If homosexual

[goldenfinger]

If homosexuallity is legal, should all references to anti-gay teaching be banned from all holy books in countries where such laws exist.:eek:What do you think.:three:
Same sex marriges is legal in many euro countries, so it seems only logical.

[19biman61]

Absolutely not. It's called freedom of religion. Governments shouldn't dictate religious beliefs.

[darkeyes]

Nope. Aint a matta of freedom of religion at all..its a matta of freedom. Religious ritins may not b my cuppa tea..but jus cos me don like or agree wiv summat, don mean it shud consigned 2 the dustbin.. its part of human knowledge, belief an culture.. as we hav the rite 2 argue for that wich we believe then othas do for the beliefs wich they hold dear... an for those of us who r gay or bi or ne thin else.. 2 ignore that wich is a part of human knowledge is a peril wich wud almost certainly cum bak an haunt us.

[goldenfinger]

Please tell me what anti-discrimination means.If I obey the law of the land, why should some be able to tell me I'm wrong.I have broken no laws.The law of the church does not over-write the law of the land.

[bediddle]

I don't think anyone is trying to say that the Church laws should overwrite the state laws but rather that the freedom to express different views should be protected.

Laws are not absolute truth; they change over time and across cultures. It's important to allow the discussion of things that may go against the current laws as there are cases where this is a reflection of the fact that a law is ready to change.

There are places where homosexuality is illegal. Do you think that, in those places, anything promoting the acceptance of homosexuality should be banned?

[darkeyes]

....as in many cases it is, Bediddle...:(

[darkeyes]

Please tell me what anti-discrimination means.If I obey the law of the land, why should some be able to tell me I'm wrong.I have broken no laws.The law of the church does not over-write the law of the land.

Because something is legal, or illegal for that Goldie babes...is no reason 2 stop people frome xpressing ther belief. We argue an fite our corner an thats in the main, how it shud b.. we strive for our vision of the world an contribute accordingly 2 a gr8er or lesser degree..

Put it this way...r ther no laws u think shud b changed??? An us ya think ya shud b prevented from arguin for those changes???

[bediddle]

....as in many cases it is, Bediddle...:(

I know! and we feel that that shouldn't be the case. Even though homosexuality is not legally accepted, we should at least be able to speak out about why we think those laws are wrong.

[FalconAngel]

The only problem with any anti-discrimination law is that it gets difficult to enforce. Here's why;
Those who practice discrimination of any kind in the first place is that they get sneakier in how they practice it, making it harder to prove.

Discrimination will never be able to be legislated away in any place in the world because of that on simple fact.

The way to get rid of it is through education and awareness.
For example;
There are many who still hold to the garbage of how "everyone just knew that gays are child molesters", which has since been proven to be total crap.

There are those that say that bisexuality does not exist. You can only be gay or straight, unless you are a woman. This, we also know to be homophobic discriminatory stupidity.

It has been education, not legislation that has taken those views from "common knowledge" to urban myth.

However, no amount of legislation or education can undo the hateful teachings of any religions that need an enemy to stay alive and keep people interested.

No, these things should not be removed from religious documents. People need to know where they have come from in order to not go back to the bad things that they have come from. If the teachings are there, then perhaps as society changes, they will see it there and learn from the mistakes of their forebearers.

Then again, there will always be those that use those kinds of teachings to commit crimes against humanity, ala the militant extremist sects of Islam, Judeism and Christianity.

[frenchvikki]

No you cannot legislate away discrimination, but you can to stop the worst effects of it and to eliminate it from our legal codes, thus ensuring that those who do have to answer for their actions. Minds and hearts must be changed. You can legislate to ensure that schools for instance teach a proper moral code and assist in raising children who do not have the prejudices of their parents, and that workplaces cannot discriminate against people because of creed, colour or sexual orientation or indeed just because of where they were born. This cant be done entirely satisfactorily but it often has produced children who have a far healthier outlook on the world than their parents, and workplaces which are much healthier environments than was the case 20 or more years ago.

Morality of course is a subjective thing, and changes with time. It is the responsibility of legislators to ensure that the legal system facilitates a progressive and not a regressive change, and to negate the worst of any discrimination at least legally. It is therefore essential that legislators continue to place before parliament such anti discrimination legislation as required.

