Aibu in being shocked at this school newsletter?

[whensitmyturn]

Aibu in being pretty appalled at this school news letter or am i being naive?

Children attend a catholic primary school- dh is Catholic I am not. Never had an issue with the school, children are in the last couple of years there.

Had a newsletter home tonight saying that a new ‘children and social work act of 2017’ has been passed and that parents will no longer be able to remove their children for PSHE lessons but that the government are still deciding what content the lessons should have. There is a public questionnaire on gov.uk to write your ideas.

The newsletter then goes on to say that we need to ensure that things that are age suited to children get suggested and I quote ‘to avoid respect for alternative lifestyles being allowed to undermine Christian principles of marriage and family life’.

It then goes on to link ‘coalition for marriage’ for help with us filling in this questionnaire.

Coalition 4 marriage is a group that promotes a traditional family set up and states that children should be taught that ‘marriage between a man and a woman as the gold standard of adult relationships’ Also that ‘they believe there is no age-appropriate way to teach primary school children about same sex marriages or transgenderism’. In blinding hypocrisy it then goes on to say ‘we should be teaching children broad values of tolerance and respect’.

!? I thought that in this day and age in the uk even if you attend a faith school inclusivity was seen as important/ the norm.
Would you be angry at this or just see it as an unavoidable downside of attending a catholic school?

"I see you have heard of a few biblical stories."

More than a few although I'm sure you thought little patronising comments would hurt my arguement - somehow. As a staunch anti-theist I'm reasonably well read n the bible. It's fucking terrifying but a good read.

Do you think human sexuality is a complex, nuanced matter?

No. It's "sucking dicks and licking clits" (to quote an Aussie comic) and I don't care what you're doing. It can be monogamous or an orgy. If everyone involved is consenting and able to consent then I'm all for it and don't think any less of you. I certainly don't think you deserve to be stoned to death for having homosexual sex.

Do you think sexual relationships are complex and nuanced?

No. Lust is fairly primal and simple.

Do you think intimate relationships of any kind are complex and nuanced?

Not on the whole. Want to spend your life with someone, get married, or not. Want to end a marriage? Get divorced.

What is your opinion on Grimm's Fairy Tales?

Quite a good read but anyone who wanted to use it as a guide for morality and how to live their lives should be locked up as a danger to society?

Do you think children of 6 or 7 should study the origins of the Whigs and Tories in detail?

No. It's boring and irrelevant. Just like religion.

Do you think morality is complex and nuanced? I get the feeling you don't.

I don't. Interesting thought experiments like the Trolley Problem have an easy answer for me.

I occasionally run into a moral dilemma like when abortion is okay (I mean the number of weeks) but I turn to science for answers.

I read this as 'respect others but don't let them undermine what we've taught you is "right"'.

I have every reason to believe you actually thought this.""

Good. I don't tell lies.

However, intolerance to religion ..makes you a Bolshevik of sorts.

I don't know much about communism, Lenin or politics in general so it wouldn't be fair to answer.

I don't want to eliminate religious people. I want to eliminate religion and I want to eliminate religion having any effect on society. Anti-vaxers are kind of eliminating themselves, aren't they?

Elimination is often best done through education and education relies on facts.

"but I think we would find a lot of items in the 3-8 range that matched."

I would have a lot of = places. I think sexism, racism, homophobia etc are equally terrible, for example.

To my mind, you live by the teachings of your evil book and are thereby an evil person or you are a good person, you ignore your book but are a bad christian [insert other religion here]. You cannot be a good christian and a good person. It's one or the other.

A basic example (as I have read a few bible stories)

Do you stone a rape victim to death for not marrying their rapist? Yes makes you a good christian who lives by the bible. No makes you a good person who ignores explicit biblical instruction.

The same goes with divine creation vs science and scientific fact. It's one or the other.

Op just teach your kids some women marry women , some men marry men and that’s fine, people are free. Tell them the school has some old fashioned views that they just need to sit through. Same with transgender, simply say some people feel they are in wrong body. If you don’t know anyone transgender show them jazz Jennings online. Tell them again to just keep quiet at school

And yet Jesus says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

As I've mentioned previously, Christians have the new testament and the old testament. A lot of the NT stuff supersedes the IT.

