Sexual Health & The Need For Secularism

July 27, 2012 by Patrick McGhee in UK Affairs with 6 Comments

Despite the absence of a codified constitution in the UK that explicitly separates religion from the state, it would nonetheless be heartening to see the Education Secretary take a more objective and inclusive approach to education, especially when the sexual health of young people hangs in the balance.

As the International AIDS Conference in Washington D.C. draws to a close, it is worth keeping in mind not only the efforts being made in the struggle against the disease but also the obstacles that have attempted to undermine these efforts. In a sense, little has changed since 2003 when the Catholic Church was discouraging people across the world from using condoms as a means of protection against HIV, with patent disregard for the scientific evidence against their claim that the infection could pass through the contraceptives.

In 2010, the Vatican was forced to vociferously reemphasise the Church’s opposition to contraception after the Pope suggested that condoms may be of benefit to male prostitutes, an offer of compromise hardly worthy of the serious conversation being had by medical professionals, scientists and coordinators about how best to tackle the epidemic. This case, in addition to Catholic opposition to the Affordable Care Act in the United States, suggests that healthcare would benefit from a secular outlook that prioritises wellbeing and safety over theological interests. It could be argued, however, that education is in need of a similar non-religious framework in order for these priorities to be realised.

Last week, it emerged that some schools in England have been not only discouraging but also actively preventing students from receiving important cervical cancer vaccinations as a direct consequence of religious belief. Explaining its decision to withhold vaccines from its students, one school said that its ‘pupils follow strict Christian principles, marry within their own community and do not practice sex outside marriage’. The news prompted criticism from numerous commentators, as well as calls for calm from others, but the debate itself should be seen as a symptom of a wider conflict inherent in the relationship between religion and education.

This conflict is perhaps best illustrated by the establishment of the Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) Council in May this year. The Council seeks to ‘promote the best possible sex and relationship education both at home and at school’ and is comprised of seven founding organisations, all of which have been found to support positions associated with the Christian right-wing and several of which have declared religious intent outright. Last week, one of the Council’s member organisations, Lovewise, was found to have given presentations containing misinformation to schoolchildren in order to discourage abortion, prompting condemnation from Labour MP Dianne Abbott.

The values of the Council in general and the actions of Lovewise in particular demonstrate the irreconcilable differences between elements of religious tradition and education, especially as it relates to sexual health. It may be true that, as the director of Lovewise Dr Chris Richards has said in defence of his organisation, young people ‘have a right to hear and discuss what might be positive about keeping sex for marriage and keeping their unborn child’, but schools have a more important obligation to deliver evidence and fact-based education to their students.

This can often mean dialogue and debate, but only in a secular environment can credible and objective conclusions be reached without the risk of unfairly promoting the beliefs of one faith above human wellbeing. Young people deserve to be educated in an environment that promotes multiple voices and a variety of ideas, but they also deserve a structure of learning that values the search for truth above all else. It would be a mistake to forgo that structure in order to facilitate the interests of particular religious traditions.

It is worth noting that the SRE Council has received the personal support of the Education Secretary Michael Gove, who has said, ‘I look forward to working with you all in ensuring that the interests of families are put at the heart of our policies’. Despite the absence of a codified constitution in the UK that explicitly separates religion from the state, it would nonetheless be heartening to see the Education Secretary take a more objective and inclusive approach to education, especially when the sexual health of young people hangs in the balance.

Tagged education, Healthcare, Human Rights, religion, UK

Share this post

About Patrick McGhee

Patrick is reading BA History at the University of Birmingham and is an Editor for the university newspaper.

View all posts by Patrick McGhee →

thechurchmouseAugust 2, 2012 at 7:12 amReply

In the interest of getting the facts right, I should point out that the issue of cervical cancer jabs has been badly misreported. You can find the actual facts here http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2012/07/20/creationism-and-cervical-cancer-jabs-letaos-react-proportionately.The survey reported found 24 schools which did not give their pupils the jabs. Of these, only two gave religious reasons for not doing so, and they both had fewer than 10 pupils. As such, this issue has nothing to do with religious reasons in the vast majority of instances identified. I suggest you correct this in your post.

PatricksmcgAugust 2, 2012 at 3:22 pmReply

thechurchmouse Hello thechurchmouse,Thank you very much for your comment.I am aware of Elizabeth Hunter’s piece on this, and actually included a link to it in my original article (paragraph 3) to illustrate that there have been different interpretations of the issue. Moreover, I was very careful to state in my article that only ‘some schools’ have denied jabs for religious reasons so as to avoid generalising.I also understand that many people of faith would find the idea of withholding healthcare troubling, and I would welcome a statement from religious groups denouncing the practices of this fringe minority of faith schools.Nevertheless, I would argue that if even one child is denied access to medical care because of the religious beliefs of a faith-based school, this indicates a serious problem with that institution and the relationship it establishes between religion and education.Thanks again,Patrick

thechurchmouseAugust 2, 2012 at 4:07 pmReply

Patricksmcg What a silly response. Please just admit that this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. I am happy to say that there is no valid reason why these two tiny schools with fewer than 10 pupils have acted as they have, but clearly the focus should be on the 22 other schools who seem to have other reasons. It strikes me as quite likely that a school with fewer than 10 pupils is most likely to not really be a school, but a couple of people who home school their kids together or something like that. Making out it is some kind of issue that needs a response from religious authorities is ridiculous. You should simply remove this, and highlight that the issue behind this is not religious.