Only time and by persuasion and educating people that prejudice and discrimination is wrong can we hope to make a real change in attitudes. As a tool to achieve this end, legislation and law is a useful and necessary tool.

[HighEnergy]

If we had taken all the references to slavery out of the bible, we'd have nothing to point to and say, "we used to think this was ok in the day, but now we've got to stop the homophobia, too."

[diB4u]

If homosexuallity is legal, should all references to anti-gay teaching be banned from all holy books in countries where such laws exist.:eek:What do you think.:three:
Same sex marriges is legal in many euro countries, so it seems only logical.

Well what countries are you talking about? In some african countries it is illegal to be gay or lesbian... Some countries have put GLBT people in prison... Now this is a human rights issue, which should be dealt with, but it wont be. In Saudia Arabia amongst a few countries will still hang people for their sexual orientation.

[MarieDelta]

Put it frankly, I don't care what your personal beleifs are. I only care that you treat people decently.

It doesn't make a difference to me what someone believes about me & my actions, only their actions can harm me.

On the other hand I believe that someone like Phelps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps) needs to be sued until they have nothing left. Then I would begin an investigation of him, I'm sure that he is hiding something either illegal or immoral.

As far as other countries go, well clearly something needs to be done about Saudia Arabia, and other countries where sexual oreintation is outlawed.
Womens rights in those countries are too often minimal or non-existant as well.

All humans deserve rights, the question is how do we get there?

[Skater Boy]

Well, just because something is legal doesn't necessarily make it MORALLY or SOCIALLY acceptable. As any 60 year old who has courted something "barely legal" will probably tell you. The LEGAL laws are just there to prevent major injustices from happening on a regular basis. they aren't necessarily intented as a guide for how citizens SHOULD live their lives, but rather how they SHOULDN'T live their lives. That said, the mechanisms that societies use to establish what IS socially and morally acceptable are very complex.

[The Barefoot Contess]

Here is an interesting example that comes from my home country, Spain, a place with strong Catholic roots but also where there is a clear separation of church and state. Recently, the left-wing government created a new high school subject, Civics, in which student are taught constitutional values and legal realities. For instance, abortion, and gay-marriage. Now, of course, the church and some associations of parents are asking the government to give students the option to not take that class if their parents believe that the values it transmits are against their moral/religious beliefs. Do you guys think their claim is reasonable? I personally think it is crap, but I'd be interested in reading what you guys think.

[Skater Boy]

Here is an interesting example that comes from my home country, Spain, a place with strong Catholic roots but also where there is a clear separation of church and state. Recently, the left-wing government created a new high school subject, Civics, in which student are taught constitutional values and legal realities. For instance, abortion, and gay-marriage. Now, of course, the church and some associations of parents are asking the government to give students the option to not take that class if their parents believe that the values it transmits are against their moral/religious beliefs. Do you guys think their claim is reasonable? I personally think it is crap, but I'd be interested in reading what you guys think.

Its a tough one. Who has more obligation and right in the education of a child- its parents or the social institutions (such as schools)? Its a bit of both, IMO. For example, in this country childen under 16 MUST go to school by law, if I remember rightly. This means that the social institutions have already removed some of the parents' choice in the matter. However, a distinction IS sometimes made between those things that should be taught by teachers in the classroom, and those that should be taught by the parents at home. IMO teachers should stick to the facts (including established civil rights, where applicable), and that the remainder (such as religion and some of the more personal choices) should be left up to the parents. Ultimately though, since the parents are the childrens' legal guardians, they should probably have the final say about what their children are or aren't taught when it comes to controversial subjects. At least until the child is old enough to decide for itself.

:2cents:

[gfofbiguy]

Here is an interesting example that comes from my home country, Spain, a place with strong Catholic roots but also where there is a clear separation of church and state. Recently, the left-wing government created a new high school subject, Civics, in which student are taught constitutional values and legal realities. For instance, abortion, and gay-marriage. Now, of course, the church and some associations of parents are asking the government to give students the option to not take that class if their parents believe that the values it transmits are against their moral/religious beliefs. Do you guys think their claim is reasonable? I personally think it is crap, but I'd be interested in reading what you guys think.

