Section 28 not to be revoked!

[Jbr]

And the worse thing is, it seems 49% of "people" (are they human?!) agree it should stay in place. I was very young when Thatcher brought this in, but I don't understand how it was made law without anyone demonstrating against it.

The only moral issue regards to sex is one of consent ie you saying "no" but someone forcing you.

Message withdrawn

Interesting point Bloss, about the church being against adultery more than homosexuality. When you think about it, anal sex/homosexuality if between 2 consenting adults harms no-one, whereas adultery always harms the adulterers family by proxy! The sad thing is, that nowdays society is more anti-gay than anti-adultery. Affairs etc are portrayed consistently as a joke and no big deal thru' soaps and the media ~(re: Clinton!). Marriage is fast losing its appeal (no thanks to politicians and reduction of incentives).

Message withdrawn

I have been reading this discussion with interest, and asked my daughter, age 11 and about to leave her Catholic primary school, what she had been taught about gay relationships. She said they were taught that as well as the man-woman relationship, it was possible for a man to love another man, ditto a woman, and that this was not a situation to be dismissed or ridiculed. Of course, this explanation does not go in to the wider issues of the morality or safety of homosexual practices, on which the church has very stringent views, but I was quite encouraged that this was even in the syllabus. My older girls are at an RC Secondary school, and in their RE lessons have freely discussed issues including contraception, abortion, marriage and relationships. I just wanted to point out that church schools do not stifle debate, and are very aware that students will make their own choices as they approach adulthood. Finally, I think that Lil's friends' little girl could do a lot worse than regard Jesus as her friend!

If having 2 partners is wrong then half of the world is going to go to hell. It is quite amazing how many polygamous (spelling?) societies there are. I wouldn't fancy it (nor would I have an affair) but I don't think that a monogamous society is somehow morally better. What I do find bad is the breaking of the promise though ie you've promised you won't see anyone else but you do.

I can't imagine having more than one partner! Imagine having a hareem of men, 10 times as much nagging LOL!

If Section 28 was to be revoked, at what age would the teaching begin?

I already teach my 6 year old and have done since he was 4 about the dangers of any abuse he may receive from anyone male or female. The bits covered by his pants are private no one touches them and he doesn't touch anyone elses. I am not hysterical about it but remind him from time to time.

The same age sex education begins I guess, at whatever school. The ages differ so much. I got official sex education aged 12 but it was useless!

I have learnt more reading articles than I was ever told at school.

Like others on this thread I find it odd that one would not expect to be taught Catholicism in a Catholic school. However, I would suggest that the problem is that religious schools are largely state funded and therefore paid for out of ones taxes, yet they practise selection. If the only decent school in your area is a religious one
the atheist is left with two choices; sending ones child to the religious school and being a hypocrite or not being a hypocrite and sending ones child to a school that is less good and therefore possibly compromising the education of ones own children. Luckily I have not had to make such a difficult choice.

Perhaps the answer is to close all religious schools, raise the standard in all schools and to teach religion as a subject (which I am all for. Religion would be kept to the place of worship and the home. As I've pointed out elsewhere, high moral values, learning the difference between right and wrong, is not exclusive to people with religious faith alone.

Message withdrawn

Bloss, to be honest I have no idea whether it costs more or less to fund a religious school. I was in a way playing devils advocate with my suggestion. On the one hand I understand why people with religious faith would want to put their children through the appropriate religious based schooling but I also understand the frustration from non religious people who feel discriminated against because academic standards in religious schools are often perceived as higher than their secular counterparts. Choice is a good thing and I loathe hypocricy but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be as simple as that.

It is interesting that twenty years ago I attended a C of E primary school in which we received RE on a daily basis and once a week the local Vicar would take classes. My parents were not remotely religious but it was a village school and it was simply understood that all the children in the village attended it regardless of faith. The only children in the village who'd not attend the school were children who went to independent schools. How things change...

Bloss, the fact is the govnt have announce that they are going to OK the building of 100 more religious schools as they recognise they have higher educational standards. Now excuse me, but why do they have better educational standards? Because the church puts in extra cash and is allowed to run the schools in a stricter/ more disciplined manner a la the bible than the state schools.

Now that allows the govnt to get away with not spending the amount of money needed on a school, and not having to think about the errors in the state school mentality i.e lack of enforcement by the teachers, lack of power given TO the teachers.

The govnt are taking an easy way out that is detrimental the those of us who believe that selection is unfair and religious segregation is not a good thing for society.

Message withdrawn

Winnie, your statement...

'I must say I find it hard to swallow arguments that the best way to achieve overall excellence is to destroy the sections that are doing best. '

is very similiar to my own view of grammar schools, so not sure where that leaves my arguments!!

Ah no have thought about it, the difference is grammar schools are better because they can select the BEST pupils. They do not have extra cash TOP-UPS like the church schools, and do not encourage only one type of religion.phew, let's not get side-tracked!

So going back to your point I do completely agree the state should be looking at why church schools are better and applying that. But they ARE NOT - they are letting the religious schools determine how they should teach - but that's supposed to be the state's job, and INCREASING the number of religious schools is clearly opting out. It might be better education for those aetheists or 'other' religions hypocritical enough to send their kids there - but what sort of a message is that to bring your kids up on?

And i do think it is a form of segregation as the children at an RC school say, would not be mixing day-to-day with Hindus say, and that means they would find these people odd/unusual, or whatever word describes it. That's does not help to foster a socially integrated society. As some sort of proof to this I give you an example...I went to school in a very mixed london school, lots of religions/ races, I just don't think 'black or white. But now I live in leafy Surrey where schools are predominantly WASP. It is amazing how rude and ignorant some of the people are around here. Not intentionally, I wouldn't call them racist, its just an ignorance due to lack of exposure to other races. In some villages around here people just stare openly at a black person. Its unbelievable in the 21st century but there we are. it can't be right to encourage this.

