The Emmanuel Foundation is Lying to us!
And Tony Blair's Government doesn't care
From King's Academy's official prospectus
 
We believe that human beings are created to God’s divine design and as such are valued and valuable in body, mind and spirit. As a whole person, body, mind and spirit are inter-related and physical, sexual, mental and spiritual health impinge greatly upon one another. Therefore, physical and sexual information will be presented within a moral framework whereby self-respect and respect for others are seen through chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within it.

I see Creationism rearing its very ugly and non-scientific head here - anyone who does not follow this idea is, in their eyes, wrong! This notion of a moral framework is probably no bad thing, but promoting this idea of chastity outside of marriage doesn't measure up to current trends - it's like pretending the 1960s sexual revolution and the contraceptive pill's invention didn't happen. These things happened - and the nature of evolution of a society means that you cannot go back on an idea once it exists in the public mind set. They continue:

Whilst presenting this God-given ideal, it is recognised that many other lifestyles exist and are often close to the experiences of our students. Therefore, the effective handling of such issues depends upon sensitivity and understanding rather than judgemental dogma.

There's a relief - they're going to be understanding when dealing with children from families of single or unmarried parents. But wait - presenting this God-given ideal. Whose god? There are lots of gods - depending on whether you're a monotheist (and then, which one) or a pantheist.

Issues relating to Sex and Health emerge across the Curriculum and within Tutorial and Pastoral situations and so staff are encouraged to address such issues in line with the above framework rather than simply to ignore or suppress genuine student enquiry. Staff’s professional judgement is key within this approach.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could rely on the staff's professional judgement. If one starts from a Christian dogma, then I submit that does not allow for sufficient room for manoeuvre. Not that I would expect them to come right out and say it, of course; there are much more subtle ways to show one's disdain.

However, in terms of the structured delivery of such matters, the major vehicles will be PTE, Science and Physical Education. Therein, such issues will be introduced and developed in a structured form which recognises different levels of maturity and development across the years of student life at the Academy. Further detail of these policies in practice are presented annually to an open meeting of new Year 7 parents.

I was at the 2004 presentation and I don't recall any mention of these policies - but human memory is fallible so I might just have missed it. And to continue:

This programme embraces attitudes to self and friends, physiological changes and growth, reproduction, sexuality, relationships, healthy lifestyles, marriage, sexual orientation, contraception, abortion and physical abuse and will take its lead from traditional Biblical morality.

Now this starts out well but then the Bible rears up again. Sexual orientation, that is, being homosexual is - I believe - covered in the Bible as a terrible sin; what message does this send to heterosexual (or for that matter, gay) young adults? Does it imply tolerance? Like hell it does! Homosexuality is a sin - so I would imagine that it's fair to say there are no gay teachers in any of the Foundation's academies. I wonder what they make of "fragrant" Labour MPs like Stephen Twigg and Ben Bradshaw?

We can reasonably assume from the above that the Foundation is intending to take the line that foetal termination (abortion) in all its forms is state-sanctioned murder. My own opinion here is not relevant, but one has to take the view that, given the options, isn't a surgical abortion preferable to a backstreet operator using a knitting needle? Abortion is a physically and mentally trying procedure for any woman - with life-long consequences - without being pressured by the faithful that it's morally wrong. This must remain a personal decision that cannot be taken lightly whatever the outcome.

I put it to you, this is the true price of traditional Biblical morality.

Most Christian churches, in particular the Roman Catholics, take the view that contraception is wrong because it interferes with God's plan. What then are we to infer from this? Are we to assume that the bias here is not to teach sexual health through the use of contraception and condoms, but to merely abstain? Are these people living in the 21st century?

Celibacy outside the confines of marriage and chastity within are wonderful ideals, but the ultimate price of these is that nature will find its own method of population control. Nature has developed its own method for dealing with population explosions: starvation.

The effect of this very treatise on the poorest peoples in the third word has been twofold:

  • There has been a population explosion leading to inevitable starvation, untold suffering and death.
  • HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, infects people by the million and is spreading with alarming ferocity.

How do you explain that away? Traditional Christian teachings which predate HIV by thousands of years are directly responsible for millions of deaths; a human tragedy the like of which has not been seen since Hitler's massacre of the Jews and other minorities. Hitler was acting on his own warped sense of morals when he and his Nazis attempted to annihilate the Jewish people. How are we to judge those who preach abstinence to simple people; an in doing so bring a down a terrible curse upon them.

I put it to you, this is the true price of traditional Biblical morality.

But don't worry, our kids can be removed from these lessons in lunacy-

The programme is explained so that parents can exercise, if they so wish, their right to withdraw their child from any part(s) of the scheme which falls outside of the National Curriculum although it is not possible to predict when these matters may arise in the normal running of lessons in several subjects such as Literature, Science, History, PTE and Tutor Time.

Oh, sorry, no we can't. This is going to infuse itself into every single subject from art to physics. The only way to keep our children safe from this Blair-sanctioned hipocrisy is to send them to a different school altogether.

As an aside, I find it ironic that the guy who actually championed the idea of Academies was none other than government minister and cuckold-in-waiting, former Home Secretary, David Blunket. A prime example of the sort of sinner that Peter Vardys of this world hold in such disdain; yet without them, we wouldn't be in the state we are today.

Gee, thanks David - I do hope that backbench isn't too hard on your adulterous rear!

6