1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

My child my choice

Discussion in 'Education news' started by moscowbore, Jun 7, 2019.

  1. Lalex123

    Lalex123 Occasional commenter

    Tolerance usually comes with education. You can’t be tolerant if your parents are so vehemently against this proposal because your parents are teaching you not to be tolerant. These children may grow up having a negative view of certain people in society based purely on their sexuality. This can lead to hate crimes being committed and at the very least, bullying in school.

    Your shortsighted and biased opinion is the reason many children face mental health issues, anxiety, self harm, bullying, hate crime and suicide.
     
  2. moscowbore

    moscowbore Lead commenter

    I have taught in Muslim countries and in Crawley and I have never had a Muslim parent refuse to allow their child to attend music lessons.
    sabram86, you have a view of life which I feel may be unique.
     
  3. Teslasmate

    Teslasmate Occasional commenter

    No. Schools are not imposing morals, they are teaching about reality (in that case the existence of LGBTQ people). Parents do not have the right to opt their children out of reality. They do not have unrestricted rights over their children, full stop. I have absolute rights over my laptop. If I wish to sell / destroy / damage it that's up to me. I do not have those rights over my children.
     
  4. Teslasmate

    Teslasmate Occasional commenter

    Why? There are very strong arguments that all drugs should be legal / age restricted / taxed. It's also possible to hold a political opinion and not pass it on to children. If you are unaware of that I am glad you don't teach my children.
     
    borges33 and aypi like this.
  5. sabram86

    sabram86 Occasional commenter

    To lead a moral life, you have to make moral decisions on your own - as unconstrained as possible. Whether that is drugs, or forming an opinion about a religion or lifestyle, there can be no truth without freedom. Hate speech laws and the negation of parental rights go directly the other way.

    As I have said repeatedly, the State cannot form moral judgements - it is an impersonal amalgam of processes. This means that people must be unconstrained (apart from respecting others' rights). Let me give an example:

    Until 1829, with the passage of the Catholic Emancipation Act, English law placed severe disabilities on those who were not members of the Church of England. Being a "papist", a non-conformist, a Jew, or anything else other than Anglican, meant that you were barred from many state offices, as well as voting (if you otherwise qualified), and that you were, in many ways, a second-class citizen. The Act ended the longest religious persecution in the history of mankind (beginning around three hundred years earlier with the Supremacy), which began with the state arrogating to itself the right of moral arbiter and judge (formerly reserved to the Catholic Church, with all its faults).

    The result, not only in England but throughout Europe, was the Wars of Religion (which, arguably, sparked the Wars of the Three Kingdoms), leading to millions of dead through battle, disease and famine. What had earlier been settled in the Universities or otherwise by the Church was now settled by force of arms, with horrendous and disastrous results. The experience was so traumatic that it led to the recognition of rights of conscience, which asserted that, in essence, the state should not interfere in private judgement. This was the basis not only for religious toleration but, eventually, the recognition of LGBT rights. The US took the principle to its logical conclusion with the separation of Church and State in the first Amendment to their constitution.

    Why can the state not form a valid moral judgement? The raison d'etre of the State is the monopoly of force and nothing else. It reserves to itself the necessary force to repel foreign enemies and castigate criminals. Such is human weakness that, unless this is restricted within narrow and concrete bounds, it can lead to the deaths of tens of millions through oppression and wars of conquest. Less dramatically, it can impede social progress. What did the oppressors of gays and lesbians plead? They were protecting the young from obscenity and immorality, like those who put Socrates to death were protecting the youth of Athens from corruption and the immortal gods from blasphemy. The tiresome prigs are the same in every generation.

    What led to the Crusades? The state arrogating to itself moral judgement. What led to the Wars of Religion? The state arrogating to itself moral judgement. What led to the Holocaust? The state arrogating to itself moral judgement. The testimony of history is clear.

    Please spare me the cries of, "Won't someone please think of the children?" It's the cry of every lazy prig.
     
