Jeg er ikke et øjeblik i tvivl om at eleverne har fået en "ny" fornemmelse for mad som ressource, men jeg må indrømme at jeg er meget forundret over at det skulle være nødvendig at pakke det ind i en religiøs oplevelse.

Skal vi også begynde at døbe ikke kristne børn, for at de kan få en fornemmelse eller en dybere forståelse af kristendommen?

Fasten findes i mange forskellige religioner, kulturer eller generelle sundhedsråd... Og jeg er derfor forundret over at man i eksemplet har valgt netop Ramadan.

Ingen tvivl om at vi kan lære børn meget om religion ved at lære dem at praktisere religion, men det er vist ikke skolens opgave eller fagmål.

Min. Umiddelbare tanke er faktisk at det er mangel på respekt for religionen, hvis man begynder at udøve eller blot efterligne dens væsentlige ritualer eller som her grundsøjler....

Jeg mener ikke vi skal have berøringsangst med diverse religioner, ej heller den kristne. Men at bede bøn, holde Ramadan eller døbe er at gå for langt.... Og det er direkte misvisende at kalde det anerkendende og inkluderende undervisning.

Det ser ud som om du er rundet af en binær logik om enten/eller. (Som det meste didaktiske forskning har forladt for længst) Jeg arbejder i et både/og, og derfor ser jeg ikke ramadanen eller andre muslimske traditioner som hverken mere eller mindre vigtige end emner om kristendom i faget Kristendomskundskab. (Der i øvrigt er en misvisende betegnelse, da faget også skal indeholde arbejde med andre religioner - og hvor man i øvrigt kunne plædere for, at det i en globaliseret verden er omsonst kun at lære eleverne om kristendommen)

Med hensyn til din bemærkning om dåben, giver det ingen mening at slutte, at fordi de gennemlever en mini-ramadan skal de også døbes for at få en forståelse for kristendommen. Dåben er en religiøs/kulturel indlemmelse hvor du vedkender dig den den kristne tro, der er tænkt til at vare for livet. En mini-ramadan er en aktivitet der ikke binder eleverne til noget som helst, og ikke en skjult led i konverteringsproces.

Du forholder dig også undrende over hvorfor jeg lige valgte Ramadanen. Argumenterne for dette burde ligge lige for at se:
1) Den muslimske ramadan var lige om hjørnet, og det var derfor mere nærliggende end at gennemleve en mini-sabbat.
2) Muslimer er den næststørste religiøse gruppe i Danmark, og derfor har mange danske børn direkte eller inddirekte daglig kontakt med praktiserende muslimer. Dette burde være argument nok for at de skal få et større kendskab til netop denne gruppe. (der står også "andre religioner) i fælles mål for faget.
3) Og jo, det er netop skolens formål, da det at undersøge hvad det vil sige at være praktiserende, leder til reel forståelse. For det er netop skolens formål at skabe FORSTÅELSE og ikke kun indhente teoretisk, boglig viden. Der står også helt eksplicit i fælles mål for kristendomskundskab at eleverne 'gennem "egen undersøgelse" får indsigt i ikke-kristne religioner og andre livsanskuelser (UVM 2009: 13) En sådan mini-ramadan er en "egen undersøgelse" (hvad gør det ved min krop?, hvilke tanker får jeg om Islam, muslimer?, etc) Ved at gennemleve en mini-ramadan er ikke at "praktisere religion", det er at "undersøge et religiøst ritual". Bad jeg dem konvertere til Islam ville vi kunne tale om at praktisere religion.
Samtidig er der efterhånden bred enighed om fra mange grene af videnskaben, at forståelse og reel indsigt kun opnås gennem praktisk handlen dvs. hvor kroppen inddrages (Schön, 1983, Lave & Wenger, 1991, Illeris, 2007, Kükelhaus, 19983, og mange flere). I et sådan anerkendelse, er en mini-ramadan helt på sin plads i sigtet på at nå både almendidaktiske og fagdidaktiske læringsmål, og som henholder sig til den forskning der tydeligt viser at praktisk handlen koblet med teoretisk viden, giver det største lærefaglige udbytte!.

Og hvis det var respektløst overfor religionen, ville vi nok ikke kunne gennemføre dette i SAMARBEJDE med Dansk Muslimsk Center. Det må vist være dem, og ikke en ikke-muslim der skal afgøre hvornår grænsen overtrædes.

Og til din tilbagevisning af at det er direkte misvisende at kalde det anerkendende og inkluderende undervisning, burde overstående kommentarer på dine påstande kunne udgøre svaret på.

Og slutteligt er det meget vigtigt at du husker at forløbet var FRIVILLIGT. Her var altså på ingen måde tale om tvang, og der var ingen sure miner eller nedsættende bemærkninger fra hverken mig eller de andre der gennemførte, mod dem der valgte at springe fra undervejs.