But the PP was concerned about homophobic or other bigoted views being taught as fact to any kids. She can only do the above with hers, but she will have to live in a society shaped by other kids being taught intolerant beliefs as fact, funded by the taxpayer.

Well,that's just it, isn't it? If you send them into a school that goes against what you believe in,you have to be prepared that there will be others out there that do not agree with your way of life.
The world is made up of lots of different people. They hold theirs, I hold mine. Live and let live.

Dreamy, I'm not sure I believe that you would be ok with teachers teaching any kids hatred as facts.

Extreme example but if your kids came home from school and said Mr So-and-So said that black people and Jews are inferior? Would you just say "oh well, some people think that. Live and let live" or would you be outraged and go to the school to complain?

For the record, some posters have said religious schools don't teach their doctrines as fact and say it in a "this is what some people believe" then give and alternative, but don't say which is "right" and I'm fine with that.

But I really can't believe that you think it's ok for any children to be taught intolerant views as facts.

Surely a school's job should be to teach children about all views then leave it up to them to decide what they believe.

“Tell them again to just keep quiet at school”

Seriously?

Yes Bertrand because I send mine to school to learn academic stuff, not to argue with teachers. You want to take something up with a teacher you do it yourself. Not make a 10yo argue.

Ah. We obviously have very different ideas about education. Me? I think a school where a child has to keep quiet about holding perfectly mainstream socially tolerant views is a school that should not exist.

Agree with looloonow and twofishfingers.

But telling a child to keep quiet about their (or more realistically their parents’) views is giving them the impression that their views are not ‘mainstream’ or equal to the school ones. Otherwise why would it not be permissible to talk about them, respectfully?

Dreamy, I'm not sure I believe that you would be ok with teachers teaching any kids hatred as facts

I might find them hateful views, but the thing is why would I send them into a school that goes against everything I believe in? It is their beliefs, and they're entitled to them.
If you have to send them there and have no choice, you tell your children that the school's religion teaches that way,but there are other ways out there. Educate your kids as well, it's not just a teacher's job.

But telling a child to keep quiet about their (or more realistically their parents’) views is giving them the impression that their views are not ‘mainstream’ or equal to the school ones. Otherwise why would it not be permissible to talk about them, respectfully?

For goodness sake, no it isn't. If you're in a religious school, it stands to reason they're going to promote their religious beliefs over others.
It really, really isn't hard to grasp (well,you'd think so.) Why would you want a young child to argue the toss with teachers anyway?
They're perfectly capable of knowing there's other ways of thinking if you bring them up to be tolerant of others ways yourself. They can internally roll their eyes and think "but I know different, there are other ways out there."

nextdaydelivery
Born in the depths of hell itself, tampons are an evil sex toy, a phallic device designed to arouse menstruating women and lure them into all manner of sin. Tampons were created by Satan for pleasure, and young women are succumbing to the Devil without even realizing it."

What an awesome quote next day, im now looking at my now sadly redundant ( menopause 😩) tampons and contemplating one last hoorah with satan.... Will remove my child immediately from her school just in case this person takes her next PSHE lesson 😂😂

If you're in a religious school, it stands to reason they're going to promote their religious beliefs over others.

Agreed. I didn’t suggest otherwise.

Promoting them to the total exclusion of others is pretty dubious, however that’s totally irrelevant to the point I was making.

Why would you want a young child to argue the toss with teachers anyway?

Why would you bring a child up to think there is no middle ground between ‘arguing the toss’ and ‘keeping quiet about your beliefs at school’?

It explains a bit about the lack of nuance and extreme binary nature of your arguments on this thread, on reflection. So maybe you would.

It is their beliefs, and they're entitled to them.

Yes. The question is how much, and how exclusively, they are entitled to promote them while using taxpayers’ money to do so.

As in the OP. She isn’t objecting to them promoting the Catholic idea of religious marriage. She is objecting to them trying to get out of also teaching about alternative forms of marriage, including same sex marriage.

I don't think children should argue the toss with teachers either. That's why I don't think they should be in state funded schools where same sex marriage, for example, is not accepted.

If religious schools received no state funding and parents could reject places at them on the grounds that they don't want their children at a religious school, that would be fine. But it is awful that state funding is used to promote homophobia and disgusting that parents are forced to send their children to schools doing so. For all the talk about parental choice, in practice it doesn't exist.

