I find myself in the odd position this morning of supporting the Allans.

These ones in Birmingham who are going mental about the pro-gay propaganda being fed to their kids are in the right...albeit for all the wrong reasons.

I strongly believe it is the prerogative of parents to inculcate in their children certain cultural and religious belief, behaviours and ideas - assuming those behaviours do not transgress the law, of course. I equally strongly believe it is not the place of the state to dictate what our children ought to think about social issues.

Thus, while I find the reason why these Allans object to their kids being taught bumderology, I fully support the principle behind their objections.

Of course, if they were Christians objecting, they would be routinely mocked and ignored, but that's a separate issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

These ones in Birmingham who are going mental about the pro-gay propaganda being fed to their kids are in the right...albeit for all the wrong reasons.

I strongly believe it is the prerogative of parents to inculcate in their children certain cultural and religious belief, behaviours and ideas - assuming those behaviours do not transgress the law, of course. I equally strongly believe it is not the place of the state to dictate what our children ought to think about social issues.

Thus, while I find the reason why these Allans object to their kids being taught bumderology, I fully support the principle behind their objections.

Of course, if they were Christians objecting, they would be routinely mocked and ignored, but that's a separate issue.

---

Hmmmmmmmmmm. Presumably you also object to teaching kids about contraception?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

Hmmmmmmmmmm. Presumably you also object to teaching kids about contraception?

---

No. You can teach children about contraception without telling them it is a good thing or how they should feel about it. The problem here is that the agenda - while perhaps well-meaning - has no place in the classroom. It is the attempt to indoctrinate that I find wholly repulsive because there is nothing to prevent the state from doing the same with other - less benign - beliefs.

For instance, I take it you would object - as do I - to much of the pro-Islam teaching of comparative religion that is going on in our schools. In doing so, you would be standing on the same principle as these Allan parents - that the wish of the state to encourage a given mode of thought should not be allowed to go unchecked regardless of the parents' wishes.

Ultimately, I do not believe it is the place of the state to dictate to children what their beliefs should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

No. You can teach children about contraception without telling them it is a good thing or how they should feel about it. The problem here is that the agenda - while perhaps well-meaning - has no place in the classroom. It is the attempt to indoctrinate that I find wholly repulsive because there is nothing to prevent the state from doing the same with other - less benign - beliefs.

For instance, I take it you would object - as do I - to much of the pro-Islam teaching of comparative religion that is going on in our schools. In doing so, you would be standing on the same principle as these Allan parents - that the wish of the state to encourage a given mode of thought should not be allowed to go unchecked regardless of the parents' wishes.

Ultimately, I do not believe it is the place of the state to dictate to children what their beliefs should be.

---

Do the Allan schools teach their pupils about christianity, judaism, etc and the right to be atheist or agnostic?

Also, with regards sex education - do schools teach the ins and outs, so to speak, of heemasexual practices?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IUFG

Do the Allan schools teach their pupils about christianity, judaism, etc and the right to be atheist or agnostic?

Also, with regards sex education - do schools teach the ins and outs, so to speak, of heemasexual practices?

---

Of course not. Apostasy is punishable by death in Sharia.

As for the heemasexual practices, I don't know and I'm unsure what the value of such lessons would be. For millennia, our puddle-jumping pals have not been taught anything about how to have sex and yet they've managed to figure it out all on their own - presumably through trial and error.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

No. You can teach children about contraception without telling them it is a good thing or how they should feel about it. The problem here is that the agenda - while perhaps well-meaning - has no place in the classroom. It is the attempt to indoctrinate that I find wholly repulsive because there is nothing to prevent the state from doing the same with other - less benign - beliefs.

For instance, I take it you would object - as do I - to much of the pro-Islam teaching of comparative religion that is going on in our schools. In doing so, you would be standing on the same principle as these Allan parents - that the wish of the state to encourage a given mode of thought should not be allowed to go unchecked regardless of the parents' wishes.

Ultimately, I do not believe it is the place of the state to dictate to children what their beliefs should be.

---

Are you sure you know enough about what this Brummie school has been teaching to describe it as "indoctrination"?

I'm really not sure lessons about contraception come with any less of a value judgement. Even if these lessons focus on the utilitarian benefits of contraception, rather than the perceived moral ones, this would still be abhorrent to someone who considers contraception to be morally wrong.

Yet presumably you'd have no truck with such a person, which seems wholly inconsistent to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Of course not. Apostasy is punishable by death in Sharia.