Mit råd til dig - få en større indsigt i nyere videnskabelig læringsteori og pædagogik. Måske en efteruddannelse. For som du kan læse er jeg ikke kun lærer med 10 års undervisningserfaring, men også snarlig kandidat i læringsteori fra Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitet. Så jeg skulle mene at jeg besidder den nødvendige teoretiske viden såvel som praktiske erfaring for at træffe valget om at gennemleve en mini-ramadan.

Hvad jeg hører, det glemmer jeg,
Hvad jeg ser, det husker jeg,
Hvad jeg gør, det lærer jeg

Jeg synes det er et beundringsværdigt undervisningsforløb!

Dear Kasper,
Firstly, let me apologise for writing this response to your contribution in English. Whereas I am in fact entirely Danish, I have for the majority of my adult life lived in London, in the United Kingdom. I moved here when I was 20 and I’m now 32. I just don’t feel able to make a compelling argument in Danish any longer – also my keyboard lacks ae, oe and aa ;-) I hope you’ll forgive this.
Before I make my comment, I note that your response to “malene s” ends a little arrogantly. Your suggestion that Malene may wish to engage in additional education because she doesn’t agree with your point of view does not befit the context in which she has put her comment. Plainly, you are a “scientist” of sorts who has conducted an experiment and posted your findings on a website. Presumably you have done so to inform and to collect input from your peers and the general public at large. Malene has done just that. On that basis, you may wish to consider accepting critique (positive as well as less positive) in a more accepting and open-minded fashion with respect for other people’s point of view. I.e. the fact that I disagree with you might not necessarily indicate that I’m stupid or uneducated, just that we have an honest and entirely subjective difference of opinion.
The reason I decided to give you feedback is because I believe you focus entirely on what your stated intention were in terms of what you’d like the students to learn. But you neglect, perhaps, to consider what you also thought them implicitly. That is, what did the student take away from the experience as opposed to what did you want them to take away. You see it goes entirely without saying that you as the students’ teacher are, and should be a role model. Your angle on any subject you introduce them to will shape their impression of the subject. Shape their beliefs and values if you like.
I’ll give you an example of this “implicit” / between the lines concept. When I went to the basic first years of school in Denmark in the late 1980ties, boys and girls were for some lessons separated according to their gender. Boys were taught woodwork and girls were taught skills in homemaking. Seemingly, we were simply given skills in various vocations, but if you examine the practise in closer detail, then you might find that we were also taught a set of values that by today’s standards would seem rather antiquated and inappropriate. For reference, I am in no way suggesting that your experiment was even remotely similar, just that some exercises give tacit acceptance of practises where perhaps they should not. Yours might be one of those.
I strongly believe that it should be the role of enlightened people to spread the “belief” that religion, just like sexism, and chauvinism, is an antiquated practise that belongs in the dark ages along with witch burning and blood draining for healing purposes – or at least that religion *might* belong in the dark ages.
If you like, you may consider another take on the subject more in line with modern, enlightened thinking. Religion evolved over millennia as a perfect example of Darwinism. It did three things that made religious followers better able to survive and prosper than nonbelievers. 1) It introduced a common set of rules or laws in a population. 2) It instilled a common set of values and goal– that is everybody in the population pulled in the same direction and 3) It allowed for individuals to make sacrifices, even death, for their kinsman and for a perceived higher, almighty entity with all the supposed post-life benefits.
I should mention, that the former is by no means my own theory.
However, some humans in Western Europe and North America in particular, but also in small pockets almost everywhere else in the world evolved and today we understand the universe a little better. Consequently we are able to put superstitions behind us. The fact that a particular religious group is considerable in size, in Denmark or in the world overall, is not a compelling argument to give tacit approval to it’s superstitious rituals and it is entirely possible to teach students about other people’s beliefs without asking them to practise them with the associated consequences mentioned above. After all, if you think back through history at some stage the majority believed, wrongly, that the earth was at the centre of the solar system etc. This hardly made it reasonable to teach in schools after Galileo proved that it was in fact not. Religion of course cannot be disproven so directly, but given the development of our understanding about religion and why it exists, I think the principle much the same.
The teaching of other people’s beliefs could also be done in the enlightened fashion I describe above. I find nothing discriminatory or hateful about that as some might suggest. Indeed, given the endless and enormous, but also increasingly futile, drive by organised religion to enlist new followers, it might be a good idea for enlightened people, countries and education systems to provide a counter-balance. For instance, in teaching your students about Islam, do you teach them about the prevalence in Islam and it’s bona fide expressions towards homosexuality and equality of the sexes? If not, you may be doing your students a disservice and not exposing them to the full picture.
You might be under the impression that something like Ramadan and the fast associated with it is all rather harmless, but scientific studies conducted by, well, scientists (who’s job it is to collect empirical evidence, not satisfy the almighty Allah) suggest that women who fast whilst pregnant are at risk of premature births and of having children with learning disabilities. For that reason, I believe that it should be framed in a more critical context along with anti-semitism and witch burning let's say, or at least that you may not wish to give it your tacit approval and consider it harmless.
There is a tendency for modern educated people to take a far too accepting view of religion and of people who practise it. I’m not suggesting that we should go on an atheist crusade (you see what I did with that sentence), but let’s at least not introduce some of these rituals in an accepting fashion and ask them to try them out.
Lastly, it seems to me from what you describe that your students where more interested in the physiological effects not eating had on them and that they considered the plight of people living in famine. This experiment could have been done to teach them about famine directly or if you like, it could have been done to teach them about the impact of a calorie restricted diet on the plasma insulin levels in the biology class (or whatever….). Both examples outside a religious context.
I suspect that this experiment will not be something that will become more prevalent in classrooms around Denmark as time goes by. There are far better ways to teach kids about Islam and religion in general. As religion further declines and perhaps disappears altogether in western culture in the future we might look back on it and consider it unsavoury that we once asked our kids to experiment with religious practises in school. Who knows.
On a personal note, I’ve always found it perplexing, that most religions purport to be the ultimate “good”, yet if you examine human history there is nothing more destructive, nothing that has caused more pain and suffering than religion and it’s expressions. In that, is the irony, that religion is perhaps the greatest evil of all time - despite its followers facile attempts to distinguish religious idea and expression.
For reference, I live in London in a very (very) multicultural society. My wife is from Africa and my business partner of 7 years is a Muslim from Lebanon. At my wedding recently, we had guests who originally came from more than 20 different countries. Some Muslim, some Jewish, some Christians (and some not ;-)) We are the very essence of an accepting, modern and - in the context of the society we live in - well integrated family. So are our friends. I mention this because I don't want you to get the impression that I’m some sort of white xenophobe. I really just believe that the setting and the framing for your experiment is incompatible with modern and future culture and thinking.
Don't hate me for it ;-)

