AIBU to object to these sex education sessions?

[balletgirlmum]

Had a letter from school informing me that the as part of phase children will be getting a some relationships & sex education sessions. Standard type of letter I've had them before.

Except this time the sessions will be delivered by the area Schools Christian worker. Further googling informs me he/she is employed by Scripture Union.

At the very least I feel I should ask the content & viewpoint that will be presented.

AIBU to object to this?

[BertrandRussell]

"There seems to be a lot of foaming at the mouth in this thread"

Really? Is that the new way of saying "there seem to be people who think that we should know what children are being taught about sex and relationships" on this thread. Which ironically, is what Christian groups are usually very keen on....

[RickRoll]

No, it's the old way of referencing people who go off on rants about Bible verses and such like without any evidence.

The OP has been and posted in here but has failed to provide any specifics about the group or educator.

Based on the OP's post history, I'm assuming that the group delivering the sex ed is the one I linked to.

There are plenty of Christian-founded charities that deliver services in a neutral way.

[BertrandRussell]

"No, it's the old way of referencing people who go off on rants about Bible verses and such like without any evidence" like nobody has done on this thread. Why not just post the links you have if you think they are the ones the OP needs, without the offensive comments?

[myotherusernameisbetter]

I haven't noticed anyone foaming either Christians or otherwise...

[BertrandRussell]

I've asked before if there's a name for the sort of silencing by hyperbole so common on Mumsnet. A sort of straw man but not quite.

[RickRoll]

They are the one OP needs, she has confirmed that in her posts.

I just don't particularly see the point of 100+ posts about the generalised horrors of the concept of a Christian sex educator, when we could have confirmed the specific one from the beginning.

[hefzi]

RickRoll thanks for your links - and on one of the pages, it actually says her work is funded by an AIDS charity: I wouldn't imagine they would be on board with notions of sinning and evil

HOWEVER I would argue that whatever sex ed has consisted of (we didn't have it outside of Biology in the late 80s/early 90s) it's doing something wrong in its current format: the UK is teen pregnancy capital of Europe - not really a statistic we'd like to retain, I'd have thought!

[myotherusernameisbetter]

I actually couldn't care less about the links, for me it's not really about whether the advertised programme sounds appropriate and secular. It's about how it's delivered, how questions are dealt with etc which is where having it presented by someone with an possible "agenda" is inappropriate.

It's an argument that will never be won by either side and those within the movement can't see the attempted brainwashing as they think it is all harmless and those without can't be part of the movement (as they have no belief) and therefore will never see where the religious are coming from.

That's not to deny that there is not understanding, tolerance and appreciation from both sides, just that it's unlikely that on an on-line forum, someone is suddenly going to change their viewpoint to the extent that they are going to agree with the other side.

[balletgirlmum]

I have deliberatly been a little vague about specific areas, schools, workers & even which of my two children (who go to school in different areas) becsuse well this is the internet, children are involved & I dont think individual teachers/workers should be named.

A couple of posters have details of organisations linked with SU. (Oasis are linked with them & I've come acriss them before as an ex colleague is involved with Stop the Trafik).

However I do have reservations after following some of the links & reading lesson plans. I am a Christian myself & my own private views are probably in line with some of these Christian organisations. But both my children are atheists & as long as they learn about self respect & respect for future partners wishes then I don't think my views should be imposed on them.

[hefzi]

(oops, sorry - "his": and he's a Mumsnet blogger)

[RickRoll]

It seems to me unreasonable to start stirring things up without doing some basic research first. The educator has his lesson plans online, a youtube channel, blog, twitter account, just going in and saying 'it's Christian, so it must be biased and intolerant' when there is plenty of evidence to review BEFORE doing that is not fair.

[myotherusernameisbetter]

There is a big difference between reading lesson plans and blogs etc to them actually dealing with a class full of teenagers with questions. Whether the specific individual is biased or not is also not the issue. The issue is more about whether it is appropriate for a religious individual belonging to a religious organsiations of any denomination to be leading lessons on relationships and sex within a school. Especially where they are employed by said organisation and not the school. What qualifies them to teach it?

[RickRoll]

You cannot bar religious individuals from working in sex education any more than any other job.

There clearly is a broad Christian (or other religious) purpose in preventing harmful relationships, STDs and other issues.

Christian charities can choose to operate within a secular context, without undermining the broader social consensus about pre-marital sex, homosexuality and abortion, and still pursue Christian ends (the OP mentioned Matthew 25, the parable of the sheep & the goats, "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was ill and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.") to a secular purpose.

E.g., this is a Jersey-based sex ed charity www.love-matters.co.uk/Love_Matters/Our_Values.html whose mission statement states that they are Christian but do not impose this on others, and are inclusive.

Religion does not require you to be anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc.

[myotherusernameisbetter]

You cannot bar religious individuals from working in sex education any more than any other job. True, but if they are "employed" by the school then they need to work within the proper parameters and are accountable to their employer. You don't need to invite them in to give their views to school children.

