eChurch Blog

Further perturbing research from the US investigating the links between religiosity and racial attitudes.

This is a follow up study to this one.

Science + Religion:

You may remember Wendy Wood, the professor of psychology and business at the University of Southern California who, along with her colleagues, looked through 55 studies and found strong evidence that religious people are more racist.

They explained in their paper that this kind of religious racism partly reflects intergroup dynamics. That is, a strong religious in-group identity was associated with derogation of racial out-groups. Other races might be treated as out-groups because religion is practiced largely within race, because training in a religious in-group identity promotes general ethnocentrism, and because different others appear to be in competition for resources (Personality and Psychology Review).

Or as Wood put it:

White people tend to practice religion with other white folks, and they tend to believe that their own religious group is morally right. This situation leads to racism.

So we were intrigued to hear that a team of researchers at Baylor University had decided to directly test how exposure to religious concepts might affect racial attitudes. They subliminally primed one group of students with neutral words like “butter” and “hammer” and another group of students with Christian words like “gospel” and “heaven,” each of which flashed on a computer screen for half a second while the students were performing a task. Then the researchers tested the students attitudes toward blacks. (Overall, the participants were mostly white and predominantly Protestant or Catholic.)

The results? Those students who had been primed with the Christian concepts expressed more racial prejudice—an effect that remained even when the scientists controlled for pre-existing levels of religiosity and spirituality. These students scored higher both in terms of “covert” racism—where individuals evaluated whether conclusions were supported by certain arguments rather than whether they agreed with those arguments or conclusions themselves—and “overt” racism—negative attitudes expressed in responses to questions like how afraid they are of African Americans as a group or whether or not they like them (Associated Baptist Press). However, the religious words did not change the underlying emotions of fear and disgust.

So how can we explain the “”Christian-racial-prejudice hypothesis”? One possibility, the researchers say, is that the religious words activate Protestant Puritanism concepts, of which the Protestant work ethic is a part, and the “Protestant ethic, in turn, has been shown to activate anti-black attitudes.” Another possibility is that the Christian concepts increase things like right-wing authoritarianism and religious fundamentalism (both of which are correlated with prejudice) or political conservatism (linked to the justification of inequality).

Indeed, the speculations fit with the conclusions of past studies like Wood’s, as the researchers write in their paper:

Religion’s possible activation of other dimensions or core values (e.g., RWA, fundamentalism, political conservatism, or PWE) could lead to both hard work and in-group prosociality but also denigration of out-group members who are perceived as violating that particular core value. Denigration may occur because religion is often practiced as an in-group phenomenon, causing individuals to view racial minorities as out-group members who do not share their core values (Social Psychological and Personality Science).

I found this paper morbidly fascinating and disturbing, as I believe we in the UK are witnessing the rise of a US styled Christian Reconstructionism within Evangelicalism, which seeks a Dominionist authoritarian form of pseudo-Christian society.

Or put simply, a “Christian” imperialism under which we would all live in a theonomy that [in my opinion] would not be dissimilar to Islamic theocracy.

The premise being that the Kingdom of Jesus physically rules now…err…without Jesus being physically present.

Just like in the good ol’ days of Cromwell.

For the past several decades the political Left has focused attention on the Christian Right’s political activism in America. Particularly, the Left has been highly critical of a select group of dominionists called Reconstructionists, whose aggressive verbiage, extreme Calvinist theologies, and religious political agendas have made it an ideal target for outrage. But, as Leftist researcher Sara Diamond has astutely observed, “the Reconstructionists’ religion of Calvinism. . . makes them unlikely to appeal to most evangelicals.”⁴ Indeed, few Reconstructionists would consider themselves to be evangelicals. Nevertheless, their influence has been considerable over the much larger group of patriotic evangelicals.