As for the heemasexual practices, I don't know and I'm unsure what the value of such lessons would be. For millennia, our puddle-jumping pals have not been taught anything about how to have sex and yet they've managed to figure it out all on their own - presumably through trial and error.

---

and with heterosexual practices too, I would have thought...

another Monty Python opportunity...
http://crookedmanners.com/wp-content...gOfLife05L.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

Are you sure you know enough about what this Brummie school has been teaching to describe it as "indoctrination"?

I'm really not sure lessons about contraception come with any less of a value judgement. Even if these lessons focus on the utilitarian benefits of contraception, rather than the moral ones, this would still be abhorrent to someone who considers contraception to be morally wrong. Yet presumably you'd have no truck with such a person, which seems inconsistent to me?

---

Yes, because its mere existence is indoctrination. It is a programme called 'No Outsiders' that 'interrogates and challenges heteronormativity in primary schools' (consider the sinister nature of that for one moment). It is specifically designed to teach that there is nothing abnormal about alternative sexual or gender categories. Now that is by definition untrue, since those things are patently abnormal - something it is perfectly possible to agree with without implying anything pejorative. So what you have there is an attempt to teach a lie to children. I think I'd call that indoctrination.

And, as a Catholic, I can tell you that it is perfectly possible to teach the utilitarian benefits of contraception while accepting that for some those benefits are outweighed by the doctrinal prohibition of the practice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IUFG

and with heterosexual practices too, I would have thought...

another Monty Python opportunity...
http://crookedmanners.com/wp-content...gOfLife05L.png

---

Well I suppose with heterosexual sex education, there is the business of explaining conception and how it works. There are plenty of examples of people who had no such education getting it horribly wrong for years and wondering why no children were pitching up.

With gayness, on the other hand, there's less that can go wrong, I suppose. There are no rights and wrongs in terms of the actual mechanics.

A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Well I suppose with heterosexual sex education, there is the business of explaining conception and how it works. There are plenty of examples of people who had no such education getting it horribly wrong for years and wondering why no children were pitching up.

With gayness, on the other hand, there's less that can go wrong, I suppose. There are no rights and wrongs in terms of the actual mechanics.

---

One thing that could go very wrong is if you're gay but are taught at home that being gay is sinful. Some might even call this child abuse.

Call me weird, but I'm pretty chilled about schools making some efforts to correct for this.

Anyway, what has Owen Jones had to say about all this? Presumably he's come out all guns blazing and condemned the homophobic protester parents?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

A

One thing that could go very wrong is if you're gay but are taught at home that being gay is sinful. Some might even call this child abuse.

Call me weird, but I'm pretty chilled about schools making some efforts to correct for this.

Anyway, what has Owen Jones had to say about all this? Presumably he's come out all guns blazing and condemned the homophobic protester parents?

---

Child abuse? Deary, deary me, m. Don't talk such utter rot. Children have been being raised with the notion that their sexualities are sinful and shameful for millennia. It's not child abuse, it's a societal function of the dominance of Abrahamic religions (which has also had numerous upsides, btw).

And schools aren't talking about correcting it, they're essentially trying to convince children that heterosexuality is not the default setting for mankind and that homosexuality isn't aberrant.
Those things a/ simply aren't true and b/ are not positions that it is the business of schools to be proselytising to small children.

Oh, and Owen has actually attacked the MP who defended the muslim parents. He didn't risk actually attacking the Allans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Child abuse? Deary, deary me, m. Don't talk such utter rot. Children have been being raised with the notion that their sexualities are sinful and shameful for millennia. It's not child abuse, it's a societal function of the dominance of Abrahamic religions (which has also had numerous upsides, btw).

And schools aren't talking about correcting it, they're essentially trying to convince children that heterosexuality is not the default setting for mankind and that homosexuality isn't aberrant.
Those things a/ simply aren't true and b/ are not positions that it is the business of schools to be proselytising to small children.

Oh, and Owen has actually attacked the MP who defended the muslim parents. He didn't risk actually attacking the Allans.

---

This is where, as a critic of Islam, you get into difficult territory. If you were consistent you would be equally scathing of the doctrines of the Abrahamic religions that decree homosexuality to be a sin (doctrines that have and continue to destroy lives) and yet you instead defend them with the very same kind of weasel words ("numerous upsides") you hear from Allans who point to all the pages of the Koran that promote peace and love.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

This is where, as a critic of Islam, you get into difficult territory. If you were consistent you would be equally scathing of the doctrines of the Abrahamic religions that decree homosexuality to be a sin (doctrines that have and continue to destroy lives) and yet you instead defend them with the very same kind of weasel words ("numerous upsides") you hear from Allans who point to all the pages of the Koran that promote peace and love.