Kære Malene,

Jeg beklager min lidt hårde og arrogante indledning og afslutning. Men jeg blev irriteret over det lidt ensidige fokus. Min projekt var i lige så høj grad et didaktisk/pædaogisk projekt som en særskilt Islam projekt. Det havde jeg håbet man kunne læse ud af min artikel. Det gør jo ikke noget at det arbejde man laver i det ene fag, rækker ind over et andet fags indholdsbestemmelser. Derfor blev jeg ærgerlig over dit forsøg på at gøre det til en debat om Kristendom og Islam. Men jeg beklager tonen.

Mvh

Kasper Kjeldgaard Stoltz

Hej Kasper..og andre

Jeg var/er på ingen måde ude på at trække dit indlæg op til noget, der handlede om kristendom vs. islam.

Tvært i mod - var/er jeg blot af den opfattelse, at man af respekt for den enkelte religion - særligt elevernes egne (hvor u-fuld-end den måtte være, i skolealderen) og religionen som helhed - ikke begynder at øve, praktisere, eller inddrager kroppen.

Mit indlæg var reelt en anke mod det.

SÅ jeg prøver lige igen - og måske er jeg bare helt afmarcheret...

Jeg forstår udemærket at kropslige erfaringer giver en anden form for indsigt og forståelse af religion - og at man kan lære at læse ved at hoppe bogstaver.....

Jeg mente/mener bare at dit eksempel, overskrider de faglige grænser for faget KRISTENDOM.

Det er ikke "rimeligt" at lære børn at "flirte" med religion på den måde. At bruge sin krop til at være undersøgende...

- Risikerer vi så ikke at lærere dem at jagte "åbenbaringer"??? Eller set fra et religiøst perspektiv, at udvande de "riter" religionen har - og blot gøre dem til genstand for feltarbejde?

Jeg ved ikke om det blev mere klart denne gang.
Grunden til jeg for i blækhuset første gang - handlede altså ikke om den ene religion mod den anden... MEN netop "brugen af kroppen til at lære med" i faget kristendomskundskab.

- Malene

Her mangler lige:

Eller set fra et religiøst perspektiv, at udvande de "riter" religionen har - og blot gøre dem til genstand for feltarbejde? - Således at de "følelser" religøse praktiserende har - netop KUN kommer til handle om, hvad man som feltarbejder har "mærket" på sin krop.

Helt grundlæggende synes jeg faget handler om at lære RESPEKT, for religionen og for vores medmennesker. Uanset tro.