There clearly is a broad Christian (or other religious) purpose in preventing harmful relationships, STDs and other issues. So no secular individuals or organisations have the same viewpoint? Maybe if Christianity and other religions were a bit more vigorous at preventing their representatives from raping and abusing children I'd give this a bit more credence.

If people are going to make a point of saying they are inclusive then why do they feel the need to also say they are a christian?

I'm pleased that you don't need to be anti gay but I think you might be struggling a bit on the anti abortion stance though it does seem to have become less of a stance recently. However, there is no need to be a christian to be any of those things either. To be balanced though, you don't need to be a christian to be anti gay etc either.

[RickRoll]

" True, but if they are "employed" by the school then they need to work within the proper parameters and are accountable to their employer."

I am not sure if they are employed by the schools. They are charities, who are presumably providing their services free of charge. If they are providing a good service, at no cost to the education service, then it makes sense to use them as professionals going round schools, rather than get the R.S. teacher who does an awkward lesson once a year, or for the council to set up its own service.

"So no secular individuals or organisations have the same viewpoint?"

Viewpoints don't count for much, what is needed is money and staff.

The Christians have the cash to provide large numbers of youth workers all over the country. They also attract people wanting to do the job. You can't just replace them with imaginary secular friends.

[yankeecandle4]

I am against religious organisations offering anything to schools. If they don't present an agenda there and then it doesn't mean that they don't have one.

My ds's school received "stress management" classes in school and was presented with a business type card which encouraged them to visit them at their base. I was very dubious about this and when I checked out their site they are a branch of an evangelical organization that targets teens. I felt rather sick about this.

[SirBoobAlot]

The material in theory may be fine, but the fact it is being delivered by someone actively employed by a religious organization (whatever that religion is) means the motives in the delivery may well not be. I'm in my mid twenties, and remember an openly Catholic RE teacher managing to get photos of aborted fetuses in to several lessons, whilst 'discussing' that abortion was legal but you were awful to have one. Anyone incapable of separating their personal beliefs and the unbiased education of young people shouldn't be giving classes or workshops.

[Withgraceinmyheart]

I wondered if it might be that guy, he's well known in the field.

FWIW he's mostly famous for kicking up the backsides of churches who arent talking properly about sexuality.

Op, I know you probably won't believe me because I'm christian so obviously biased, but if it is him, you've honestly got nothing to worry about.

[myotherusernameisbetter]

RickRoll - the point I was making was that if people are employed by the school then they are accountable - I'm aware that these people are working for free - the point is that they are therefore not accountable. And i'm sorry, but there is no such thing as a free lunch. They obviously have a recruitment agenda as that is how they survive.

And why would the teachers do an embarrassing once a year job? a, it wouldn't be once a year, these topics are discussed as part of the curriculum on a regular basis and each teacher will have multiple classes and why would not being from a christian organisation make them embarrassed about discussing sex with teenagers? I'm an atheist and I have no problem with it.

The Christians have the cash to provide large numbers of youth workers all over the country. Yes but why are they doing it? and also, my children have attended youth organisations with no Christian input for years run by people who aren't christians. Churches don't have a monopoly on people from the community willing to give up their time and energy for their communities.

I hate to break it you but it can absolutely be proved that secular people exist.

[Withgraceinmyheart]

myother

Some Christians are also nice people, who want to make the world a better place. Yes sometimes Christian organisations have agendas, but so do some secular ones.

[BertrandRussell]

"Some Christians are also nice people, who want to make the world a better place. Yes sometimes Christian organisations have agendas, but so do some secular ones."

Of course they are. But I am a bit puzzled by the idea that all these committed Christians are saying things that go against their beliefs in their work in sex education. Why would they do that? And if the charities concerned do not promote a pro Christian view, why are they declaring their faith? What are they doing it for?

[myotherusernameisbetter]

I was going to type a response but bertrand has covered all the points I would have made better than me already. :)

I have friends who are christians, I don't hate them, we don't talk about their beliefs though as we agree to disagree, they will talk about things that they are doing with church as it's a big part of their life. I accept that part of them as I do any other. I just happen to think they are deluded and wrong and I am sure they feel the same way about me.

You don't have to be a christian to be nice, moral or a good citizen. You can also be a christian and be all these things. However offering this particular "free" service is suspicious and I don't think it is without agenda.

[irretating]

SO, the official material might come across as perfectly acceptable but the actual lesson may end up being skewed depending on what happens in the class.

Doesn't happen, there are always teachers present during presentations and educators who abuse the trust of the school to preach or promote an agenda will not be invited back to the school and risk being barred from all other schools in the area as word gets around.

[myotherusernameisbetter]

and I come back to the point, if there is a teacher present then they should be taking the lesson - what are these people being invited for?

[irretating]

Because many teachers would rather die then stand in front of a room full of teenagers and say words like pre-cum.