Two Chairs Exchange For AQA GCSE RS.

1. Two Chairs Exchange For AQA GCSE RS.

2. RS GCSE Christianity and Islam Religion and Human Rights - a Two Chairs approach.

3. Recap I: Two Chairs Principles • Dialogue– but not dialogue alone. • Listening attentively to the other without judging what they say against your own beliefs • Empathy– imaginary encounter with ‘others’. • Understanding that differences and similarities exist between faiths • Differences and similarities between faith and practice may be more complex and subtle than might it might first appear • Acknowledging difference in belief/ practice does not prevent meaningful exchange, shared values and dialogue.

4. Recap II: What are human rights? Does religion curtail them? • Human rights relate to individuals. Whilst the right to freedom of thought, religion and belief is asserted as a human right, sometimes religions themselves curtail the rights of individuals to live in freedom. • Religions themselves are not seen as inherently valuable in human rights context. • Religions are only protected in society in order to guarantee the human right of individual belief and freedom or religious practice.

5. Recap III: Are human rights and religion compatible? The British Humanist Society campaigns against the special privileges, which they perceive religion has enjoyed. They have argued that individual’s human rights are frequently compromised by religion, and that religious groups have unfairly been allowed legal privilege to discriminate against those who do not share their religious views. https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/human-rights-and-equality/

6. Humanism and Religion: Using Two Chairs ideas Premise: The right to freedom from discrimination: No one can be treated unfairly because of gender, sexuality, race, religion or age. This lesson invites you to: • explore why some religious people think that people can be treated differently though do not always see this as unfair discrimination; • through informed imaginary thinking, to assess whether this position can ever be justified.

7. Pair Work I: the ‘Gay cake row’ In pairs read the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233 Imagine: you are a humanist • What might a humanist say? How do you think Christian might respond?

8. Pair work II: Research Christian teaching: Read: Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11 Consider: • The catechism of the catholic Church : “Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to nature” …. But…. People with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity” …”any sign of unjust discrimination in this regard should be avoided” (CCC2357)

9. Pair work III: Two Chairs dialogue • One of you is a humanist, one of you is a Christian • You are debating the issue of Gay rights. • You are asked not to have standard debate (one view vs. the other), but a Two Chairs exchange. • Questions – seeing each others views Both sides argument - empathy– common ground? May be none. • Write your imaginary dialogue and feedback.

10. Deeper thinking • Read Peter Tatchell’s response • https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/01/gay-cake-row-i-changed-my-mind-ashers-bakery-freedom-of-conscience-religion • How do you think a Gay and Lesbian Christians might respond?

11. In pairs: • Can you extend your Two Chairs dialogue in the light of this deeper thinking? • Do you know how this case was resolved? Do you think the outcome was fair? Can you answer from a humanist / Christian perspective?

12. Final Plenary • Can humanists and Christians reach understanding of the other without compromising their core beliefs? • How might the principles of the Two Chairs Exchange be useful in resolving the conflict?

13. Essay title ‘Religion undermines human rights’. Evaluate this statement In your answer you: • should give reasoned arguments in support of this statement • should give reasoned arguments to support a different point of view • should refer to differing religious arguments • may refer to non-religious arguments • should reach a justified conclusion. Without referring to the Two Chairs idea directly, try to bring out differences and similarities between Christianity and Islam. Try to think comparatively about how the two faiths deal with human rights and try not to reach a simplistic black and white conclusion (avoid one faith = ‘good’, the other faith = ‘bad’) 12 marks

14. Extension work IPulling up another chair How might Muslims contribute to the debate…. In many areas of the Islamic world, homosexuality is illegal and in some countries it is a crime that carries the death penalty, for example, Saudi Arabia. However, in other majority Muslim countries, homosexuality is legal, and in countries such as Turkey there have been discussions about legalizing same sex marriage. It is false to assume there is one voice from the Islamic world.

15. Extension Work II: What does the Qur’an say? • The Qur’an makes several references to the fate of the people of Lut, who were destroyed by Allah because of their homosexual activity. • There are also claims that Muhammad himself argued that homosexuality was punishable by the death penalty. • You might like to research the different schools of thought within Islam about how to respond to homosexuality. • Most Islamic scholars of Sharia law seem to suggest that homosexuality is not only a sin, but is a crime that deserves to be punished. However, the Qur’an does not specify what this punishment should be.

16. Extension Work III: Task • Research the different attitudes to homosexuality in Islam and write an imaginary Two Chairs Exchange dialogue between these contrasting views. • What similarities and differences in belief and practice arise from the interpretation of the scripture passages? • How might a Muslim respond to Christian and humanist attitudes to homosexuality?