There are two other dominionist sects within evangelicalism that have escaped in-depth scrutiny from the Left. These dominionists have been able to function virtually incognito for several reasons: 1) They have been deeply embedded within the evangelical subculture; 2) They cloaked their dominionism with new terminologies and doctrines over a period of thirty years; and 3) They figured out how to package dominionism using sophisticated mass marketing techniques. Also noteworthy: these two other dominionist camps have been operating in a dialectical fashion – while one group appealed to the TBN charismatics with all of its emotional excesses, the other group carefully managed its more intellectual public image to conform to traditional evangelical standards.

This paper is a brief overview of the three main dominionist movements operating inside evangelicaldom and examines how all three of these sects are now converging around a global “kingdom” agenda. This paper is not a treatise on doctrine, nor is it an historical record, nor is it a thorough analysis of the multifarious streams of evangelical dominionism. This paper does not cover the broader issue of dominionist sects within other world religions, except for a few brief noteworthy mentions. To examine the totality of the individuals, the organizations, and their cross-linkages would require an exhaustive study which is beyond the scope of this brief synopsis. Even so, every point made in this paper could be validated by dozens, sometimes hundreds, of pieces of documentation. The inquiring reader may check out the footnotes and references.

Only a small handful of Christian discernment and apologetics ministries, of which this writer is a part, have been paying attention to the intersection of the dominionist streams. The apologetic ministries fulfill a Scriptural role to examine and expose false doctrines and teachers, and to warn other believers of heresies (Jude 3, 2 Peter 2:1). Increasingly, over the past two decades, many apologists have become seduced by dominionism, blunting their ability to critically examine the roots and fruits of this rapidly rising new church era.

Continue Reading

Edmund Standing has now really gone for it over at Harry’s Place.

This is an updated version of a blog post that I cross-posted, only a few hours ago, which is well worth another cross-post (if that makes any sense to anyone, then you’re as a sad as me).

Here it is:

Edith Crowther is the BNP’s candidate in the forthcoming Broadland by-election. Crowther is a regular contributor to the Premier Christian Community web forum, where she busies herself defending BNP ‘reverend’ Robert West’s ‘theology of nations’ (West believes that ‘the mixing of races challenges the glory of God’).

Crowther has a keen interest in religious and historical matters and a letter she wrote to the Camden New Journal about housing in King’s Cross managed to take in Henry VIII, the Old Testament, Babylonian texts, ancient Rome, and Hadrian.

A 2008 comment left by Crowther at the blog of Murad Qureshi, Labour member of the London Assembly, gives us more insight into the bizarre worldview of this BNP candidate. In this comment, we learn that Crowther has ‘a Diploma in Modern Classical Arabic Translation’ and that she believes:

An Islamic state as laid out in the Koran and Hadith … would be strict but merciful, and true Muslim culture would flourish as it did in the Golden Age of Islam before the rules were relaxed too much and everything became a bit decadent.

According to Crowther’s definition, there are no true Muslims in the West:

As an Arabist I know there aren’t any Muslims in the West, because it is worse than 36 fornications to touch a penny of any money derived from interest, and you will go straight to hell when you die if you are that hypocritical.

Crowther then goes on to explain her attraction to the BNP:

I realised long ago that the BNP is the British equivalent of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, whom I admire and respect and who have great courage. That is why I joined.

Crowther, it appears, considers herself some kind of prophet, and concludes:

[P]rophets are often written off as mad, aren’t they? – including one of the greatest, Muhammad peace and praise be upon him.

BNP candidate Edith Crowther, then, admires the notion of a theocratic State and ‘admires and respects’ the Islamist terrorist organisations Hamas and Islamic Jihad for their ‘great courage’.

After I initially wrote about this on my blog, my post was highlighted over at the Premier Christian forums, and Crowther has issued a response in which she has clarified her position (screen shot here).

BNP candidate Crowther writes:

Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not anti-Semitic – how could they be, when Arabs are Semites too? They are just anti the state of Israel, which was created by breaking the promise of the Balfour Declaration and by rigging the UN General Assembly vote on Partition in late 1947…

There are many Orthodox Jews who do not uphold the state of Israel … I also know a Jewish journalist, Israel Shamir, who lives in Jerusalem and has converted to Christianity in protest at the state of Israel…

It is a Christian duty to not only back Hamas, but perhaps even to stand beneath the invader’s tanks. Though I am not brave enough to do that – but some have been.

