This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← BHA e-bulletin special: Take action today to protect children's SRE

BHA e-bulletin special: Take action today to protect children's SRE - Comments

Luke_B's Avatar Comment 1 by Luke_B

As if we haven't got enough problems in this country already with kids getting pregnant and now the religious want to hi-jack sex ed? Madness.
What are they going to do? Catholics schools not telling kids about condoms? Stating that homosexual sex is wrong? How did we let the religious control so many of our schools? Bloody Blair and his faith schools. Aaarrgghhh.
Rant over. Sorry.

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:43:00 UTC | #442322

ColdFusionLazarus's Avatar Comment 2 by ColdFusionLazarus

would permit state-funded “faith schools” to teach PSHE, which includes Sex and Relationships Education (SRE), “in a way that reflects the school’s religious character”

Shitting hell! That's the door opened fairly wide for all manner of foul things to be taught.

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:17:00 UTC | #442343

Humanist Wikitopian's Avatar Comment 3 by Humanist Wikitopian

Given that the disgraceful and abysmal Secretary of State, Ed "Bollocks" Balls, IS my local MP and the one tabling this dreadful Government amendment, is there really any point in me trying to urge him to change his mind?

I suppose that my only saving grace is that this constituency is scheduled to disappear before the next election under the latest changes proposed by the Boundary Commission, and is due to merge with a neighbouring one (much to the distaste of the Labour Party).

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:25:00 UTC | #442346

digibud's Avatar Comment 4 by digibud

The problem isn't the amendment. It sounds like the amendment makes sense. How can you have a faith based school that doesn't teach bigotry and homophobia? The problem is funding religious teachings with public funds. Religions are rife with discriminatory, bigoted stupidity. If you gut that then what is left simply won't be acceptable to most religious people. No...the problem isn't any amendment, it's the over-all problem of allowing a government to support religious instruction that should be targeted. Once you say "you can teach from a Christian or Muslim or Satanic viewpoint" then you have to accept the fact that the instruction is going to be stupid-based.

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:39:00 UTC | #442354

JackR's Avatar Comment 5 by JackR

Email sent, together with an additional paragraph objecting to "faith schools" on principle. I recommend anyone supporting this does likewise. Faith schools should be banned. They have no place in an allegedly secular society such as the UK. They are an affront.

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:45:00 UTC | #442370

Veronique's Avatar Comment 6 by Veronique

Done and like Jack, added my bit about faith schools in general.

I am more and more despairing of any general mental health rising to the fore in the country. Cameron wants more faith schools and wants to use tax payers' money to make them free.


Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:00:00 UTC | #442377

Kmita's Avatar Comment 7 by Kmita

The amendment to the Bill, tabled by the Secretary of State Ed Balls, would permit state-funded “faith schools” to teach PSHE, which includes Sex and Relationships Education (SRE), “in a way that reflects the school’s religious character”

You mean they'll be able to legally molest the children now?

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:28:00 UTC | #442421

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 8 by Ivan The Not So Bad

Here is a good write up of the story:

You know, I despair.

What is it about religion that makes politicians go totally mental and just give clerics what they want? And Ed Balls of all people. If a non-believer with a previously very creditable record on equality issues can do something so utterly spineless one wonders what hope there is.

And the Conservative Party? Are they rushing to condemn this? No. Silence. Well, what a shock. And I'll bet my Kensington flat on the way they'll vote on this ghastly amendment.

At least the Liberal Democrats show at least some sign of standing up to a bunch of Catholics who seem to think that a decades long history of mass international child rape followed by a disgusting, bare-faced cover up gives them the continuing right to mentally abuse LGBT children in the classroom whilst teaching straight kids that using condoms is almost as evil as their gay classmates.

Having said that, it's not as if even the Lib Dems propose to get rid of these loopy-loo so-called faith schools either.

Finally, just what kind of adult thinks that their right to preach hate and dogma superceeds the right of a child to feel safe and valued in school and get a proper education for a real life?

I could fart.

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:17:00 UTC | #442447

DeusExNihilum's Avatar Comment 9 by DeusExNihilum

Sent off my e-mail, along with a small paragraph on faith schools and a LONG paragraph extra on why this amendment would do nothing but damage.

You know, I wish there was a political party that took a hard-line stance on this, but politics being as fickle as it is, No such party would ever get in power (or even have a chance) as too many voters are either neutral or positive about faith-schools.

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:42:00 UTC | #442457

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 10 by Stafford Gordon

I recently joined the BHA; I'll email as well.

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:52:00 UTC | #442461

Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 11 by Carl Sai Baba

Sex education that reflects religious character?

I'll be OK with anything they want to teach, so long as they do it on an airplane built with physics which reflects their religious character.

Sat, 20 Feb 2010 01:49:00 UTC | #442516

PERSON's Avatar Comment 12 by PERSON

"is there really any point in me trying to urge him to change his mind?"
Yes. Many politicians care about being popular more than being consistent. Others are the reverse, and paradoxically can be more popular for it. Tony Benn has characterised the two types as signposts and weathervanes. I'm not familiar with Balls apart from the fact that he co-wrote "Microeconomic Reform in Britain" and worked with Blair, but New Labour tend to be more often of the latter type, it seems to me. OTOH, with a 26.7% majority, he's not exactly going to be worried about being unseated. Still, MPs do use the letters they receive as a barometer of public opinion, so it's always worth paying a visit, whatever party your MP is of. I'd point out that's almost certainly how the amendment came about in the first place. Fundies of all stripes are not so hesitant in writing to their representatives. Even if something is party policy (which this is not), MPs can be persuaded to distance themselves from it.

Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:13:00 UTC | #442593