A COUPLE of weeks ago at the town hall there was a meeting of the Agreed Syllabus Conference to review the religious education syllabus operating in Bury, and I have to admire the courage of those who attended to discuss this difficult subject.

Briefly, prior to that meeting the interested parties, if they wanted to do their homework properly and make a worthwhile contribution, had to inwardly digest 72 pages of heavy reading.

But my sympathies in the long term go to the teachers who will eventually have one hell of a job on their hands.

Without going into the exceptions to the rule, there is a legal requirement for Religious Education (called Scripture in my day) to be taught to all pupils in full-time education.

Education in this subject will involve learning about religion and learning from it. In a nutshell religious education should help pupils to acquire and develop knowledge and understanding of Christianity and other principal religions represented in Great Britain.

Fine, so far. The agreed syllabus contains modules for six world faiths which are Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism.

Nothing wrong with that. Youngsters should know and understand about other faiths. It will go a long way towards solving many of Britain's current racial problems.

On the other hand tackling the subject could go a long way towards creating problems for teachers because while on the one hand they have the awesome task of imparting religious knowledge which is infinite, they are faced on the other hand with having to do so without much enthusiasm.

Why? Because officialdom via DFE Circular 1/94 requires that an agreed syllabus "must not be designed to convert pupils, or to urge a particular religion or religious belief on pupils" (Education Act 1944, Section 26 (2).

Now then, if I was a teacher - and I praise the Lord that I am not - I think that to be fair I'd want to give my students the freedom of choice to make up their own minds, so I'd have to be as enthusiastic in my teaching of any other religion as I was about Christianity. On the other hand if I didn't want to be fair - and if we're honest about it few of us are - I'd push the religion of my choice, regardless.

However, having read those 72 heavy pages I have to say they make a lot of sense and I congratulate everyone concerned in their publication.

But I have to ask, if schools are going to have to push this particular subject, how will they approach English and World history, which doesn't bathe religion in any great light, and what are they going to do about television news broadcasts which make it clear that religion is something to be avoided at all costs.

If I remember rightly the Crusaders of England spent most of their lives killing Saracens in the name of religion, and King Henry the Eighth boiled up a stew of bother when he needed to rid himself of a wife. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we Brits introduce Protestants into Ireland around the time of Cromwell - an act which hasn't stopped causing trouble - and wasn't God only on our side during the two world wars?

And although I don't want to labour the point, India and Pakistan have done other things apart from playing cricket, and if you watch television news any day of the week it becomes fairly clear - even to the youngest of pupils - that one way or another religion in many of our world's countries causes a lot of grief.

Overcome that little lot and teachers, I salute you!

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.