  6. sabram86

    sabram86 Occasional commenter

    Do you know what the word "tolerance" means? To be tolerant requires that you bear with what upsets or irks you. Muslims, like LGBT people, are perfectly capable of disliking certain groups or ways of thinking while respecting their rights. That's what tolerance is. Using state power to alter people's opinions is not "tolerance", it is brainwashing.

    What exactly are "hate crimes"? Is it having unkind thoughts or opinions about a group? Is it wrong to have unkind opinions about cannibals or murderers? Should we ban hate speech against rapists? There's no way you can draw the line. Should the state impose laws to prevent some potential evil like bullying? What words or thoughts are allowed? Who will seek out and punish wordcrime and thoughtcrime? Are you the head of the Thought Police?

    If you want a genuinely tolerant society, then let people form their own opinions and live in peace with themselves and everyone else. The dystopia of state power you propose has not prevented the election of the BNP and their ilk, or the rise of the EDL. A failure to debate has.
     
  7. moscowbore

    moscowbore Lead commenter

    So is the state making a moral judgement when it passes laws making discrimination illegal?

    I fully support the right to protest against things we feel are wrong. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and is entitled to express that opinion.
    I do not support holding demonstrations against gay people.
     
  8. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter


    If you Google it, you'll find out... ;)
     
    jlishman2158 likes this.
  9. JaneBennet

    JaneBennet New commenter

    Sabram 66, I can't help feeling your view of the state is reductive and simplistic. As a legal entity formally unifying a group of people (even if you argue that its fundamental raison d'etre is national security), it simply isn't possible for it to abrogate any moral judgement whatsoever. The decision to impose taxation to enable national security is a moral judgement. The decision to imprison offenders to protect life and property, another of the responsibilities you charge it with, requires moral judgement. In claiming that the state has no right to impose a moral code on its citizens, you're adopting a reductive definition of what constitutes a moral judgement. The issue is surely, rather, the extent of the state's responsibilities and rights as regards governing the morals of the populace.
     
  10. JaneBennet

    JaneBennet New commenter

    For what it's worth, I respect the right of the parents to protest against what their child is being taught, but have no respect for the way in which they're going about it. It seems ironic to me that, in protesting in the way in which they are, they're exposing their children to far more than the lessons themselves would have done: little ones whose exposure to homosexuality would, as I understand it, have been limited to age-appropriate cosy tales of two-dad families will now be much more aware of / curious about the realities of these intriguing adult relationships that are stirring up so much strong feeling. And as regards the damaging effects of the intimidation and anger etc. they're witnessing on a daily basis... When 'protecting' the children exposes them to so much more than what, the protestors argue, they originally needed to be 'protected' from, there's an embarrassing hypocrisy to the whole thing that exposes the deeper prejudices motivating the protests...
     
  11. lizziescat

    lizziescat Star commenter

    Is the school promoting ‘a particular lifestyle’ ? or teaching about it.

    I haven’t tried slavery or homosexuality but I have decided against them.

    Isn't the state’s decision ( and law) that men and women etc are equal isn’t a moral judgement?

    So parents shouldn’t exert influence over their children’s views ( or what they are exposed to.)
    Can we ever ‘make moral decisions on [our] our own’ if we are only exposed to one view?

    I taught RE for many years (against my will and not by choice). The whole department - led by an atheist taught about religion never did we promulgate a religious doctrine.
    Like wise in history , I taught about slavery, Nazism etc. - I didn’t promulgate this - but taught both as a things which exist/existed.

    A frequent refrain from parents re RE (we taugh about a number of religions including Islam) was, “I don’t want my child learning about terrorism” , or....” .....visiting that Mosque to meet terrorists”.

    The state, via the curriculum, did take a moral stance about this. Should we have acceded to (and thus tacitly agreed with) parental ’rights’ about this. How would those soon-to be-adults have been able to ‘make their own decisions’?
     
    jlishman2158 and Missbubbleblue like this.
  12. sabram86

    sabram86 Occasional commenter

    This is a simple, plain contradiction. If you support "the right to protest against things we feel are wrong" then that includes homosexuality. It doesn't need any more protection than anything else.

