Home Politics & Debate

Faith schools to be allowed to preach against homosexuality

Sex education is to be made compulsory in all state schools in England but faith schools will also be free to preach against sex outside marriage and homosexuality, under government proposals.

The plans to make personal, social and health education (PSHE) compulsory from the age of five, published yesterday, include a clause allowing schools to apply their "values" to the lessons and another allowing parents to opt their children out on religious grounds.

It means that all state secondaries in England - including faith schools - will for the first time have to teach a core curriculum about sex and contraception in the context of teenagers' relationships, but teachers in religious schools will also be free to tell them that sex outside marriage, homosexuality or using contraception are wrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/apr/28/sex-education-faith-state-schools

Yet another reason why faith schools are an extremely dangerous and damaging concept, and one that should be eradicated from the land as soon as possible.

Arguably the single most repulsive and destructive legacy of Tony Blair. :mad:
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I saw this the other day, it's not very good really.

    Nothing wrong with saying that sex outside marriage is wrong, it's a view that I share to an extent, but the homophobia is what gets me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've never been sure why it was deemed acceptable to have public money fund delusional, bigoted institutions.

    Of course introducing a mandatory Critical Thinking and Source Evaluation lessons to the national curriculum would soon help clear up kids' susceptibility to such egregious nonsense.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    'Faith schools' as they call themselves, breed ignorance, hatred and intolerance. May aswell start up the Hitler Youth again.

    Most of the Islamic terrorists who have planned to attack Britain, have been British born... brainwashing schools like these will not improve our situation.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    Kermit wrote: »
    Nothing wrong with saying that sex outside marriage is wrong

    Apart from the fact that sex outside marriage isn't 'wrong'.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not fire and brimstone burning in hell wrong, that's just ridiculous, but I honestly believe that people should be taught the value of sex as an extension of a loving relationship rather than as cheap entertainment on a wet Wednesday.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not fire and brimstone burning in hell wrong, that's just ridiculous, but I honestly believe that people should be taught the value of sex as an extension of a loving relationship rather than as cheap entertainment on a wet Wednesday.

    In my view that should be qualified - no one has the right to impose how someone should feel about sexual relations. In terms of sentiments, I agree - I'm with John Peel, I couldn't enjoy sex with someone I didn't at least have some level of empathic attachment to.

    What you shouldn't do is drill it into kids heads that there is only one possible way to experience or interpret feelings and experiences termed 'sexual' - just as much as you shouldn't fill their heads with the idea that you need to fuck as much, as often and in as many different pornographic archetypical positions as possible.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm in favour. They are now required to teach it - wether condoms, sex outside marriage or homosexuality - and this makes me very, very, very happy.

    They are also allowed to teach that their religion consider these any or all if these things to be wrong. I am happy about that - In fact I think all schools should be required to teach how the major religions deal with them - and also in which countries you'll face impriosonment, and in which the death penalty.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In my view that should be qualified - no one has the right to impose how someone should feel about sexual relations.

    I don't define a loving relationship as marriage or civil partnership and I couldn't give two hoots what gender the couple are. I don't think that imposition- fire and brimstone damnation- is right either.

    However IMHO where we're going wrong in this country is according equal merit between a succession of one-night stands and sex in a stable loving relationship. I don't think that the are equally valid.

    Sure, it's someone's choice to sleep around if they want, but I don't think we should sit there promoting promiscuity when the cost- socially and financially- is enormous. People need to be empowered enough to say no and to be persuaded that sleeping around doesn't make them more desirable or more attractive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm of the opinion that what faith schools don't teach is far more dangerous than what they do. Teenagers don't listen to the moralizing of adults, they make their own judgement based on the information they are given, which is why it's more important to make faith schools give them accurate and comprehensive sex education, than stop them preaching bigotry. It's not a coincidence that religions are always the ones in favour of restricting information, rather than letting people have all the facts to make their own judgement.

    However, preaching that homosexuality is wrong when you're supposed to be caring for kids, a significant number of which will be homosexual, is bullying. There's no other word for it, and there is absolutely no difference between that and running a school with a minority of black students, and preaching that being black is wrong. Bullying, plain and simple.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Sure, it's someone's choice to sleep around if they want, but I don't think we should sit there promoting promiscuity when the cost- socially and financially- is enormous. People need to be empowered enough to say no and to be persuaded that sleeping around doesn't make them more desirable or more attractive.

    The evidence from Holland is that kids come to that conclusion themselves with proper guided discussion about relationships, not by moralizing people telling them what's right and wrong. They lose their virginity later as a result, they're more likely to do it in a stable relationship, and they're more likely to use contraception, end therefore less likely to end up with STDs and unwanted pregnancy. Compare that to America, where they try to simply teach children that one thing is right and one is wrong, and the exact opposite is true.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think we're saying the same thing, really.

    Moralising doesn't work but, then again, we don't really have that in this country. What we have are people too scared to be seen as rabid right-wingers accepting 13-year-olds screwing anything that moves.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What I think we have in this country is a bunch of people who think that even talking about sex to kids will encourage them to have it, despite every shred of evidence suggesting that the opposite is true. I think it shows up their own insecurities about the subject more than anything, tbh. So we end up with professionals having to fight tooth and claw for every tiny bit of sex education, and then we're surprised when it turns out not to be enough. And we end up with an increasingly sexualized society through things like the media, but a population who are unequipped to deal with it socially.