‘Hamas can’t be anti-Semitic, as Arabs are Semites too’ is an argument on a par with ’some of my best friends are Jews’ (an argument which Crowther unsurprisingly also uses). Everyone knows that ‘anti-Semitism’ in general usage refers to hatred of Jews, and only haters of Jews attempt to slither their way out of expressing their true beliefs by falling back on the ‘Arabs are Semites too’ line.

Who are these Orthodox Jews cited by Crowther who oppose Israel’s right to exist? No doubt every Jew hater’s favourite useful idiots Neturei Karta, a fringe group of cranks so filled with hatred for Israel that they turned up to give a Kosher stamp of approval to the 2006 Tehran Holocaust denial conference organised by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The claim that Hamas are not anti-Semitic is absurd. Time and again their propaganda spews genocidal bile towards Jews, not simply Israelis. Hamas’s founding Covenant notoriously includes the following quote:

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

And just like some well known figures in the BNP, Crowther’s heroes Hamas are also Holocaust deniers.

As for Crowther’s supposed Jewish friends, here is some background on Israel Shamir:

Shamir is actually a Swede of Russian descent and he is associated with Russian ultra-nationalists. Shamir has been disavowed by many on the left and in the pro-Palestinian movement as the result of his overtly anti-Semitic writings and his connections to the far-right. Research into his real background has revealed that he began his journalism career under his assumed name working for a prominent far-right, Russian nationalist anti-Semite, Aleksandr Prokhanov, chief editor of the newspaper Zavtra. Even as he presents himself to the west as a leftist, anti-Zionist, “Shamir” has continued to publish explicitly right-wing articles in Russia and Eastern Europe.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad are both terrorist groups that are proscribed by the Home Office. Both have a long record of attacks on Israeli civilians, including suicide bombings. Both are undeniably founded on Jew hatred.

Edith Crowther is a candidate for the BNP, a party with a long history of anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and links to violent extremists. While the BNP has attempted to rebrand itself as a respectable patriotic party that respects Jews and supports Israel’s right to exist, the fact that the party is happy to field a candidate who praises Islamist terrorists for their ‘great courage’ in attacking Israel speaks volumes about the superficiality of that rebranding.

Superb thoughts from Nick Baines on the considerations that need to be undertaken before publishing a blog post, or short article.

Well worth a read as he is a very thoughtful blogger and recently provoked quite a stir in a short article he wrote for the Radio Times.

Bishop Nick Baines – Why blog? (Radio Times article)

Do dwell on the points he raises, as it can be uncomfortable indeed learning this the hard way.

Edmund Standing has just posted on his blog relating to an ongoing heated debate I’ve been involved in, on the Premier community forum, entitled:

Premier – BNP Bashing is unChristian

This debate was originally started by Revd West of the BNP – head of Christain Council of Britain – and he was quickly joined by comrade in arms Edith Crowther.

I’ll let Edmund pick up the trail:

Edith Crowther is the BNP’s Broadland candidate in the forthcoming Norwich North by-election. Crowther is a regular contributor to the Premier Christian Community web forum, where she busies herself defending BNP ‘reverend’ Robert West’s ‘theology of nations’ (West believes that ‘the mixing of races challenges the glory of God’).

Crowther has a keen interest in religious and historical matters and a letter she wrote to the Camden New Journal about housing in King’s Cross managed to take in Henry VIII, the Old Testament, Babylonian texts, ancient Rome, and Hadrian.

A 2008 comment left under her name at the blog of Murad Qureshi, Labour member of the London Assembly, gives us more insight into the wacky worldview of this BNP candidate. In this comment, we learn that Crowther has ‘a Diploma in Modern Classical Arabic Translation’ and that she believes

An Islamic state as laid out in the Koran and Hadith … would be strict but merciful, and true Muslim culture would flourish as it did in the Golden Age of Islam before the rules were relaxed too much and everything became a bit decadent.