I think that's crap too, BUT when I was in school (way back in the 80's, and in public school to boot), we learned about sex ed in school including "how babies are made" (from 4th grade on)/abortion/safe sex/homosexual/bisexual/etc. ... parents DID have the option of having their child/children NOT take that class ("health" class) if they wanted to teach them at home. I do remember when the pro lifer's were pushing for not teaching "safe sex" (yes, even back then) and wanted "abstinence only" and abortion not taught or even discussed, and there was a big too-do at my school, as where I grew up and went to school was pretty liberal. It was decided that if they taught abstinence, they would teach safe sex as well...However, they did not hand out condoms to the students like all the abstinence-only people THOUGHT and SAID was happening during "sex ed" classes.

Nowadays, I do think that the parents (of younger/grade-school-age children) should have veto power of whether or not their child is taking such a class, IF they are in the public schools. Private schools (which are mostly religious schools here in the States, but there are some private schools that are not religious), have their own curriculum and is not state-dictated/government dictated. Parents CHOOSE to send their children to those schools/pay for those schools (the private ones), mostly because of the curriculum and what they teach....Public schools, usually the "luck of the draw" of where you live and parents, if they prefer their children to learn that stuff at home, well, I guess should get veto power. HOWEVER, I think that once kids hit teenage years/middle school/high school, they NEED to learn this stuff, if only to keep them safer and to let them know there is more than one type of person in the world.:2cents::soapbox::)

[wanderingrichard]

If homosexuallity is legal, should all references to anti-gay teaching be banned from all holy books in countries where such laws exist.:eek:What do you think.:three:
Same sex marriges is legal in many euro countries, so it seems only logical.

so, what would happen here is that the tenents of a religion/faith would then be in violation of the law of the land, thereby making that religion or it's practice illegal too, right??

what a wonderful dose of reverse discrimination aimed at the most intolerant..anyone have knowledge of a real world example?

[wanderingrichard]

Put it frankly, I don't care what your personal beleifs are. I only care that you treat people decently.

It doesn't make a difference to me what someone believes about me & my actions, only their actions can harm me.

On the other hand I believe that someone like Phelps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps) needs to be sued until they have nothing left. Then I would begin an investigation of him, I'm sure that he is hiding something either illegal or immoral.


actually, hon, i think the axe has starting swinging downward on phelps et al, if what i read online recently is true. i seem to recall that cnn carried some of it, mainly because the bastard[ sorry, i insult bastards everywhere by including this person] was in the hoosegow someplace with a few of the family cooling their heels with him.

[Bluebiyou]

If homosexuallity is legal, should all references to anti-gay teaching be banned from all holy books in countries where such laws exist.:eek:What do you think.:three:
Same sex marriges is legal in many euro countries, so it seems only logical.

If religion is legal, should all references to anti-religion be banned from all gay books in countries where such laws exist?
What do you think?
Religious marriages are legal in many euro countries, so it seems only logical.

[Bluefrankenstein]

Please tell me what anti-discrimination means.If I obey the law of the land, why should some be able to tell me I'm wrong.I have broken no laws.The law of the church does not over-write the law of the land.

You can't force people to change their religious beliefs. To these people these are holy books straight from their gods (I don't believe it, but they do). I don't think any government could ever get a "god" to change their words.

[ohbimale]

Although I do not agree with the bible thumpers, religious right and anti gay people, I regretfully must side with their right to freedom of speech. Any restrictions placed on one group through law can be used by creative people to restrict groups of people it was not intended for. I would not want some to restrict my freedoms and would not want to restrict their freedoms - whoever they may be. The USA may be a scewed up country in some ways by leftover puritan values, but it is still the best country as far as freedoms go. :male::male::bibounce:

[goldenfinger]

Some very interesting answers.But how do you teach tolerance of others, if people are allowed to to express hate towards black or gays. You can't have it both ways. (No punt intented:bigrin:)

Bimalewitch, in which other country have you lived for a long time, to make the statement that you have the most freedom in the USA. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to demean other people, whoever or whatever they are.

dib4u, do some research yourself, you could learn something.:2cents:

[The Barefoot Contess]

it is still the best country as far as freedoms go. :male::male::bibounce:

Even without, let's say, habeas corpus? Uuummm, it seems to me that we are giving up lots of freedoms on the grounds of some fucked up "security" promise, but if we are so stupid that to accept that, then maybe we don't deserve those freedoms to begin with.

