There is a lot to be said about points raised in Kenneth Wain’s article (The Sunday Times of Malta, June 26).

Firstly, most of what Prof. Wain claimed could be achieved by ethics was already being done by religious educators. I use the term ‘educators’ deliberately. We should not speak about religion teachers. It would also be helpful if the Education Ministry and the Curriculum Directorate stopped calling it ‘Religion’.

There is no value or area of development that Prof. Wain mentioned, that religious education does not already cater for, and much more. Religious education has always been concerned about ethics, virtues, democracy and citizenship.

Secondly, ethics may not be the best alternative to religious education, not because ethics is not important, but because religious education should not be an option! No one ought to have the right to opt out.

The current religious education syllabus may not be up to standard, but this does not justify endangering the place of religious education in the school curriculum. If the syllabus is the problem, work on it, don’t prohibit the teaching of the subject.

I agree with Prof. Wain that children and parents who are uncomfortable with religious education ought to have an alternative, but this ought to be another form of religious education, not ethics. It is the National Curriculum Framework that put religious education and ethics together in a common curriculum area entitled Religious and Ethics Education. I think ethics should have been put in the same area as Personal and Social Development.

Even so, every attempt should be made for ethics outside religion not to become a subjective matter. When this happens, it fails to be the rational exercise it claims to be. It would be a reductionist approach to anthropology and an offence to human history, were one to reduce the whole of ethics to personal autonomy.

Thirdly, Prof. Wain is right in saying that more children are being withdrawn from religious education. However, this may not necessarily be happening because parents are not interested in religious education, or because they prefer philosophy to it. A simplistic explanation would be that ethics is a new subject and it is only natural for people to be fascinated by the innovative. It could also be because there has been an aggressive advertising strategy, and money and resources in-vested in favour of ethics, to the detriment of religious education.

Some people see religious education as dangerous. I see it as necessaryto avoid fundamentalism

Nevertheless, I think there are other reasons for this withdrawal. I believe the government is distracted by other political issues and is unaware that religious education is an issue of public security.

Religious education is not just an important part of the educational development of the individual student, but also an obligation of the State towards its citizens. We simply cannot afford not to educate in religion. The absence of a religious education is a cultural deprivation, but it could also have dangerous consequences. Whereas some people see religious education as dangerous, I see it as necessary in order to avoid fundamentalism.

Furthermore, my fear is that people have little idea about what actually goes on in the religious education classroom. Some people have serious issues with religious education, claiming that what we do in class is Catechesis. Alarmingly, religious educators are considered by some to be narrow-minded, intolerant and even bigoted, when they should be considered specialists.

Prof. Wain would probably argue that religious education ought to be comparative. Ninian Smart himself would agree with this. I would too: (a) if we had at least as much time for religious education as we do for mathematics in the school timetable. To expect to educate students in all religions in the time allocated (which amounts to between 35 and 40 hours per annum) is naive and (b) if religious education was simply a learning about, and a learning that!

All trained religious educators know that this is too reductionist. Religious education is much more than that. It is also an education in, a learning from, a learning how, and a learning in-order-to.

I would disagree with those who claim that a religious education that is limited in range is necessarily bigoted. The comparative method of religious education, which is used in the UK, is as unsatisfactory as narrowing things down to one religion.

Concluded

Pauline Dimech is a religious educator with over 30 years of experience, and is a specialist in both theology and education.

Note: The arguments presented in this article do not necessarily represent those of my colleagues within the Faculty of Theology, of the Archbishop, of the delegate for religious education within schools or of the education officers within the Education Division.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.