According to Crowther’s definition, there are no true Muslims in the West:

As an Arabist I know there aren’t any Muslims in the West, because it is worse than 36 fornications to touch a penny of any money derived from interest, and you will go straight to hell when you die if you are that hypocritical.

Crowther then goes on to explain her attraction to the BNP:

I realised long ago that the BNP is the British equivalent of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, whom I admire and respect and who have great courage. That is why I joined.

Crowther, it appears, considers herself some kind of prophet, and concludes:

[P]rophets are often written off as mad, aren’t they? – including one of the greatest, Muhammad peace and praise be upon him.

Apparently, then, assuming these words are her own, BNP candidate Edith Crowther admires the notion of an Islamic State, considers Muhammad one of the greatest ‘prophets’, and ‘admires and respects’ the Islamist terrorist organisations Hamas and Islamic Jihad for their ‘great courage’.

I would love to see her explain these views to the electorate.

The irony is that if only she could give up all that ‘theology of nations’ drivel, Crowther would surely find herself more than welcome in another well-known crackpot political group.

For background information on this proposal to force Churches, charities, scout huts, village halls and sports clubs to cough up a £20 million levy on music see here.

This was originally instigated by Lord Mandelson, who also happens to be a Church Commissioner!

Anyway, some good news this morning from ThirdSector in the form of a temporary reprieve:

No time left for statutory instrument to be laid before the election

A proposal to remove the charity exemption from music licensing fees has been delayed until after the general election.

The change would allow licensing authority Phonographic Performance Limited to charge charities and community groups to play recorded music and radio stations in charity shops and at events. It could cost the sector an estimated £20m, politicians have warned.

The change is to be introduced by a parliamentary measure known as a statutory instrument. MPs must be given 40 days to object to a statutory instrument after it has been discussed in the House of Commons. Because the motion has not yet been tabled, there will not be time for it to be passed before Parliament is dissolved on 12 April.

The earliest the plan could now be put before the House of Commons is 18 May. It would then pass to the House of Lords for approval.

Liz Atkins, director of public policy at sector umbrella body the NCVO, said: “The good news for the sector is that both Angela Smith for Labour and Nick Hurd for the Conservatives have made it clear they would like to see a fair agreement between PPL and the voluntary sector before the statutory instrument is laid before Parliament.

“We are continuing to push for an exemption for the smallest charities as a minimum and will no doubt continue our negotiations with PPL in the coming months.”

Cross-post by Joseph @ Rosh Pina Project:

This is Part 1 of my response to N.T. Wright’s paper: Jesus, Israel and the Cross

NT Wright’s paper on Jesus, Israel and the Cross talks about the significance of Jesus’ death in relation to atonement. Wright seeks to answer a question which he considers to ambiguous and awkward, namely why did Jesus die. He thinks that neither the idea that Jesus died for our sins nor that Jesus was a political revolutionary killed for his actions are sufficient or realistic answers to this question.

Wright sees Jesus’ whole ministry as relating to Jewish apocalypticism:

Jesus’ whole ministry is one of apocalyptic warning of the immediately future judgment which will come upon Israel unless she repents.

This is how NT Wright defines the ‘Jewish hope’:

The Jewish hope, in a nutshell, was that God would act to save his people from Rome (as the concrete historical manifestation of his faithfulness to the covenant). Where Messianic expectations existed, as we shall see, they functioned within that wider, and more widespread, national hope. Jesus, however, while declaring that the Kingdom of God is imminent, stands the concrete form of the hope on its head. Hope lies, not in large-scale national deliverance from an enemy without, but in a national turning to a new form of aspiration—which is already appearing entos hymon, “in your midst,” as a grain of mustard seed, small but growing. The paradox of Jesus’ ministry is this: that, in claiming to herald the fulfilment of Israel’s hope, he radically redefines that hope.

According to NT Wright, Jesus redefines the Jewish hope in order to turn it inside-out, from a nationalistic messianism towards national hope in the Messiah himself, who saw far beyond Israel.