The best country compared to what? How are freedoms more protected in the US than in Western, central and Northern Europe, Canada, Australia?

[frenchvikki]

Its a tough one. Who has more obligation and right in the education of a child- its parents or the social institutions (such as schools)? Its a bit of both, IMO. For example, in this country childen under 16 MUST go to school by law, if I remember rightly. This means that the social institutions have already removed some of the parents' choice in the matter. However, a distinction IS sometimes made between those things that should be taught by teachers in the classroom, and those that should be taught by the parents at home. IMO teachers should stick to the facts (including established civil rights, where applicable), and that the remainder (such as religion and some of the more personal choices) should be left up to the parents. Ultimately though, since the parents are the childrens' legal guardians, they should probably have the final say about what their children are or aren't taught when it comes to controversial subjects. At least until the child is old enough to decide for itself.

:2cents:
In principle and in a world which had a more knowledgable and aware population I can agree with you Skater. Yet as a primary schoolteacher, from my personal knowledge of High Schools and the misunderstandings and intolerance many children have towards homosexuality I do not believe that we can any longer allow children to be opted out of being properly educated in social and moral values.

I have seen too much bullying, even among children as young as 6 and 7 because of what the bullies consider in their naive way sexual depravity. They get this from the intolerance and misunderstandings of their parents and other adults around them. If they have such intolerance themselves at the age of 6 when they have no real idea of what being gay is, it is a much greater task in adolescence and adulthood to break that intolerance.

It is not entirely the parents fault, but that of society and of some religious bodies for failing generations of children and not providing them with a tolerant and moral base towards the different sexualities.

In the UK, against pressure from many religious bodies, the UK has passed much progressive legislation in the area of gay rights, and the present UK government in London and the previous Scottish government in Edinburgh took from the statute books the notorious section 28 where no local authority was allowed to spend any time or money on protecting (promoting I think they called it) gay and lesbian matters. This meant that homosexuality became a taboo subject in religious and moral education in state schools, except that which was biblical. Many teachers, schools and local authorities circumvented the legislation as much as they dared, but in the years after the Thatcher government enacted the law it proved a very negative and destructive law, and did nothing to promote understanding of the gay and bisexual communities.

Watching and listening to the way children speak and play it is easy to see that many of the parents who opt their children out of school moral education not because they wish to educate their children themselves in this area, but because they do not wish their children to be broken from the mould of bigotry and intolerance in which they themselves were shaped thus perpetuating the myths and hatred we have to face, and keeping many of us from living open and happy lives. Those young children, many of whom will grow up to be gay or bisexual themselves will mature into the same kind of confused, miserable, unhappy adults that many of us did. I do not believe that this can be allowed to continue and regrettably I have swung round to the opinion that moral education in schools should not contain an opt out, irrespective of religious or social values.

Too many parents do not meet their responsibilities to their children and condemn them to a life of truths, half truths and downright lies about homosexuality.They condemn many to mental anguish and illness in later life as they struggle with their sexuality. They condemn their children, some of them at least, to suicide because they are unable to live with the shame of being gay or lesbian or bisexual in contradiction to the teachings of their parents, 'teachings' which are often merely outbursts in and out of the home of 'dont go near that fucking bastard in number 38. He is a fucking poof and should be fucking hung.' Coherent, but I have heard parents use such language to their children, and have on several occasions been told by a parent in no uncertain terms to keep a child away from a colleague because of his sexuality.

You will have guessed therefore that I am not out of the closet yet, but that is not my point. My point is that I no longer believe we can leave the moral education of children to parents because many, not all, are quite incapable of performing the task compassionately and objectively. Many indeed are incapable of reason about homosexuality. Therefore I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that moral education and sexuality issues must become a compulsory part of childrens education. Leaving it till they are old enough to decide for themselves is too late. They are much to far on on their 'development' as human beings and their attitudes and 'certainties' much too set. Moral education sould therefore be a part of school curriculums compulsorily from the age 5 when we have a chance some chance of preventing the moral and mental damage which so many parents cause by their so called 'loving care'.