---

Have those naughty Baptists been chucking pooves off tall buildings again? They really are a pain. Not as bad as the Quakers crashing aeroplanes into skyscrapers though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

This is where, as a critic of Islam, you get into difficult territory. If you were consistent you would be equally scathing of the doctrines of the Abrahamic religions that decree homosexuality to be a sin (doctrines that have and continue to destroy lives) and yet you instead defend them with the very same kind of weasel words ("numerous upsides") you hear from Allans who point to all the pages of the Koran that promote peace and love.

---

Only if you're arguing that things can only be either good or bad, m. It is possible for me to find some of the doctrines of these religions abhorrent while also accepting that the religions themselves have also had beneficial effects for the civilisations they have formed.

Besides which, of course, there are not many societies in human history that have been wholly accepting of homosexuality (even the Greeks abhorred sodomy, for instance). There are perfectly good evolutionary reasons for this that have nothing to do with religion. However, the question of to what extent homophobia is innate is one people tend to shy away from. Religion makes a very handy scapegoat in that sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IUFG

and with heterosexual practices too, I would have thought...

another Monty Python opportunity...
http://crookedmanners.com/wp-content...gOfLife05L.png

---

"What's wrong with a simple kiss, boy? You don't have to go stampeding for the clitoris!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Only if you're arguing that things can only be either good or bad, m. It is possible for me to find some of the doctrines of these religions abhorrent while also accepting that the religions themselves have also had beneficial effects for the civilisations they have formed.

Besides which, of course, there are not many societies in human history that have been wholly accepting of homosexuality (even the Greeks abhorred sodomy, for instance). There are perfectly good evolutionary reasons for this that have nothing to do with religion. However, the question of to what extent homophobia is innate is one people tend to shy away from. Religion makes a very handy scapegoat in that sense.

---

But aren't the schools just teaching that we shouldn't discriminate against homosexuals? That's hardly encouraging it, is it? And isn't it against the law to discriminate against someone based on their sexuality? In which case we are teaching children basic morality, like stealing is wrong, physically assaulting someone is wrong etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

But aren't the schools just teaching that we shouldn't discriminate against ho mosexuals? That's hardly encouraging it, is it? And isn't it against the law to discriminate against someone based on their sexuality? In which case we are teaching children basic morality, like stealing is wrong, physically assaulting someone is wrong etc.

---

But that is not what they’re teaching. If it were, I would have no objection since that - as you say - is the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

But that is not what they’re teaching. If it were, I would have no objection since that - as you say - is the law.

---

They should teach equality and diversity and be done with it.

Reproduction should be for those who study biology.

:judge:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

But that is not what they’re teaching. If it were, I would have no objection since that - as you say - is the law.

---

So give me an example of some pro-gay propaganda which in your view goes beyond teaching that we should not discriminate.

I appreciate that the line between the two can be very thin, but I think that is part of the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

So give me an example of some pro-gay propaganda which in your view goes beyond teaching that we should not discriminate.

I appreciate that the line between the two can be very thin, but I think that is part of the issue.

---

How about you google what is being taught and tell me what you think instead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

How about you google what is being taught and tell me what you think instead?

---

Nah - cant be bothered :shrug:

A little indoctrination is good though! That's what I believe. And, speaking of children, what happens when your children come to resent you and wish that you were dead? Then only the state can come in and perform the task of guiding them towards normalcy. You take too much of the task upon yourself, and it won't work in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eastgermanautos

A little indoctrination is good though! That's what I believe. And, speaking of children, what happens when your children come to resent you and wish that you were dead? Then only the state can come in and perform the task of guiding them towards normalcy. You take too much of the task upon yourself, and it won't work in the long run.

---

Ah, the outsourcing of familial responsibility to the state: what could possibly go wrong?

To much reliance on one's parents leads to morbidity. It's better to ally oneself with one's contemporaries, forming a despotic cadre by which to crush any who would resist. The state exploits this impulse, it is true. But one can get around that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Ultimately, I do not believe it is the place of the state to dictate to children what their beliefs should be.

---

:shrug: Well, somebody has to. And parents have long since bantered off their own responsibilities in that regard.

Anyway, school isn't really that important to anyone anymore, should never have been really (a fact that even thick, loser footballers like Troy Deeney seem to grasp better than the average school teacher or @depEd.gov budget racketeer. Or maybe not .. :rubchin: ).

But, as I say, that might actually be the whole trouble.. :-\

A close friend of my missus - a university scholar and PhD dr no less - recently talked about “if” her 8 year-old daughter starts her period.

