourselves?
Posted by: Michael, Dalry on 1:31pm Mon 13 Aug 07
"Science is a social construct"?
Is mechanics a social construct?
Physics?
Chemistry?
Biology?
All those are part of science.


Whenever we use language to describe them, yes they are a social construct, because language is, obviously, a social construct. Language describes our experiences, human experiences, the way we experience the world - not reality, as it is, in itsel.
Posted by: Logician, Aristotle's garden on 1:33pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Athiests posting here seem amazingly Britain centric.

Religious practice and belief are the norm in the world and conversions to Christianity and Islam continue to rise everywhere.
Posted by: Ally, Edinburgh on 1:43pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Between religious class and British class when are young people going to be able to learn something that is not fabricated for political gain?

I think this is yet another "class" being created by government so our young will be very receptive to propoganda.

We have been to school - we all know that the ide we "discuss" anything is a load of rubbish. You are lectured. Teaching Britishness is designed to create a false impression of a corrupt society. Teaching religion will not change anything, it is designed so that in twenty years we will hate muslims more than we do right now. So we can learn that in Afghanistan without British values women were killed for eating salad with a spoon.
Posted by: Chris Benton, Bath on 1:43pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Michael wrote:
You have something which explains phenomena better than science?


Of course not. \"Science\" however employs language, which means that it is purely a social construct - a metanarrative, like others. This means that it is neither \"true\" nor \"false,\" one of those hegamonic binaries contributors to this post seem obsessed with
Slam two pieces of uranium-235 into one another and see how much of a "social construct" nuclear physics is.

Science is different from other "metanarratives" because IT WORKS. You could use tarot cards to predict an eclipse, or you could use orbital mechanics. You could pray for the ability to fly, or you could board an aircraft. You could use healing crystals to ward off disease, or you could get vaccinated.

If science is just another religion, then it is the one true religion.
Posted by: Martin Hughes on 1:56pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Clayton-Moore,
Keep up the good work. It looks as if what is more important to religious folk is mysticism and pseudo reality than the fact that their car has been engineered to stop at the next junction.
Posted by: Logician, Aristotle's garden on 1:57pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Arg

But are there free values, do we ahave amultiverse, is that a multiverse of all possibles and what happend immediately after the Big Bang

So what does the "one true religion" have to say to that?
Posted by: Gerry, Penicuik on 2:31pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Yes - to discussion about religion in schools as part of a wider approach to belief systems.

Yes - to atheists/secularists participating in such discussions.

No - to religious instruction being delivered in schools.

No - to public resources being used to support religion or religious bodies.

No - to creationism ever being treated as a science (Shame on you Blair for allowing the Vardy schools to be established) - it is not.

Yes - to the phasing-out of faith schools.

Yes - to freethinking, rational thought and evidence-based learning.

No - to illiberality, superstition, fear and guilt derived from religion.

No - to children being referred to by refernce to the faith of their parents i.e. no more Muslim child, Catholic child, Protestant child etc - when they are far too young to make an intelligent and informed view of whether they wish to subscribe to the "club".
Posted by: logician, aristotle's garden on 2:41pm Mon 13 Aug 07
"freethinking, rational thought"

This is hilarious. Everyone thinks their thinking is freethinking and rational. So who is to decide?

My children are catholic children and will be going to catholic school, whether you like this or not, Gerry
Posted by: Melanthios on 2:45pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Posted by: Gerry, Penicuik on 2:31pm today

Good post sir!
Posted by: alasdair, glasgow on 3:05pm Mon 13 Aug 07
as for religion in schools why must a teacher in tax payer funded catholic schools be a catholic (with very few exceptions) - since i always thought maths was maths? a roman catholic can apply for any job they wish in non-denom schools. Many councils in the west of scotland accept this and then describe themselves as equal opportunity employers. Once again some are more equal than others.
Posted by: John on 3:26pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Logician 1:57

By accepting the theory of the "Big Bang" are you not then yourself part of the "one true religion"?

What do you have to say to that?
Posted by: mike, edinburgh on 3:42pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Fact is religion is a major influence (for right or wrong) on the world today. To understand religion is to understand a major aspect of how the world and humanity thinks and works. You can bet that the children taking these courses are amongst the more intelligent in the schools they are at - Philosophy isn'teasy to get your head around!. They should be commended for having the interest in this aspect of our lives. Just because they have an interest in the more spiritual side of things does NOT mean that they are running about getting brainwashed and its frankly insulting to them to imply that they are stupid enough to let this happen.

