My stance, as set out in my book published last year Unsafe Gods: Security, secularism and schooling is for a proper understanding of the benefits of secularism in and out of education – both for believers and non-believers. A dynamic, flexible secularism is not the same as atheism, but is a political system which accommodates all religions, gives them a level playing field and does not elevate religion over other worldviews in political decision-making. Crucially, in our diverse and complex societies, it does not elevate Christianity over Islam or vice versa, and enables critical scrutiny of any religion where appropriate. Religious practice, or practice done in the name of religion must not be immune from critique in fear of giving ‘offence’.
A secular approach then does not ban religious education in schools, but locates this in social science, or history or even literature. The key is for schools to give students an understanding of when religion becomes a problem for society, as well as a benefit. Clearly, interpretations of religion become a problem when manipulated for terrorism; but also the stereotyping of certain faith ‘communities’ as potentially evil is also a massive problem for social cohesion. IS intentionally gives ammunition to far right groups to exact revenge and vilify all Muslims, and vice versa: the extremes wish to divide communities.
In this context religious education must not attempt some superficial and homogenized ‘understanding’ of religions through activities such as a visit to a mosque (which mosque? Sunni? Shia? Sufi? Salafi?) but stress the huge diversity within so-called faith communities. It must show how religious hatred grows, as well as how to challenge this. It is more important to learn about Islamophobia than to learn about Islam, more important to learn about sectarianism than to learn about festivals.
The skills to challenge hatred and violence can be taught in school, but are not always sufficiently promoted. The just completed project Speak For Yourself  has been giving young people aged 13-18 skills in argument, communication, debate and use of social media, in order to have a voice in local and national political spaces. The final televised debate showed them discussing issues such as whether faith schools are irrelevant in a secular society, or whether violence is sometimes justified. In trying to forge a better world, their passion, articulateness and reason has to be better than random stabbings.
 Trentham/IOE 2014
 Birmingham City University/ ConnectJustice/ f5