Archive for September, 2008
School bans girls from cancer jab
Posted by: | Comments
Read the full story here.
The school’s policy for sex education ( taken from their website) is conducted in accordance with the rites, practices and observances of the Roman Catholic Faith. Sex education in school is within the moral framework of Christian teaching which reflects a positive view of God’s care and provision for the individual and the community. A whole school approach is adopted and the teaching aims to complement and support the role of the parent. All information given to our pupils is based on sound moral principles and helps pupils develop an appreciation of the values embraced in Catholicism.
The Roman Catholic Church has always recognised that it is the privilege and responsibility of the family to inform and educate their children in all matters relating to sexual development. However, it is also recognised that parents often need a commitment from schools and their parishes to collaborate with the family. Sex Education cannot be reduced to simply the giving of biological fact. St. Monica’s ensures the information is firmly rooted in Christian values and based on sound moral principles. Sex Education is a discrete part of the R.E., Guidance and Science curriculum, although the responsibility for sex education is shared by the whole staff, with the whole range of the curriculum contributing to the formation of right attitudes in the children in our care. Parents have the right to withdraw their children from the programme.
******************
One wonders why the school bothered to make this statement when the Catholic Church itself is not against the jab. Fortunately, if the parents are not put under any pressure from the school , as the above suggests, they will take the sensible course through their own GPs.
The Matthew Wright show on Channel 5 this morning, during a discussion of this topic, had a phone-in from a past pupil at the school. This caller also had a younger sister at the school. We were informed that during the caller’s last year at the school despite the best efforts of the teachers there were three girls pregnant. In this current school year two girls have also ‘joined the club’.
Even a ‘good catholic girl ‘ who has only one partner ever in her life can pick up the virus, so pre-marital abstinence and sex only within marriage is no protection.
Why does the catholic church insists on putting people’s lives at risk, again mirroring the condom situation in Africa, when common sense and science can prevent this horrible disease.? “Christian values and sound moral principles ” should not get in the way of individuals making up their own minds to take sensible precautions.
A Really Uplifting Day
Posted by: | CommentsThe official opening of the new Avenue special school, Tilehurst, Reading,
Sept 19th 2008
An old boy (1926) of the school surveys its proud history.
Reading was provided with the first purpose built special school in the country one hundred years ago and this was the opening of its replacement.
Berkshire Humanists were invited to this official event because of its involvement on a co-opted basis with the Reading SACRE (standing advisory committee on religious education).
To see this magnificent new building, meet its dedicated staff, courageous and lively pupils and survey its cutting edge facilities was a real privilege. The event was a model of positivity, pride and fun. The approach and solutions offered by this community will surely give the best possible start to their pupils’ lives. It has a very spacious layout with ramps for all the wheelchairs and beds. The Hall (or ‘The square’) has trees and the maximum of light, a proscenium stage as well as a sunken ‘space in the round’ and the latest audio visual facilities. It doubles as a cafeteria, and all the classrooms lead directly off it. The huge library has a three story soft play space within it to give maximum freedom of play and exercise experience.
The program gave us a full insight as to how the school helps pupils to deal with their disabilities – just make everything fun!!. When you see the Mayor of Reading enthusiastically joining in all the actions of the ‘Elephant song’, the MP for East Reading Rob Wilson sliding down the ramps in the soft play room, pupils in wheelchairs becoming a river (to accompany a song given by the Reading Community choir) by gently wafting a silvery strip of material….. then you cannot help but be infected yourself. The school under the very able leadership of the Head Teacher Sue Bourne is not inward looking. A concert given by the school in the Reading Hexagon raised enough money to give donations to two charities including a cheque for £2000 collected by Pudsey in person for the BBC ‘Children in Need’ fund.
The Berkshire Humanists would be very challenged to give any form of special Humanist help that was not already in place, but it is worth noting that the event was not in any way coloured with religious symbols or attitudes. The consequences of HUMAN care, compassion and empathy in this multi ethnic setting were very much to the fore. The nearest that they came to anything religious was the singing of ‘He’s got the whole world in his hands’ .
Last words to the Reading Council’s education advisor on the SACRE. Alfie Hay who wrote the following school song (as well as providing the keyboard accompaniment for all the musical items).
We’re moving on
We’re feeling strong
We belong to the school where everyone cares
We’re feeling good
We’re understood
We know they mean what they say when they smile and declare
There’s nobody we can’t inspire
No one we can’t include
No issue that we can’t address
For me and you
Uhl Uh! that’s true
At The Avenue, At the Avenue
Would that every school speech or commemoration day was like this one.