Frankly if faith schools taught universal love and respect and kittens for all it would still be wrong that people of faith have access to a third more state funded schools than people without a faith.

I'm more than a little worried about the denial of peoples' lived experience happening here, and the suggestions that something either hasn't happened at all, hasn't happened recently or - if pushed - that it might have happened, but isn't sanctioned by the church

Unacceptable behaviours may be blamed on the individual rather than the institution, but doesn't that raise questions around the action which may or may not follow when concerns arise?

I hesitate to provide examples, firstly as it would be hard to select a few from the many and also because the apologists would no doubt react as described. Sadly, however, I've seen too many disturbing instances to believe that any church should receive public funding to influence innocent children

Seems like the Coalition for Marriage are trying to exert extra influence over the contents of these lessons by almost hoodwinking parents/guardians into completing questionnaires with what they want. I think that's absolutely bloody disgraceful.

Anyone with any intelligence should see they are being manipulated. Parents should be completing the questionnaire with their own opinions, not those of the Coalition for Marriage. There's no tolerance and respect in their 'teachings.'

After what we've been learning recently about the behaviour of catholic priests and nuns towards kids, I'd be inclined to wrong to CforM and tell them where to go.

As in the OP. She isn’t objecting to them promoting the Catholic idea of religious marriage. She is objecting to them trying to get out of also teaching about alternative forms of marriage, including same sex marriage.

Why would they promote other ways when it goes against everything they believe in? You do understand what religion is, right?
It's a belief in something. You're not going to promote other forms of marriage, because you believe it is between a man and a woman.
We know that's not the case,that same sex can marry. If you have such a problem with somebody thinking differently to you, it really, really isn't rocket science to just not send them there in the first place if their way of life disgusts you so much.

Why would they promote other ways when it goes against everything they believe in?

Because they live in society and they accept money from the taxpayer for the ability to promote their faith through the state education system. And by taking the money and the endorsement of the state, they take on reaponsibilities and conditions. They are required to compromise.

The idea that Catholics don’t recognise civil marriages is, as other (Catholic) posters have pointed out, nonsensical. The ‘they don’t believe in it’ argument is illogical. They recognise its legality and its place in society. They didn’t like the idea of extending civil marriage to same sex couples for fairly spurious (in my opinion) reasons that centred around the purpose of marriage.

They don’t believe that civil marriages - including same sex marriages - count as a sacrament. Which is fine. Their belief system.

What isn’t ok is the bit where they refuse to tell children being educated at the taxpayers’ expense that, while other forms of marriage aren’t as good in their eyes and aren’t recognised by the church, they still exist, and therefore the children may well come across other children who have two mummies or two daddies who are married. Particularly given that many faith schools will have children who are not of that faith.

And even if you weren’t taking taxpayers’ money, if your mission is tolerance and understanding why wouldn’t you want children to be able to understand and be kind to those with other family set ups, while still emphasising those set ups are not sanctioned by the Church?

I’m not sure anyone who doesn’t think children can cope with that, or feels they are not equipped to explain it, should be teaching.

I went to a non-taxpayer-funded faith school (in another country) for eleven years. Don’t worry, I get religion. And even that school had responsibilities to teach the curriculum even if it didn’t match their belief system.

I’m not sure that you understand that religious schools have responsibilities to those who bankroll them, and the interplay between church and state when the church wants to be able to be operate within state frameworks with state money. Essentially, it involves compromises.

And I missed the fundamental issue with your post. You are advocating that state-funded schools should be able to tell lies to children.

‘There is only one kind of marriage - between a man and a woman’ is a lie. Religious teaching is a matter of belief; the existence of civil marriage is a matter of fact.

And it isn’t ok for teachers to tell children something is true when they know for a fact it is untrue.

The catholics are hardly known for their tolerance of anything.

I work in a large catholic secondary school, we promote all relationships, maybe these are the views of the Head. I have two DD, 8 & 6 and we discuss all relationships at home. I certainly would not be happy if school had sent this newsletter home.

Marriage between a man and woman is the gold..... as determined by society.
it is the norm, even divorced people manage to get married again, some 3 or 4 times during their lifespan.
Weddings are very popular.