    Obviously, the other main factor is social mobility, ambition and self-esteem, which are all sadly lacking in the UK in comparison to most of our neighbours. If kids have no ambitions, then getting pregnant isn't a deterrant. But that's a more complex problem to address, and we shouldn't let that get in the way of proper sex education, with no exceptions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is a worrying development. In my opinion faith school are a bad idea in general because in my opinion it encourages racial segregation in (a supposedly multi cultural) Britain. The fact that they can now teach a homophobic curriculum furthers my belief that this type of school will do more harm than good as it will contribute to increased bigotry and racial tension.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I toyed with making another thread specifically for this, but as it kind of fits in here - and as I don't really have too much to say about it atm - I thought I'd put it here.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8033319.stm

    Anyone spot a common theme?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There's a reassuring number of right-wing Americans on that list IMHO.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I toyed with making another thread specifically for this, but as it kind of fits in here - and as I don't really have too much to say about it atm - I thought I'd put it here.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8033319.stm

    Anyone spot a common theme?
    Not sure if it's a common theme or giving conflicting messages (do we allow hatred-speech or not in this country?).

    I don't have any problems with the existence of the list, however.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Not sure if it's a common theme or giving conflicting messages (do we allow hatred-speech or not in this country?).

    I don't have any problems with the existence of the list, however.

    The common theme I was alluding to was the fact that all but one or two of the people on the list are religious figures - priests, preachers, evangelicals etc.

    I don't have a problem with the existence of the list, either.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh I see. Well I'm certainly not surprised that religious fundies are prominent in any such list. Though in the name of fairness there are plenty of secular undesirables too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Though in the name of fairness there are plenty of secular undesirables too.

    For sure, but you're not really saying anything - there are plenty of men with moustaches who are odious. I think it speaks volumes that when you're compiling a list of the top 20 undesirables, that 18 or 19 of them are religious figures.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    haha i love how micheal savage made it on there! Not exactly a dangerous person, but definitely a small man.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What the fucking fuck? I've just looked through this list of 22 people that Die Jackboot has released of people who are banned from coming to the UK. Jacqui Five-Bellies is obviously trying to look tough in front of the right-wing media - shame this doesn't work. Most of these people don't even want to come to this shithole of a country, for starters. Two of them are currently in jail, for fuck's sake!

    Some guy called Michael Savage is on the list. Who? Well, he's a radio talk show host who calls himself an "independent-minded individualist" and that he "fits no stereotype.". He doesn't like big government, homosexuality, liberalism - but he is in favour of animal rights and environmentalism. Definitely doesn't sound like the right-wing fruitcake some elements of the press are making him out to be. But thanks to Die Jackboot, a man I previously knew nothing about, I know a lot more about. This banning lark really doesn't work, you know.

    Apparently, he has some "objectionable" views which he expresses on his radio programme - a programme which will now receive many thousands more listeners from the UK who have just discovered he exists, and who can decide for themselves what to think about him. Seems fine to me - I'd rather that than have a grade A cunt like Jacqui Smith telling me what to think. I find Jacqui Smith and New Labour "objectionable" and a threat to our way of life, but I haven't called for them to be banned from travelling to other countries. Looks like Savage is guilty of nothing more than thought crimes against political correctness to me.

    The man has expressed some views which make him sound like a bit of a twat. But if we're going to ban people from this country on the grounds they are a twat, then half the Labour Party will face deportation. Jeremy Kyle will be forced to leave the country, as will Piers Morgan. Once you start banning people on the grounds they have certain thoughts, you're on a very dangerous slope.

    UPDATE: Michael Savage has decided to sue the Government over this. He says that their decision "says more about them than it says about me" whilst calling Jacqui Smith a "lunatic" and a "witch". Government obviously doesn't want someone that tells the truth about them here, do they?
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    Barring non citizens from entering the country is quite different than deporting or censoring British citizens imo.

    This Savage guy certainly isn't as 'dangerous' as others on the list but he is offensive and he does spout hateful views. He's not a citizen so I couldn't honestly give a fuck.

    This isn't that big a deal in my opinion. My views would change if they started booting out or censoring British citizens.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Barring non citizens from entering the country is quite different than deporting or censoring British citizens imo.

    This Savage guy certainly isn't as 'dangerous' as others on the list but he is offensive and he does spout hateful views. He's not a citizen so I couldn't honestly give a fuck.

    This isn't that big a deal in my opinion. My views would change if they started booting out or censoring British citizens.

    Your differentiation is confusing. If those claiming authority deem someone unwelcome, why is their physical location important to you ?
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    Your differentiation is confusing. If those claiming authority deem someone unwelcome, why is their physical location important to you ?

    We have enough undesirables that we have to deal with at home. I have no problem with legal immigrants and assylum seekers but if you wanting to come to this country to spout hateful crap you can get fucked imo.

    I'd love to deal with sex offenders for example by shipping them off somewhere else. Unfortunately that'll mean just passing the problem to somebody else. They're already here and as our problem we have to deal with them.
    Those that want to visit from somewhere else NO THANKS. Don't want you, don't need you.

    I don't like banning them because it does wonders for their profile but apart from that I couldn't give a fuck.
    Weekender Offender 
Sign In or Register to comment.