Real Science creates peace again in Royal Society.
Posted by: | Comments
The Royal Society,overlooking the Mall and St James Park
Read the BBC News story here
The director of education of the Royal Society, Professor Reiss has quit his part time position after creating quite a violent reaction at this national institution.
Despite being a Church of England minister and a professor of science at the London Institute of Education, he implied that Creationism should be allowed into the class room. He was misinterpreted as saying that it should be taught, which he did not, but enough damage has been done to the Royal Society to make his position untenable. Another Edwina Curry type gaff.
There is a case for discussing it within schools, but only as an illustration to show the difference between a real theory and a quasi one . Real science starts with no conclusions and develops a tentative suggestion, which is continually strengthened as more evidence is naturally revealed. Creationism starts with a conclusion that there was a creator and tries to fit the evidence.
Evolution theory, which a large part of the C of E find no difficulty in accepting has had such a long run of valid supporting evidence that it does not need to justify itself in the eyes of the majority of scientists, and the Royal Institution was not the best place to champion creationism in any way.
Both C of E and DSCF have made it clear that creationism should not be TAUGHT. I wonder how many other Professors of Science think that the world has a designer.
An interesting follow up on this story is from the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/28/religion
and also here
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=403695&c=1
Church Apology to Charles Darwin
Posted by: | Comments
Charles Darwin
The Church of England will apologise to Charles Darwin this week, but is it a recognition of his theory of evolution, or just a away to make the church feel better about themselves?
There has been a mixed response in the media to this announcement and even the family are reported to find the whole exercise rather pointless considering he’s been dead for almost 200 years.
The Church of England have an interesting view on Darwin, and they have written a brief summary of his life. (see: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/)
It would seem that it is more important to acknowledge the work of Darwin than to apologise to him. Certainly the apology makes no difference to him at a personal level now, so it is hard to see the point so many years down the road.
Charles Darwin didn’t take the discoveries he made lightly and he recognised the difficulties this could create for his wife as well as the church. Since he initially published his works an army of scientists has continued the study of evolution and this has led to new discoveries such as the genetic origins of the human species.
The real question from all of this, is does the church now see that the creation story is not a factually accurate? Will the church finally acknowledge the true origins of the human species and start to marvel not at “God’s creation” but at the amazing splendour (and horrors) of the natural world.
Member Stories: Alan Stuart
Posted by: | CommentsA letter Composed by Alan Stuart (our Press Officer) showing many of his opinions.
Martin Salter MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A OAA
Dear Martin Salter
Face to Face and Side by side
I refer to the above Government White Paper. I am deeply concerned that the Government is continuing its policy of perpetuating the involvement of religion in public life. Religion is a very personal belief and those who feel deeply about it should be free to practise those beliefs as they think fit. They should not however be given any special privilege to force those views and superstitions on others. The Government is encouraging The Department of Communities and local Government to involve as many “Faith” organisations as possible in their various activities. The Government is also investing £7.5m in interfaith work. This is supposed to involve “people from different faiths and beliefs and those with none”
The Government seems to be overlooking “…. those with none” Schools, Hospitals and prison visiting are particularly notable for their lack of Humanist or secular involvement. Religion is responsible for dividing the nation and deliberately creating controversy where there was none.
There have been so many examples recently where religious privilege has caused deep concern. Many people regard some religious methods of slaughtering animals for food as being unacceptable, but they are obliged to eat such meat because others insist on it. Even one of the Christian religions says that however it is slaughtered you must not eat it on a Friday! Christian churches will not marry divorcees, but such couples can remarry in a register office. Or can they? What if the Registrar holds strong religious views and refuses to conduct a register office wedding because his/her God says it is wrong? This is the type of religious privilege that the Government is promoting.
This is further amplified when children are divided by not being permitted to wear rings and bangles, but if a child claims that the adornment has religious significance then it is ok. Similarly if a child or a teacher wants to cover their face during lessons they can only do so if a religious reason can be quoted. Why also can a pharmacist claim religious reasons for refusing contraception to someone in need? I could go on but I am sure that you could name many other such absurd cases.
In short what I am saying is that the Government must recognise that organised religion is dangerously divisive and it should not be deliberately trying to link it to our daily lives. I would like to think that I can count on your support in using your influence to get this important message over to your friends in office.
Yours sincerely
Alan Stuart