[darkeyes]

Interestin lil post vik.. an dus agree wiv ya in lotsa ways... in fact think it is wot shud b happnin..dus hav the concern tho of wot happens wen a more reactionary an intolerant government begins 2 shuv ther shite down throatsa kids an begin2 undo all the gud u tryin 2 achieve... legislation always bitta dubble edged sword, an can always b repealed an replaced by less tolerant law. Even tho in Britain things r betta for likes of us than they eva been prob, don mean it will always b like that..an we havta b on our guard 2 protect wot we hav every day of our lives. If wot u wud like 2 c cums 2 pass..an sum arsehole rite wing buncha tossers tries 2 unravel it an reverse it.. cya on the barricades!!! Cos 2 stop it thats wer we will prob havta b...

[Skater Boy]

WOW, Vikki, what a detailed response! thanks for taking the time to post it!

I have to admit that I agree with much of what you said. NOT because I CHOOSE to see things so pessimistically, but because I have experienced enough of our education system to REALIZE that there is much truth in your critique of the situation.

So... what is to be done? Well, it might seem that society needs to educate BOTH the parents AND the children. Its quite hard to ask a fully grown adult to re-arrange their beliefs once formed, but perhaps its worth a shot, no?

Otherwise, the best course of action might be to target the future-generation of parents (who are currently children) by, as you say, society attempting to impose its system of preferred moral values onto them.

BUT, in this scenario, we are removing a substancial aspect of parents' rights. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as the law stands, isn't it the PARENTS' responsibility (and right) to raise their children as they see fit? Are you really suggesting that we should automatically revoke that right and instil in EVERY child the same set of social values? And who is to say that THOSE social values will necessarily be the true and correct ones?

I do understand your points, and I agree with much of your argument. I also concur that "society" (or do you mean just a certain part of society?) should probably play a greater role in childrens' development. But it does raise some tricky issues concerning civil/human rights. Is FORCING other people's children to conform to YOUR ideologies acceptable, regardless of which ideologies you promote?

Not sure I have all the answers. But thanks again for posting, and making me think. :)

[darkeyes]

Not sure thats quite wot she sayin Skater... its a sod of a prob me agrees..but think wot Vik is sayin that we shudn force beliefs down throats but inform kids an educate em more responsibly than we dus..an try an make em more compassionate an tolerant than happens now. Wetha we like it or not schools do substantially shape how our kids turn out.. shud b parents who dus this in the main... but far 2 often they don... schools teach that bullyin is rong an anti social an try (or shud) 2 put a stop 2 it. They educate kids 2 realise that murder is rong, theft, use of guns an knives, swearin is not acceptable an violence will not b tolerated... an in many otha society standards of the day. Its a simple extension 2 wot schools do now.. contraversial sure... sum times we havta take the bull by the horns..an in mattas of sexuality..parents won, or cant..so schools havta....

Parents hav rites sure..but they also hav responsibilities...an many..millions of em simply abrogate those responsibilties by allowin ther children 2 b like them..bigoted, intolerant, viscious, nasty... or jus plain ignorant. Me gonna b a high school teacher in 18 months or so me hopes..next year me gonna b goin inta high schools an start learnin me craft.. an me wonts 2 make a diff 2 those kids.... hav no intention of lettin em go on way so many r wivout tryin 2 make life better, not jus for gays bi's an transgendered peeps..but for those kids 2... am openly a gay woman Skater...an wen me goes inta school am not gonna hide that from those kids, wetha they b well balanced or viscous an bigoted...... how me gonna do that if parents allowed 2 let ther kids do wtf they like wiv me and/or ne otha teachers or kids jus cos they don meet the accepted norms of a warped an ignorant adult generation?

Soz babes..summat gorra happen..an Viks suffestion is only way at pres me c's a changin things..many parents r lost causes..they will always b anti gay...its the kids wich r our hope..an the kids we havta try an save from that intolerance....