All my family are Catholics and we have all gone to Catholic schools. I recently had a discussion with someone who was angry because she couldn't get her son into the Catholic school because she wasn't a Catholic (the school has a very good reputation).

In Catholic schools the children are taught the sacraments and the Catholic religion. Unless you are baptised a Catholic, you cannot take part in the sacraments, which include confirmation and communion. I think that if this woman's son were allowed into this school, he would feel very left out when his class started making preparations for their sacraments and he couldn't.

Before there was such a big deal about academic standards, there wasn't this problem of parents feeling discriminated against. Local Catholics went to the local Catholic school and the same with the C of E's. It does seem a tad hypocritical that as soon as it is known that one school does better than the other, the parents all rush to place their kids into that school regardless of the religion.

Ok, maybe religion isn't such a big deal to some people, but would you like your child being taught the Catholic religion if you were an atheist? And wouldn't it be sad if we did boot religion out of schools? I just saw my niece make her Ist Holy Communion with her class, it was lovely to see the preparations they had done beforehand, the rehearsals, etc. They shared the excitement with each other. It would be a shame if that were taken away.

Lisav, I agree that it is terrible that non Catholics are sending their children to catholic schools. But it just shows you the state of the education system.

Can i just ask, why do you feel that your child should go to a religious school? Surely all the community feeling would be felt in the church itself. your daughter would have the fun of communion etc with her other religious friends. Why would you want history or geography say, taught in a religious environment?

Hiya Lil

I don't have many religious friends, most of my friends are atheists. The only religious people I come across are my family and in my Church. Unfortunately our Church is very small and has Masses at different times on a Sunday. So my bd would not be meeting very many children of her own age in Church.

When she eventually makes her Communion, it is something the whole Church gets involved with anyway, so it is bringing the Church and the school together.

I don't agree that subjects such as Geography and History will be taught in a religious environment. It's true that religion is an important part of the school, but this does not detract from their education. I don't see that the other subjects such as History, will be taught any differently than in a C of E school.

Far from the church schools topping up state funding, when a church school wants to make improvements, it has to find 15% of the cost before the local authority will consider funding the balance. Each parish pays £25 for each child it sends to its designated catholic school, hardly a fortune in the scheme of things.
Our Catholic primary does very well in the dreaded league tables, and so is heavily over-subscribed, but the Secondary is not academically as successful, so at 11 the Primary kids don't automatically transfer there. Parents seem to play the Catholic card when it suits them because the Primary school is successful, but then this issue miraculously (pardon the pun) ceases to matter when it comes to choosing a secondary school. What I'm trying to say is that what makes a school successful, amongst other things, is a motivated parent body, ans that success tends to breed success.

This thread has really made me think. I was raised a Catholic and went to Catholic primary and secondary schools. They were both good but not exceptional. However, I have never thought about the segregation issue before. Religious schools do insist on all but a very small percentage of their attendees being baptised or other similar process in that religion.
I am a very poor observer of my childhood faith these days to the point of not really being sure whether I believe at all but I had fully intended to send my son (baptised RC) to the local Catholic primary school up until now because it is one of the best in the borough.
I probably still will but the injustice of it all seems ridiculous. It makes me so angry about our crazy, hotchpotch system of education.
On the point of discussion about sex and other moral matters in Catholic schools, I think that sometimes it is easier for these schools to make the children think. We used to have some very heated debates as the teacher would say "OK, this is what the Church says about xxx, what do you all think?" and off we'd go. I never felt brainwashed or obliged to believe anything we were taught.

Mooma, £25 a child doesn't seem that much, but then in a typical class of 30, thats £750 a year, which would cover a few things. I think that the main cost is the actual building cost, do you know how heavily that is subsidised by the church?

Actually, aren't some of the schools taught by nuns - so wouldn't they be funded by the church?

Let's not get on to nun teachers! I'll start to have nightmares!
Thankfully I don't think many schools operate like that anymore, you have to be a qualified teacher now. Is that right?

Lil - I think the funding for new church schools is shared between the diocese and local authority, but I'm not sure of the % split, although I know the 15% figure for building improvements is accurate. So, in our primary, they get just over £5000 from the parishes each year, but had to find over £15000 for the recent works that were done. I'm just trying to make the point that they are hardly swimming in extra funds.
At our secondary school, the diocese owns a piece of surplus land which is worth a fortune, but if they sell it to developers, the church authorities have made it clear that the money will not necessarily be used to fund much-needed improvements and facilities. They seem to have other plans!
It is true that all teachers in state-aided church schools must be qualified.

When you think how rich the church is (we are talking £billions) its disgraceful they don't pay more, since they benefit by encouraging their religion in the long run. What on earth do they spend their money on??????

I know this is a bit out of date but I've just come across this thread and found it fascinating, especially since my own daughter has just started school - non-religious.

Bugsy - you must have attended a very progressive catholic school. I can remember a boy in my class (again catholic) asking our Divinity teacher "How do we know our God is the right God?". Intelligent question, opportunity for a class debate - (we were 11 at the time)- he got sent to the head (a nun) to apologise.

I am very concerned about the teaching of religion in state schools. I do object to a belief in God appearing to be being taught from the viewpoint that it is the Truth and not just something which some people believe. I feel it's right that religion, as a subject, should be taught, but from an exploratory viewpoint surely.