This is what N.T. Wright writes on Jesus’ reaction to Israel’s hope, and the wrath of God:

He warned that the “national hope,” followed in the way it was being followed, would lead to the wrath of Rome, and that in that wrath was to be seen the wrath of God. [...] The (so-called) ethical teaching of Jesus is to be seen, in this light, not in terms of a mere interiorisation of “external” Torah, nor indeed as a new Torah, but as the summons to Israel to be Israel—under Jesus’ guidance.

[...]

The death he dies is Israel’s death, and the pattern of healings and welcomes which make up so much of the gospel narratives indicates the motive: he dies Israel’s death in order that Israel may not die it. He takes the wrath of Rome (which is, like the wrath of Assyria or Babylon, the historical embodiment of the wrath of God) upon himself so that, in his vindication, Israel may find herself brought through the judgment and into the true Kingdom, may see at last the way to life and follow it while there is yet time.

According to Wright, Jesus was not bringing a new Torah, so much as turning Israel back to the true path as outlined for them in Torah to avoid the wrath of the Gentiles. N.T. Wright reasons that the wrath of God would be seen in the wrath of Rome, which was the ‘historical embodiment of the wrath of God’ like in Assyria or Babylon.

The main problem with the idea that the nations represent God’s wrath is that it jars quite strikingly with God’s words in Zechariah 1:13-15:

13 And the LORD answered the angel that spoke with me with good words, even comforting words–

14 so the angel that spoke with me said unto me: ‘Proclaim thou, saying: Thus saith the LORD of hosts: I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy;

15 and I am very sore displeased with the nations that are at ease; for I was but a little displeased, and they helped for evil.

In Zechariah 1:15, God expresses his displeasure with the nations saying that they went too far against Israel. So although it is true that God does send the nations as a judgement upon Israel, it does not necessarily follow that every action carried out by a hostile nation against Israel is a manifestation of the wrath of God. The wrath of God is by nature just, and the wrath of God is not present in the violent actions of sinful men.

The wrath of Rome specifically could not be the wrath of God, as Rome convicted Jesus as an innocent man. The wrath of God is always righteous and could not convict Jesus as an innocent man unless it was his expressed purpose that Jesus should die as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of man, according to his righteous decrees. For Rome, however, the death of Jesus had no greater meaning than appeasing the wishes of the clerical establishment in Jerusalem.

God saw Jesus as the lamb slain before the foundation of the world; Rome saw Jesus as another Jewish subject.

For New Testament believers, Christ within us is the hope of glory (Colossians 1:27). The hope we have in him is far greater than anyone could have imagined, and the significance of his death had far greater implications than it may have seemed within the context of the political situation of his day.

He did not die merely due to the wrath of Rome as a judgement against Israel, but due to the wrath of God against sin, for while we were still enemies, he reconciled himself to us.

We know that the wrath of man does not achieve the righteousness of God (James 1:20), yet we know that Jesus was delivered over to death for our sins, and raised to life for our justification (Romans 4:25).

I have my own issues with Dr John Sentamu Archbishop of York, which were exemplified when Nick Griffin expressed his support and admiration of him in a recent TV debate.

leaving this aside for the moment, I do appreciate his recent comments on “getting out there” with our faith.

Mail Online:

The Church of England should be open to new ways of conveying its message at Easter, reaching out into the community even in pubs, the Archbishop of York said today.

In an interview on GMTV, Dr John Sentamu, the former Bishop of Birmingham, spoke in favour of debates in pubs as one method of helping to modernise the church.

He said: ‘We’ve got now in the Church of England… where instead of simply advising people to come to our buildings and our churches, people are doing it in a new way and going to many places.

‘I’ve actually gone and had endless debates when I was in Birmingham in pubs with a lot of people and they used to draw quite a lot of people. I think we’ve got to find a way of getting our message across.’

Read More

I’m not exactly comfortable with the word “debate“, firstly because I am rubbish at debating, and secondly because I do wonder how many folks have been won to the kingdom through debate.

This said, he is most certainly on to something that most sincere Christians will recognise.

