[Acrylic-bob]

Hmmm. The title of the thread questions the relevance of teaching in the subject areas of Religious Education and History. I think that a perusal of the four pages of contributions in this thread more than adequately explain the need for such teaching as well as pointing out the woeful inadequacies in the way that such subjects are currently taught.

I have long held the view that it is important for a person and also for nation to know, in the instant, where they stand. To do this one must first know where one has been. Hence the need for the study of our History, personal, national and global. Armed with this knowledge it is then possible to have a clear view of where one would like to go, using the lessons of history to avoid repeating past errors. It is said, not without reason, that the nation which refuses to learn from it's own history is condemned to repeat it.

Religion, as an academic subject, is useful in that it combines a study of the development of ethics and morality with history, thus enabling us to differentiate between what is good and what is bad, it also provides us with the philosophical tools with which to handle the moral dilemmas which attend that differentiation.

The study of both Religion and History teach us that there is more to life than "me" and proves that the constant clamour for the instant gratification of all desires is a shallow, facile and superficial way of living.

As with most things, the relevance to the young of such considerations is largely dependent on the way that they are presented. "I would rather be taught nothing than be taught something badly" Is as pertinent a statement today as it was when it was first uttered in the seventeenth century.