    I'm a member of the LGBT community, by the way.
     
  13. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter


    Irrelevant. Though (if true) I wonder what has led you to become self-hating...
     
  14. sabram86

    sabram86 Occasional commenter

    I'm not sure levying taxes and punishing those who attack property, person or rights is a moral judgement, properly speaking. It is a reaction to an attack on personal interest. One that requires little debate, for its rationale is simple enough that a young child can understand it.

    You are right - the state has no right to impose a moral code on its citizens - it has no role in "governing the morals of the populace". Morals are not a state matter. The manner in which you conduct your life - whether a woman controlling her reproductive life or a parent deciding how to educate his/her children - is only a matter for you alone, where it does not interfere with the rights of others. It's hard to state it better than Mill:

    That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. … In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. (On Liberty, JS Mill)​

    This is another set of contradictions - if the parents have a "right to protest", they can do it any way that pleases them provided there is no violence. Their protest is generating debate - isn't it wonderful? That's what leads to enlightenment.
     
  15. sabram86

    sabram86 Occasional commenter

    The state, via the curriculum, did take a moral stance about this. Should we have acceded to (and thus tacitly agreed with) parental ’rights’ about this. How would those soon-to be-adults have been able to ‘make their own decisions’?[/QUOTE]

    Parents exercise moral judgement - as individuals and families - on behalf of their children until they come of age. They may be wrong sometimes; they may be often wrong, but what they are exercising is an unconstrained, personal judgement on matters of importance. An individual can be reasoned with, or debated. A state, equipped with all the powers of constraint and the advantages of public finance, cannot. You may remonstrate with it, but you would have more hope if you prayed to Jupiter or Minerva.

    Likewise, for the virtue of judgement to flourish, it must be allowed to be exercised, even at the risk of being wrong. Anything otherwise is the state of servitude.
     
  16. sabram86

    sabram86 Occasional commenter

    It comes down to a very simple principle - what the state has given, the state can take away. I am not a ward of state and I have no desire to be. Trusting it so lovingly seems blind when memories of "God's Own Policeman" are not that old.

    Why are you so keen on dictating people's lives? Do you get a frisson of pleasure from helping the benighted and less fortunate than yourself? Leave people alone, even the ones where you think you can read their soul in such a patronising way.
     
  17. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter


    Yawn...

    I'm thinking you are a troll. If you aren't, you need to educate yourself...
     
    jlishman2158 and catmother like this.
  18. bajan

    bajan Occasional commenter

    And yet, very few of the parents have been into the school to actually find out what's being taught.
     
    jlishman2158 and agathamorse like this.
  19. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Lead commenter

    Well governments do, sort of. They make judgements based on laws, some of which had ethical roots - e.g. laws against slavery.

    State maintained schools have a legal duty to promote British Values which includes making sure pupils understand laws and among other things "an acceptance that other people having different faiths or beliefs to oneself (or having none) should be accepted and tolerated, and should not be the cause of prejudicial or discriminatory behaviour". This all comes under SMSC. It isn't imposing, or promoting, any particular one but it is there to help the children develop.

    Regarding the my child, my choice sign. Well they're right. They have the choice to home educate their child or send them to a non-state maintained school. What they can't do is expect their morals to have greater weight than the law.
     
    jlishman2158 and agathamorse like this.
  20. averagedan

    averagedan Occasional commenter

    I asked a friend in a primary school about what they're required to teach and it's pretty much "sometimes a child has two dads or two mums, they all still love each other just the same" and read a Spot the Dog style book about it. Crazy I know, let's all get some pitchforks, this is intolerable social engineering by our government.

    Parents should definitely be able to withdraw their children from these lessons. After all it might make them gay or accept that other families love each other even though they don't fit my idea of what a family is! Just like that time my sister learned about the Tudors at school and started identifying as an Elizabethan wench. She hasn't been right since, keeps on walking backward out of the room after saying "thank you m'lady" to our mother.

    Don't let this craziness continue!
     

Share This Page