For too long we have operated within the confines of our own buildings and issued the call to “come”, and this has duly failed and been ignored.

Jesus explicitly commands us to “go” to the nations and peoples with the Good news, and provided a stunning example in His own life.

Jesus was not adverse to socialising with all types of folks in all types of environments.

I don’t feel that Jesus entered much in the way of debate, for the simple reason that most folks were stunned into silence, by His wisdom, love and compassion.

I notice also that he mostly steered away from the use of condemnation, which is something we could all do with remembering.

Ann Widdecombe rightly comments on this:

Christ said he came “feasting and drinking” only to find himself  insulted as a glutton and a wine- bibber but it was in the course of these get-togethers that he preached his message so why should not modern clergy follow suit?

Certainly medieval monks became famous for their brews and wine and hospitality at abbeys was part of the tradition of many orders. Friar Tuck was less a caricature than a model.

I don’t advocate the “megaphone” preachy style of approach, which aims to simply recruit and notch up another soul on the spiritual bedpost, through devious and cynical befriending mechanisms. I do advocate the simple sharing of ourselves and the beliefs that constitute our very core, without a feeling of shame, in any environment.

If these beliefs are confined exclusively to the church building then who will ever hear the message.

And in terms of the fear of ridicule or rejection for these heartfelt beliefs, we must remember that it isn’t actually personal as it isn’t a rejection of us, but a rejection of God.

I for one was greatly heartened to read of Archbishop John Sentamu conducting public baptisms outside York Minster this Easter.

A few years ago, I moved to a small village and frequented the local pub. Upon the regular patrons learning of my faith, they expressed their deep respect and admiration for a previous vicar who used to often visit the pub for a pint and a chat. They loved this guy and the church benefited enormously in every way.

However.

They loathed the new vicar, who never visited them. This was the same vicar who direly warned me of this “sinful” den of iniquity and their wicked “lock ins” when I first arrived in the village. Of course after hearing this, I couldn’t wait to go.

Enough said.

To mash a few Scripture thoughts together; we are not part of the world, but we are in the world and if we don’t engage the world, how they will they hear?

Half the battle is demonstrating that contrary to popular belief, we are actually quite normal human beings.

And probably the finest of all advise for evangelising comes from St. Francis of Assisi

“Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.”

Internet Evangelism Day is an annual digital outreach focus day for churches. This year, it is scheduled for Sunday April 25. It’s an opportunity for any church to explore with its members the exciting opportunities for sharing the good news online. Ready-made free downloads – PowerPoint, video clips, handouts, drama scripts and music can be easily built into a presentation of five minutes or 50.

2010′s focus day will be the sixth to be used by churches around the world since the initiative’s launch in 2005. Over this period, digital media have developed dramatically, with the advent of YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, and the growing use of mobile phones to access online services.

IE Day’s website is also a one-stop resource covering many subjects including: how to build a church website that is ‘outsider friendly’, using Twitter in evangelism, and ideas for effective blogging.

Perhaps surprisingly, you do not need to be technical to share your faith online. And you can volunteer to be an email mentor to inquirers with several large online outreach ministries.

Internet Evangelism Day is an initiative of the Internet Evangelism Coalition, based at the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton. It is supported by a wide range of Christian leaders and groups. “I am glad to commend Internet Evangelism Day,” says John Stott.

More information: http://www.InternetEvangelismDay.com

Compulsory sex education for 15 year olds and the controversial home education register, which were part of the Children, Schools and Families (CSF) Bill, have been ditched.

They have been scrapped in order to pass the bill before Parliament is dissolved, and it is generally understood that the Conservative Party blocked the sex education plans and that both the Tories and the Lib Dems were opposed to the home education proposals.

Some folk are well chuffed:

Under the contentious sex and relationship education (SRE) plans, children were to be taught that same-sex civil partnerships were equal in value to marriage.

Faith schools were also set to be forced to teach children about homosexuality and tell kids how to access contraception.

[.....]

