Religious studies exams

1) How do examiners look at question one on RS exams?
2) Give two examples of question two requirements.
3) What do you need to know for question three?
4) What is the blogger's viewpoint on question four? Give examples.
5) "Why do we have to bother with RS? These questions are too much effort!" Discuss this statement and give a personal viewpoint. You must refer to Susaga in your answer.

1) They check it's correct, and move on.
2) It must be correct, and there must be two things.
3) Question three is worth three marks, so you have to work on it a little more than the previous two. However, three marks is not a lot, so you shouldn't focus on it. Basically, ramble a little, but stay relevent and keep the floodgates back a bit.
4) The blogger's viewpoint on question four is generally mundane. The OMGWGD division (oh my god we're gonna die) is generally panicked over the question, due to previous struggles with it. This fraction considers that, being worth six marks, this is an extremely difficult question.
However, the BIO division (bring it on) considers it a fairly simple task should you know how to do it. The method is simple: you have to refer to multiple varying views in the religion you're studying, and merely point out that they're different views. Don't psychoanalyze religion, as you won't get any marks. All you need is two paragraphs, at an appropriate length of the paragraph in question three.
5) The statement claiming RS exams being pointless is one that baffles many people, beyond simply Susaga. The views are fairly consistent when it comes to this question, beyond the simple struggle to actually structure well enough to secure twelve marks.
RS is a topic that helps our understanding of the cultures in the world, and an absence of such can make us really closed minded. Most people really dislike people being closed minded, but show themselves as hypocrites. They need RS to expand their point of view, or at least to help with their use of devils ante to back up whatever arguments they use against people.
The question structure, however, is less appreciated, being fairly complex and needing quick and varied levels of response. The use of multiple viewpoints does, however, fulfill the complete understanding needed in the subject.
I, personally, do not like RS, but understand the need for the exams. While they are my most difficult exams to do, I should hope that I can do them well with a good understanding of what is needed. I understand the basic format of the questions, and can spoof answers to a moderate degree of accuracy (aside from the spoofing) so I should do well. However, I am slightly panicked that my ending saying has now, self hurtingly, become advice for myself.

Don't panic.

The only issue with religion

If anyone ends up reading this (humerous concept, I know), I'm going to get endless streams of uneducated and illogical people arguing needless points. To dodge any direct religious disagreement, I am going to use Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings as holy books.

Here's the main issue with religion: They're not that different. Both books are based on the struggle against evil and saying you can overcome these obstacles if you stick with your friends. The meanings are practically the same, but people will leap right over the meaning when trying to argue.

Smeagle died in a volcano because he couldn't let go, and Hermione took forever to make friends because she was so stuck up. If people want to argue supremacy of one of these series, they will ignore this and only pick whatever supports their side.

Thing is, these books are there for the same reason, to keep you entertained. They don't go in the same way of doing it, but if you go through one of the books with a pen and a highlighter to make it comply entirely with the other book, you've just lost a great element of their fictional universe.

It seriously doesn't matter what you call it: Gandalf or Dumblebore, Sauron or Voldemort, Ringwraiths or Dementors, Mary and Pippin or Fred and George; they're not that different and they still do what they were meant to.

Then you have another issue: people following exactly what the books say, because it's said in one specific section, and it agrees with your philosophy.

People could say that Harry Potter is telling everyone to run into other peoples exams with fireworks, destroying signs, terrifying the teachers you don't like and then flee as fast as you can to start your own business. Sure, it's a little unorthodox, and it goes against the majority of rules pretty much everyone says, even the book it's written in, but it happened in the book and nobody batted an eyelid, so it must be ok!

That book has someone make a white stag which pulsates using only a stick. If you can do that, then go ahead and disrupt education all you like.

Then there's the immense debate and practical wars over minute details. There's some cases of people writing into JK Rowling with death threats and burning books because of Harry getting together with Ginny in book 6 while they personally ship Harry Hermione. That's going a bit far. A single relationship not happening shouldn't ruin your experiance of an amazing book which sparked your interest in the shipping in the first place. You may need to just loosen up and accept you're not completely correct about everything under the sun.

Now, I'm perfectly aware everyone will read this and think "REDICULOUS! (boggart defeated) How smart can this person be? Would people honestly go to war over Harry Potter?"

It is rediculous to go to war over a book, yes. But, for some reason, it's the perfect reason to take your own life and millions of others.