As some one that teaches Religious Education and Religious Studies I must object to a few of the views expressed in an article that I otherwise agree with.
Anyone who is involved in the teaching of religions will scoff at the notion that the role of RE/RS is to teach any religion as 'true', rather the point is both to learn about religions and learn from them by constructing a critical engagement of the pupils with some aspects of the religious tradtion that they are looking at. This is not my opinion but is what is laid out in all RE/RS syllabuses.
It seems an arrogant statement to say that all religions and all followers of religion are not concerned with love or truth, rather they seek to be told what to do! This is a gross distortion of what may people will have experienced of religion. How would you feel if some one argued that Communism is not about liberation but about the transmitting of holy texts via the Party leaders/clergy? You wouldn't deny that this can be the case but it is not the whole case!
RE/RS is possibly the one subject on the syllabus where there is no right or wrong answers but an emphasis on the development of critical reason and of opinion. It is also a chance to think about and debate issues that would not crop up in any other subject. It would be odd if people who see themselves as progressive would line up with those reactionaries who see RE/RS as worthless as its not about preparing the next generation of workers for deadend jobs. This socialist, atheist teacher union activist for one would oppose you.