When asked what she meant by “if”, she relied “well I don’t want to make any assumptions”.

So there we are. Parents are actually imparting their beliefs and values on their children more than ever. Just not in the way you might mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

:shrug: Well, somebody has to. And parents have long since bantered off their own responsibilities in that regard.

Anyway, school isn't really that important to anyone anymore, should never have been really (a fact that even thick, loser footballers like Troy Deeney seem to grasp better than the average school teacher or @depEd.gov budget racketeer. Or maybe not .. :rubchin: ).

But, as I say, that might actually be the whole trouble.. :-\

---

Right; parents qua parents, rather than parents as they represent their professional capacities. Naturally the two are not always mutually exclusive, if that's the word I want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

A close friend of my missus - a university scholar and PhD dr no less - recently talked about “if” her 8 year-old daughter starts her period.

When asked what she meant by “if”, she relied “well I don’t want to make any assumptions”.

So there we are. Parents are aftually imparting their beliefs and values on their children more than ever. Just not in the way you mean.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

A close friend of my missus - a university scholar and PhD dr no less - recently talked about “if” her 8 year-old daughter starts her period.

When asked what she meant by “if”, she relied “well I don’t want to make any assumptions”.

So there we are. Parents are actually imparting their beliefs and values on their children more than ever. Just not in the way you might mean.

---

Sounds like exactly the type of person one doesn't need or want as a friend. Never mind a close one.

Philip K. Dick? He's all about that sort of thing; how people have become tragically alienated from humanity, especially their own.

M's exchange is remarkable in the fact that it takes place, not in a professional, progressive, politically correct setting, like a workplace. Rather that it happens in a (presumably) intimate, private environment between one "close friend" and another.

This "Dr." is such a thorough-going professional that she can no longer express herself as an normal human being, rather than something inhuman and somewhat sinister; a machine, regarding ordinary human facts of life and biology, in confidence to a chum. The tragedy is in the fact that there's no longer any real difference between the two; when it comes to who your friends are, everyone is like that.

By contrast, Deeney rejects the idea that representatives of the political/corporate "machine" (celebrities, colleagues) can be more suitable role models than actual biological, socially-contracted examples, like parents, children, family; even friends. Although, he does weaken his argument by framing this "biological, socially-contracted" obligation as "work": "If my kids look up to a man bigger and better than me, then that’s me not doing my job." :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IUFG

Sounds like exactly the type of person one doesn't need or want as a friend. Never mind a close one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

Philip K. Dick? He's all about that sort of thing; how people have become tragically alienated from humanity, especially their own.

M's exchange is remarkable in the fact that it takes place, not in a professional, progressive, politically correct setting, like a workplace. Rather that it happens in a (presumably) intimate, private environment between one "close friend" and another.

This "Dr." is such a thorough-going professional that she can no longer express herself as an normal human being, rather than something inhuman and somewhat sinister; a machine, regarding ordinary human facts of life and biology, in confidence to a chum. The tragedy is in the fact that there's no longer any real difference between the two; when it comes to who your friends are, everyone is like that.

By contrast, Deeney rejects the idea that representatives of the political/corporate "machine" (celebrities, colleagues) can be more suitable role models than actual biological, socially-contracted examples, like parents, children, family; even friends. Although, he does weaken his argument by framing this "biological, socially-contracted" obligation as "work": "If my kids look up to a man bigger and better than me, then that’s me not doing my job." :-\

---

You may be guilty of a little over-analysis here, r.

I mean the 'close friend' is obviously just a little bit of a ****. No more, no less.

I loved the original Bladerunner. Does that count?

Yes, I believe that's based on one of his.

That's the thing though; everyone is like that nowadays. Or rather, who isn't?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IUFG

You may be guilty of a little over-analysis here, r.

I mean the 'close friend' is obviously just a little bit of a ****. No more, no less.

I loved the original Bladerunner. Does that count?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IUFG

I loved the original Bladerunner. Does that count?

---

I liked Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch. The Matrix borrowed from that I reckon with its layers of unreality. Also Valis - suddenly seeing that the Roman Empire is still here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

Yes, I believe that's based on one of his.

That's the thing though; everyone is like that nowadays. Or rather, who isn't?!

---

He was an extremely odd fellow.

Also got married five times. Once tried to commit suicide by driving his car off the road while his wife was a passenger, which caused some problems.

Good writer, though. I liked A Scanner Darkly in particular. It contained advice on how to obtain cocaine from aftersun lotion.