[frenchvikki]

Having read my post again after what you said Skater, I dont retract any of it. I may have picked a few words which give the impression that I wish to impose a set of moral values which are hard and fast. Darkeyes outburst is a passionate critique much more so than mine, and her awareness and observations are a frightening reminder of what we face. I do not wish to educate our children that grow up to be gay, or bisexual or anything else. I do wish them to be educated that being so is nothing to be ashamed of ,and as such is a proper and valid lifestyle which no one has the right to undermine. I wish them educated that those who are gay or bisexual are no more or less likely to do harm in the community than the so called normals. I wish them educated that gay and bisexual people are not in fact perverts and are as likely and unlikeley to be paedophiles, a common attack especially from less well educated people, and used by unscrupulous well educated ones, than the so called straight community. I wish them taught that paedophilia is as seperate therefore from homosexuality and bisexuality as is is from heterosexuality. Certainly there are gay people and bi people who are paedophiles, but many are also heterosexual, more almost certainly than in the gay and bi community. Many paedophiles are not gay, bi or heterosexual, and children must be persuaded that this is the case. The confusion in the minds of many parents, and their misunderstandings come from their own childhood. I would spare their children that. I would spare generations to come that and the misery which accompanies it.

In fact parents cannot raise their children as they see fit. That has never been the case in this country. They have never been legally able to raise them as criminals for one thing, and many other restrictions and legal obligations exist. They are expected to be law abiding for one thing and within those limitations they may raise their children as they see fit. Raising a child who is a bigot, and who discriminates against any other human being for her or his sexuality, because of her or his colour or religious beliefs is as much a crime as personally discrminating against those people ourselves. I would actually argue more so. Raising a child to steal and kill is a crime and punishable seriously by law. Raising a child to discriminate on the bases I have outlined should, and within certain parameters is, actually punishable by the laws of the United Kingdom.

I do not wish to indoctrinate children,although where morality is concerned there is always an element of it and this is unavoidable, but merely to show them that they should have compassion for all of their fellow human beings whether they accept their way of life or not. Parents are failing in this. It is therefore essential that the reponsibility for instilling that compassion is substantially shifted to the education system. Parents who attempt to undermine that shift of responsibility, must face whatever consequences the law will place upon them.

[Skater Boy]

lol, ok, ok... no need to rant on about Paedos... I take your point. I just mean that the educational institutions are often primarily there for INTELLECTUAL development, rather than MORAL development. So there may be some resistance if people try and put a moral twist on it all. But I agree for the most part- parents are frequently failing their children these days, and someone else needs to step in. I just think raising public awareness about the truth and facts (even amongst children) would be much preferable to any draconian imposition of those values.

[darkeyes]

They will Skater yas rite...tho for life of me don c wy they shud.. schools hav always played a part in the moral development of kids... wot else wos an is RE in schools?? Wot else is Moral education? Gives game way a bit don it?Wot else in England ne way 2 a degree is Citizenship? 2 try an turn out decent human beins (tho lotsa it wos pretty shitty an misguided but wer looked on as ok in ther time.. an those msitake havta b avoided).

Schools r primarily for the education of our kids..yas rite ..they r ther 2 stretch an enable kids 2 make the best of themselves that they can do.... 2 teach em the 3 R's an otha intellectual an improtant things wich will make em more rounded an capable human beins.. of enablin them 2 reach ther max potential in ther adult life..an parta that hasta b 2 make em decent human beins wiv compassion for all otha human beins... if parents won do that..who else is gonna????

[Skater Boy]

schools hav always played a part in the moral development of kids... wot else wos an is RE in schools?? Wot else is Moral education??

Many schools are "multi-faith" these days, meaning that IF religious topics ARE taught, that no one religious ideology can be venerated above another. I went to a Catholic school and my RE lessons followed a fairly similar structure. I was never given lessons in "Moral Education". There are such a wide range of religions these days that its impossible for them all to agree on every detail, so the teachers revert to just the plain FACTS. Therefore, in this case, the school is merely raising the students' awareness about what religious ideologies exist in the world. This does help to promote understanding and hopefully tolerance. But anything beyond that is often up to the individual and his/her parents (unless the parents permit the school the right to try and morally educate their children, which sometimes happens in single-faith and private schools). Although lets not over-look the INDIVIDUAL's responsibility here... even children must, to some degree, be held accountable for their beliefs and actions. And part of our society's problem atm is that they just simply aren't.

