Religious education for free and equal citizens

The aim of this article is to interact critically with Matthew Clayton and David Stevens's recent critique of non-confessional religious education, constituted as a separate, compulsory subject in the school curriculum. Three different critical arguments are considered: the contention that reli...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBritish journal of religious education Vol. 44; no. 1; pp. 4 - 13
Main Author Barnes, L. Philip
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Abingdon Routledge 02.01.2022
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Subjects
Antisocial Behavior
Beliefs
Christianity
Citizenship
Criticism
Democracy
Educational Policy
Intergroup Relations
intolerance
Islam
Moral Values
Muslims
Political Attitudes
Prosocial Behavior
Public Policy
Rawls
Religion
Religious Cultural Groups
Religious Education
Religious Factors
Role of Education
toleration
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:The aim of this article is to interact critically with Matthew Clayton and David Stevens's recent critique of non-confessional religious education, constituted as a separate, compulsory subject in the school curriculum. Three different critical arguments are considered: the contention that religious education is an unsuitable vehicle for fostering toleration and mutual understanding; their framing and application of an 'acceptability requirement' to religious education, which states that government principles and policy should be justified by reasons that cannot be rejected by reasonable citizens, and which they believe religious education fails; and finally, their rejection of the view that religious education fulfils a democratic purpose in providing pupils with the competences to consider and assess religious claims to truth. Religious education is defended against all three charges.
ISSN:0141-6200
1740-7931
DOI:10.1080/01416200.2020.1854687