Andrew Copson of The Guardian defended the Government's sex (re)education programmes, which will introduce sex education to children as young as 5. Join me, Laurence England, as I attempt to ridicule his brazenly aggressive, anti-Catholic argument, with bold, orange font. His argument goes something like this: "Sure, you can be a Faith School, you can be a Jewish school, a Muslim School, or a Catholic School...but you cannot teach your faith. You must teach atheism."
"No parent or school should be able to prevent a young person receiving good, high-quality sex and relationship education." (That is, no gravely irresponsible parent or school...) Typical, some would say, of the view of humanists and others who believe that sex and relationships education should be an entitlement for all our children, and are often accused as a consequence of riding roughshod over the rights of some religious parents and the "rights" of religious schools. (See, reader, how he despises the idea of religious freedom and claims that the right to religious liberty, really, should not exist at all...but the right to 'high quality sex education' is sacrosanct, maybe even a God-given right!)
But this is not the voice of your stock strident secularist, but a 16-year-old, speaking as a representative of the Youth Parliament today. (What do we want? Sex! When do we want it!? As soon as humanly possible! How many hormones do we have coursing through our veins!? Millions!)
Young people themselves are some of the strongest supporters of sex and relationships education, (highly plausible!) and recognise that it will improve their ability to deal with the emotional, moral and practical difficulties of adolescent and adult life. The Youth Parliament has been a key leader in the drive for compulsory sex and relationships education, and has called not just for all state schools – including religious schools – to be legally obliged to teach it, but for parents not to be able to opt their children out of it. (Excellent, excellent...16 year olds to run the country. Where Gordon Brown has failed, 16 year olds will succeed! It is possible!)
It's not a surprise that young people want this education. (Nope!) We know that the sexual health and wellbeing of young people is improved by sex and relationships education. (Do we? Who are we?) We also know that teaching only abstinence in schools has no effect on the likelihood of teenagers to have sex (they are just as likely to do so – it simply means they are less able to take the proper precautions and negotiate complex relationships). Young people have a right (See how the language of human rights only applies to his beliefs, not those of the Church...)to expect that we as a community will provide it for them – and when we say that young people have a right to such education this is in fact literally true. As Article 13 of the convention on the rights of the child says, "The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers … " (Cracking! Oh that is priceless! I can't believe it! He's actually invoking human rights law for sex education for young people! Every time we do that for the unborn we are derided too!)
In the face of overwhelming evidence that sex and relationships education improves the lives of young people, (Statistics, please? Last I heard, the UK has the unhappiest children and young people in the entire World! Quite an achievement...) what right do we have to deny them it? (Rights again! We have no right to deny 'high quality sex education' to children. Young people have the inalienable, inviolable right to learn about sex from an early age) If we know that sex and relationships education of an objective sort improves young people's health and wellbeing (and we do) (Do we? Really?) and if we accept that it is the right of the child to receive information of all sorts (which it is) (Well, if you say so, but then you could argue that every child has the right not to be scandalised from an early age and to be sexualised as soon as they turn 5!) and if we go on to conclude that the responsibility of society is therefore to ensure that all our children receive this entitlement, then why allow state-funded religious schools to do something different? (Aha! I see! The heart of the matter! You want your perverted view of children's education to be universal and for the right of religious liberty to be removed, because it doesn't fit your scandalous, atheistic world-view, which is, namely, that all children should be indoctrinated by the State to embrace a life of sexual licence...)
Why in particular, as has been announced today, should the religious character of a school (which may or may not be shared by the school's pupils or their parents) be allowed to skew the sex and relationships education that children receive? (Why? Well it is a new concept called religious liberty. Read about it. It is because in Catholic Schools at least, such matters should be discussed at the appropriate time, responsibly, wisely, prudently and in line with the teaching of Christ and His Church, rather than in such a way that the innocent are scandalized, or in such a form that sexual activity outside of marriage is actively promoted...)
In PSHE, as in RE, pupils should have the opportunity to learn about and engage with a range of different perspectives on relationships. Many different views do exist in society (Yes, please respect them!) and sex and relationships education should engage them – as it does. But above all else, we need to be honest with young people, not withhold from them knowledge of the full range of human sexuality that does exist in reality, which they will encounter and engage with in the world outside school and which they need to be prepared for. (So many people children can have sex with...other children, adults, young people of the same sex, animals...sex is just like being in a sweet shop and children should all have that approach to sex, because God knows, sexuality and morality are just old fashioned beliefs that got us into the mess of teen pregancies, soaring STD rates among the young and 15 year olds having abortions!)
In sex and relationships (re)education, more than in any other area, we must place the child – not our own prejudices (read, morality) – firmly at the centre of our thinking. Young people want this education, they need it, (Yes, sex education is like food and water) it is their right to have it, and if we withhold it from them on grounds of our own ideologies, ('We must renounce our Christian values! We must promote sex to children!') we will only be doing harm. (In conclusion: "Let us show young people the Gates of Hell, and encourage them to walk right on through".)
No comments:
Post a Comment