Mike Judge, Head of Communications at The Christian Institute, said: “This is good news for all of us who care about protecting our children from sexualisation and protecting the freedom of families.

“Let children be children, let parents be parents and let Whitehall bureaucrats stop meddling from on high”, he added.

The Conservatives had promised in February that they would block the home schooling plans.

The Lib Dems also opposed the home education plans, labelling them as “excessive” and “illiberal”.

Under the proposals, home-schooling parents could have ultimately committed a crime if they had failed to register with the Government or provide particular information on how they planned to educate their children.

Government officials would have been allowed to interview children one-to-one about their home education and if parents objected local authorities could have revoked their home-schooling registration.

Michael Gove, the Conservative Party’s Shadow Children’s Secretary, assured parents that his party would work to block the proposals from becoming law.

Just last month hundreds of head teachers and faith leaders called on the Government to drop the SRE plans contained in the CSF Bill.

In a letter to The Sunday Telegraph, also signed by The Christian Institute’s Director Colin Hart, the signatories made clear that the primary responsibility for raising children lies with parents and guardians.

And they added that while schools may be entrusted with the formal education of children, the “overall responsibility” remains with parents and guardians.

The letter continued: “The Children, Schools and Families Bill undermines this principle and seeks to impose a particular ideology by means of statutory sex and relationships education from the age of five”.

Read All

And some folk are not so chuffed:

Gay rights campaigners had welcomed the plans as they would have ensured that all pupils were taught about gay relationships, homophobic bullying and HIV.

But education secretary Ed Balls was forced to drop several parts of the legislation today in order to ensure it becomes law before the general election.

Mr Balls has already been accused of “watering down” the provisions to allow faith schools to teach about homosexuality in line with their “religious character”.

[.....]

Lisa Power of HIV and sexual health charity Terrence Higgins Trust called the climbdown “disgraceful” and claimed it could lead to more homophobic bullying.

“We will see the impact on young people who haven’t had decent sex and relationships education. The girl who gets pregnant because the only education she got was in the playground, the people who use the word ‘gay’ as an insult,” she said.

“This isn’t just about sex – it’s about relationships, it’s about bullying, it’s about a whole raft of things.”

Derek Munn, Stonewall’s public affairs director, said that the move was “regressive” step and that Stonewall would lobby the next government to address the concerns.

He said: “Taught well, PSHE – including sex and relationship education – empowers young people to make informed decisions about their personal wellbeing. No young person should be denied this. We’ll be calling on the next government to revisit this as a matter of urgency.”

Read All

Coincidentally, on the other side of the pond, there have been some intriguing developments relating to sexual education, and specifically that which relates to same sex attraction:

News release from American College of Pediatricians

The American College of Pediatricians cautions educators about the management of students experiencing same-sex attraction or exhibiting symptoms of gender confusion. These concerns are outlined in a letter and fact sheet sent by College president Thomas Benton, MD, to all 14,800 school district superintendents in the U.S.

Dr. Benton also alerts them to a new Web resource, FactsAboutYouth.com, which was created by a coalition of health professionals to provide factual information to educators, parents, and students about sexual development.

“As pediatricians, our primary interest is in the health and well-being of children and youth,” Dr. Den Trumbull, vice president of the College explains. “We are increasingly concerned that in too many instances, misinformation or incorrect assumptions are guiding well-intentioned educators to adopt policies that are actually harmful to those youth dealing with sexual confusion.”

The College reminds school superintendents that it is not uncommon for adolescents to experience transient confusion about their sexual orientation and that most students will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged. For this reason, schools should not seek to develop policy which “affirms” or encourages these non-heterosexual attractions among students who may merely be experimenting or experiencing temporary sexual confusion. Such premature labeling can lead some adolescents to engage in homosexual behaviors that carry serious physical and mental health risks.

There is no scientific evidence that anyone is born gay or transgendered. Therefore, the College further advises that schools should not teach or imply to students that homosexual attraction is innate, always life-long and unchangeable. Research has shown that therapy to restore heterosexual attraction can be effective for many people.

Read All