They are learning ABOUT religions and faith. not being indoctrinated. I fail to understand why some people so vehemently object to this kind of thing.
Posted by: exiled scot, luxembourg on 3:44pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Keep religion out of schools - the separation of state & church should be total. If parents want religious education for their kids, they should choose private schools who offer this as part of their curriculum.
Posted by: Gr8 on 3:48pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Lets do a comparison here...

Religion: 1. God - involves believing in something / someone who is all powerful yet you can't see and he's not done anything to prove his existence in 2000 years.
2. Prayers - talking to God, who you can't see, in a room by yourself or in a building with others.
3. Priest (or messenger of God) - tells you how to live your life, what you should do and you hand over money to collection plates.

1. People are sent to psychiatrists for seeing or believing in things that others can't see, no one can see God. The last person who "apparently" did that, died many, many years ago in a time when there was no explanation for the sun and moon.
2. People are sent to psychiatrists for talking to themselves.
3. Why should laws that worked 2000 years ago still apply in a completely different society and world? They don't, they are barbaric. When you sign over your possessions and someone other than a recognised religion or charity receives your money for providing nothing of substance... its called a scam or cult.


The only real thing that religion does is provide comfort for those who believe and those who are dying allowing them to accept what is and that it is all part of some greater plan. But why then do religions not embrace each other? They are all fighting for those lucrative donations and so therefore, if you follow any other religion you are doomed. Even though they all believe in a higher being or beings and all they really do is provide comfort in times of trouble they cannot get along. Competing businesses in an ever changing world. One day will look back and people will shake their heads at the wars and problems that religions allowed to happen or even made happen. If the Vatican sold all it's riches it could cure world hunger 4 times over, and provide housing for the poor. It claims it wants to help these people so why not sell up and do what you promise?

many debatable points here so let's debate...
Posted by: logician, aristotle's garden on 3:57pm Mon 13 Aug 07
dear exiled scot

There is no value free education. Every education transmits values.There is not some "neutral" position out there on religion, or anything else.

Thus banishing religion from schools, or attempting to( impossible really as everyone has religious thoughts and some time), is a position, a philosophy, an outlook.

Why should your philosophy or outlook be the only one permitted in state schools? Smacks of fascism to me.

More dangerous still is the delusion that education is value free. This leads to the non deliberate, non challengeable transmission of belief systems.

Posted by: logician, aristotle's garden on 4:05pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Hi John

I am no phycist but the big bang looks the most probable scientific account of the origin of the universe, notwithstanding the fact that the jury is out on, inflation theory, what haapened for a tiny period right after the bang, is the rate of growth of the universe accelerating, what on earth( or anywhere else ) is dark matter, what are neutrinos up to and the rest.

Personally I do not see a contradiction in accepting the big bang and belief in God.

Posted by: Still puzzled on 4:18pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Having finished a degree course at the open university,in Philosophy,I was happy to find that philosophy is just that,one man/womans ideas of life and the meaning of.Philosophy has many questions,but few answers,religion is just another philosophy,which you accept or not.It is a refreshing insight into the why and how philosophies,that even the great philosophers admit that there are philosophies,but no definitive answers,perhaps that is the answer a contradiction in itself,that there are no answers.
Posted by: Skippy, Govan on 4:21pm Mon 13 Aug 07
One swally disnae mak a spring as they say. Or as someone else once said, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities". Nuff said, eh?
Posted by: wee folding bike on 4:34pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Harry,

So the answer is no.

Having worked as a scientist I can say that there is no high priesthood on the inside. The established model is always under attack. That is how it moves forwards.

If it appears as a priesthood to people outside then there is fault on both sides. Scientists could explain better and non-scientists could try a little harder to understand.
Posted by: logician, aristotle\'s garden on 4:43pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Finally there is this loopy idea that religion causes wars.

Like what Stalin and Pol Pot were christians? Or the wars in Classical greece, Rome, Egypt, Persian Empire.

Or Napoleon or British Empire wars. Or maybe that fruitcake Hitler, who hated religion and tried to close down all religious organisations. Forget "quotes" and his catholic origins, he hated religion because it postulated an equality his racism could not accept.

Yes, religion has a place in schools. Its part of life and the human experience.
Posted by: wee folding bike on 4:50pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Michael,

It is not like others. It can be tested. It can make predictions and those predictions can be tested.