PatricksmcgAugust 10, 2012 at 9:40 pmReply

thechurchmouse Apologies for the late response. I agree that all instances of poor care in schools need our attention, but nonetheless I would argue that schools or groups that have been religiously motivated to withhold medical care serve as evidence that religious beliefs are best kept separate from educational frameworks.More importantly, these schools or groups claim to represent the Christian tradition in some sense and say they are motivated by ‘Christian principles’ when they deny proper healthcare to children. Surely it is in the interests of broad-base religious groups to disassociate themselves from this irresponsible minority?Patrick

thechurchmouseAugust 10, 2012 at 9:50 pmReply

Patricksmcg if you agree that all instances require your attention, you are doing a very good impression of someone acting in the exact opposite manner. You are, in fact, deliberately focusing on an insignificance – the two “schools” of fewer than 10 pupils – to try to make a point about secularism which is clearly disproved by the facts at hand. The evidence shows, in fact, that secular schools are clearly more dangerous in this regard than religious schools. Yet, you appear uninterested in the facts and the evidence, and set on making a point about religion.I have already said that these two tiny “schools” – about which we know nothing – have acted wrongly. But you still have not amended your post to make clear that the overwhelming majority of schools in this situation are not acting under any claimed religious reason.

PatricksmcgAugust 2, 2012 at 3:22 pmReply

Hello thechurchmouse,Thank you very much for your comment.I am aware of Elizabeth Hunter’s piece on this, and actually included a link to it in my original article (paragraph 3) to illustrate that there have been different interpretations of the issue. Moreover, I was very careful to state in my article that only ‘some schools’ have denied jabs for religious reasons so as to avoid generalising.I also understand that many people of faith would find the idea of withholding healthcare troubling, and I would welcome a statement from religious groups denouncing the practices of this fringe minority of faith schools.Nevertheless, I would argue that if even one child is denied access to medical care because of the religious beliefs of a faith-based school, this indicates a serious problem with that institution and the relationship it establishes between religion and education.Thanks again,Patrick

6 Comments

thechurchmouseAugust 2, 2012 at 7:12 amReply

In the interest of getting the facts right, I should point out that the issue of cervical cancer jabs has been badly misreported. You can find the actual facts here http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2012/07/20/creationism-and-cervical-cancer-jabs-letaos-react-proportionately.The survey reported found 24 schools which did not give their pupils the jabs. Of these, only two gave religious reasons for not doing so, and they both had fewer than 10 pupils. As such, this issue has nothing to do with religious reasons in the vast majority of instances identified. I suggest you correct this in your post.
- PatricksmcgAugust 2, 2012 at 3:22 pmReply
  
  thechurchmouse Hello thechurchmouse,Thank you very much for your comment.I am aware of Elizabeth Hunter’s piece on this, and actually included a link to it in my original article (paragraph 3) to illustrate that there have been different interpretations of the issue. Moreover, I was very careful to state in my article that only ‘some schools’ have denied jabs for religious reasons so as to avoid generalising.I also understand that many people of faith would find the idea of withholding healthcare troubling, and I would welcome a statement from religious groups denouncing the practices of this fringe minority of faith schools.Nevertheless, I would argue that if even one child is denied access to medical care because of the religious beliefs of a faith-based school, this indicates a serious problem with that institution and the relationship it establishes between religion and education.Thanks again,Patrick
  - thechurchmouseAugust 2, 2012 at 4:07 pmReply
    
    Patricksmcg What a silly response. Please just admit that this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. I am happy to say that there is no valid reason why these two tiny schools with fewer than 10 pupils have acted as they have, but clearly the focus should be on the 22 other schools who seem to have other reasons. It strikes me as quite likely that a school with fewer than 10 pupils is most likely to not really be a school, but a couple of people who home school their kids together or something like that. Making out it is some kind of issue that needs a response from religious authorities is ridiculous. You should simply remove this, and highlight that the issue behind this is not religious.
    - PatricksmcgAugust 10, 2012 at 9:40 pmReply
      
      thechurchmouse Apologies for the late response. I agree that all instances of poor care in schools need our attention, but nonetheless I would argue that schools or groups that have been religiously motivated to withhold medical care serve as evidence that religious beliefs are best kept separate from educational frameworks.More importantly, these schools or groups claim to represent the Christian tradition in some sense and say they are motivated by ‘Christian principles’ when they deny proper healthcare to children. Surely it is in the interests of broad-base religious groups to disassociate themselves from this irresponsible minority?Patrick
    - thechurchmouseAugust 10, 2012 at 9:50 pmReply
      
      Patricksmcg if you agree that all instances require your attention, you are doing a very good impression of someone acting in the exact opposite manner. You are, in fact, deliberately focusing on an insignificance – the two “schools” of fewer than 10 pupils – to try to make a point about secularism which is clearly disproved by the facts at hand. The evidence shows, in fact, that secular schools are clearly more dangerous in this regard than religious schools. Yet, you appear uninterested in the facts and the evidence, and set on making a point about religion.I have already said that these two tiny “schools” – about which we know nothing – have acted wrongly. But you still have not amended your post to make clear that the overwhelming majority of schools in this situation are not acting under any claimed religious reason.
PatricksmcgAugust 2, 2012 at 3:22 pmReply

Hello thechurchmouse,Thank you very much for your comment.I am aware of Elizabeth Hunter’s piece on this, and actually included a link to it in my original article (paragraph 3) to illustrate that there have been different interpretations of the issue. Moreover, I was very careful to state in my article that only ‘some schools’ have denied jabs for religious reasons so as to avoid generalising.I also understand that many people of faith would find the idea of withholding healthcare troubling, and I would welcome a statement from religious groups denouncing the practices of this fringe minority of faith schools.Nevertheless, I would argue that if even one child is denied access to medical care because of the religious beliefs of a faith-based school, this indicates a serious problem with that institution and the relationship it establishes between religion and education.Thanks again,Patrick