But yes, I do agree that we ALL need to share that responsibility, if possible.

[dafydd]

Please tell me what anti-discrimination means.If I obey the law of the land, why should some be able to tell me I'm wrong.I have broken no laws.The law of the church does not over-write the law of the land.

The law is not always fair. Use your own moral judgement.

d

[Sarasvati]

Folks this is a planet on which a British schoolteacher can be threatened with 40 lashes for naming a teddy bear "Mohammed". Justice? No, just more cowardly hate.

This is also a planet on which Blind Willie Johnson could have his step mother blind him with boiling water as an infant and then sing triumphantly, "Nobody's fault but mine". In other words, he was the sinner. Remember all the tsunamis, Katrinas and global warning are the result of DE, me and our friends. Fucking ideotic reasoning again from small minds.

In the middle ages, the penalty for buggery in England was to be boiled alive.

After the fall of Rome in the 1st millenium AD, the terror of sin swept through the dark ages and sex became its chief agent. And to the great fires of Europe and the Near East went any deviations from religious authority. Up went the spires of churches and the domes of mosques and down went men, women and children in their droves.

Homosexuality is as old as mankind and was an ordinary practice in Ancient cultures.

The terror of sin still thrives today across the world with its injustice and insanity finding popular voice.

Our task is to throw off the shackles of religious belief inspired by hatred. Inspiration by hatred is the great motivator of the mass. If you want to rise to despotic power, arm yourself with it. But it is a perversion of God and any religion that comes from God.

We need to rescue sexuality and sexual liberty from the stain of sin that has cast its wicked spell n us.

But we are all in the minority, those of us who wish to hold a light for reason, for tolerance, for life enhancement.

Our western world has fostered a more tolerant environment in which it has become less dangerous to practice one's sexuality.

The small gain that has been made is under threat from all around. But the greatest threat is the unwillingness of those of us who live in tolerant cultures to stand up for that tolerance.

It is vital that people who are opposed to homosexuality, bisexuality, etc., etc., are entitled to express their views however offensive. If that is not tolerated a backlash is provoked, more severe than before.

Oh didn't he ramble...

[darkeyes]

Skater me makes no coment on wot goes on in Schools south of the border but in Scotland ther remains Religious and Moral Education as a subject. This don take the form of tellin kids wots wot in eitha religious or moral terms, but of jus like in England teachin em bout the various religions across the globe, an tryin 2 teach em compassion an tolerance toward all. The moral education teaches kids bout the moral confusions wich r faced by us all as we go through life, an 2 again, treat people wiv compassion tolerance an undastandin. Many schools baulk at duscussion of sum subjects, such as homosexuality, an also abortion.

Ther is a Standard Grade Religious Studies (Equivelant GCSE) course for kids at S3 an 4 wich dus not preach God is or is not, but asks kids 2 discuss wot they know bout the various religions wich they hav studied an the tenets of faith wich exist within them. Core Religious Education for all at S3 an 4 is also offered in addition 2 the Standard Grade course an takes a different form. Ther is for S5 an 6 Higher Still courses in Religious Studies an Philosophy at Intermediate, Higher an Advanced level. Me knowledge of English education is ratha sketchy an am merely relatin the system wich me knows best. From the day they begin school at 5 an even younger children r not taught certainties of Gods goodness or othawise an do as ya told orya go to hell wenya die. They r taught the tenets of belief of many religions, they r taught much that is morally "acceptable" for everyday livin, an they r taught not 2 believe but 2undastand an b tolerant of difference. Sadly this is all 2 often omitted from some schools in mattas of sex an sexual orientation, an even wer its is discussed parental opt out nullifies much of the gud it tries 2 achieve.

So in Scotland at least RE remains a subject, if considerably diff from the stuff me mum an dad wer taught, an even me for that matta, an also moral education. Nun of it is intended as doctrination but 2 give children an undastandin of the world about em, an hopefully instill in em an ability 2 face the world an b compassionate of it an all of its inhabitants.