Militant secularisation - worse than militant theocracy.

There are some things you hear about that you need to do a double take with sometimes.  Take an article I read today, for example.  Lady Warsi, a British MP, has called for Christianity to be given a more central role in society and government after the latest furore over the removal of prayer sessions before council meetings.  She claims that British secularisation is "that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity because they were frightened of the concept of multiple identities."

It's not strange to hear a religious conservative stand against secularisation; at the most harmless level you can take it, they believe supporting religion is standing up for core nationalist values, that religion plays a massive part in creating the identity of a culture and society.   However, the danger with allowing religion into politics and parliament is that it's supporting one particular religion over another; religious favourtisism has never been a fair system in government and usually involves other religions being at a disadvantage at large.  Using a theocratic system I am familiar with, the Brunei government favours its Muslim citizens, allowing better benefits to them over their smaller Buddhist, Christian. Hindu and atheist citizens.  Their reasoning is that Brunei is a Muslim country, built on Muslim values.  It's by no means a fair system.  And that's in a country where a non-Muslim population is at a significantly small ratio that an uprising against that unfairness would probably take many years to overcome.  In England, where religious diversity is far more, well, diverse, favouring one religion over another would light a powder keg of dispute.  In fact, not unlike the powder keg that one Guy Fawkes had attempted. 

And it's not just favouring Christianity as a whole that Lady Warsi is advocating.  She's organising a delegation to the Vatican to argue that "Europe needs to be more confident in its Christianity".  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a trip to the Vatican itself an advocation for Catholicism being the preferred Christian denomination?  Historically, England turned Protestant under King Henry the Eighth in protest against Roman Catholicism.  Doesn't that imply that Protestant Christianity is far more important to English heritage than that of Catholic Christianity? 

Lady Warsi says she doesn't want a theocracy but that faith should play a bigger role in politics.  In what way?  It's fine if a person wants to practice their faith in private.  The problem secularists have with religion in politics and public office is that it interferes with maintaining government neutrality and fairness.  If faith was allowed to dictate what was moral, that risks pulling the country back several decades, if not centuries.  Religion as a whole has massive disdain for hot political topics such as equal rights for homosexuals and women as well as abortion and marriage, to name but a handful.  By allowing the religious right to advocate their faith in office, the worst case scenario would be to face having to fight for rights we already have. 

In the midst of this whole debate, there is one thing that strikes me as ironic.  Lady Warsi herself is a Muslim.  I wonder how her Muslim constituents must feel about her pushing for putting Christianity over her roots in Islam.

Someone get this man a lesson in culture and sociology.

What do we have here?  A high ranking religious leader promoting bigotry?  When did this happen? 

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Setanmu, is telling people that whilst he's fine with homosexuals having a civil partnership, he thinks that they shouldn't get married and that is was not "the role of the government to alter social structures that had been in place for centuries".

"I don't think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can't just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are"

Hmmm.  What is the definition of marriage, I wonder...

Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. (-Wikipedia)

That sounds pretty cut and dry to me as far as definitions go.  So what's the problem with allowing gay couples to be married?  Well, according to Dr Sentamu and many other religious people from other faiths who share his view, marriage is a sacred union as endorsed by their God.  And since according to his mind that God hates men sticking their dicks up other men's arses, or women having scissor sex, these people should not be allowed to have their long relationships made into marriage unions, and thus "endorsed by God".

(On the vein of opposition to gay men and lesbians, why are more people of extreme faith against the former?  Is it because penises are going into poop holes and not vaginas?  Is it because lesbians are stereotypically thought of as page three models and therefore it's hot?  Seriously, I am curious to know why gay men are more hated on than gay women.)

Dr Sentamu goes another step further and compares the government's interference on marriage values a dictatorship.

"We've seen dictators do it in different contexts, and I don't want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way."

Well, let's examine history on social change where the government was involved.  How about one that should be close to the Archbishop's heart - slavery and equal rights for black people.  Once upon a time, black people were thought of as lower than anyone with pale skin.  They were hunted and shipped out of their home countries like cattle, sold like property, abused, unheard, ignored.  It was a massive joke to suggest to a white man to let his slaves go free, or to give them a basic wage, or even just to stop sticking his boot in their faces.  Then what happened?  White people grew a conscience.  White people started recognising that it was wrong to abuse someone because of the colour of their skin.  White people spoke up and fought back for the rights of their fellow humans, for the sake of human decency.  Obviously, they were resisted.  They were scoffed at or accused of being "black lovers" like it was a sin (which it was thought of at the time).  There were fights, battles, wars.  And the thing with fights and wars is that they build up in scale.  The government would HAVE to get involved.  The government would HAVE to listen to their people.

As history has proven in the Western world, slavery was abolished but not without the backing of the governments.  Not without the changing of laws that allowed the atrocity to happen.  Yes, it took a very long time.  Even now, race crimes are not uncommon, but they are just that now - crimes.  You cannot deny a black person's basic rights to welfare, work, relationships, marriage based on the colour of their skin.  And that extends to other races as well.

How is that fight any different to now?  People are fighting in this day and age to help another disadvantaged group; the LGBT community.  They are still people, they are still humans.  You wouldn't know them to be any different to another straight person unless they told you.  And yet people still think it's okay to deny them the same rights a straight person enjoys, that it's okay to sneer at them, to abuse them, to kill them because they love the wrong gender.  The government has to get involved now because the public WANTS them to. 

The problem Dr Sentamu has with the government getting involved is that he knows the public domain is supportive of gay marriage. Hopefully in March, when the government has had their consultation regarding gay marriage, Dr Sentamu and the people who agree with this homophobic bigotry will see that social change can and will happen at a government level, but not because the Prime Minister is a dictator, but because the British public have voted for equal rights instead of religious privilage and bigotry. 

(Sourced from The Guardian)

These are the real demons

Evil has penned another name for itself, in the name of the Synagogue Church of All Nations (SCOAN).  An undercover report by Sky News has found out that this so-called church has been telling HIV sufferers that go to them to throw away their medication and go start families because they have been cured by the power of God.

WHAT THE HELL!?

A sprinkling of water and a few words shouted over a person isn't going to drive any illness out of a person's body and yet these people have the audacity to claim a 100% success rate at curing HIV sufferers!  And as a result of people believing this, at least 6 known people have died.  People who didn't need to suffer and die when real medicine and real professionals can help keep them alive and living as comfortably and normally as possible!

One pastor, Rachel Holmes, told one of the undercover reporters (who is a real HIV sufferer) that if she continues to vomit or suffer from diarrhea, she should not take her medication - it's evidence that the disease is leaving her body.  Never mind that this is already a recognised condition associated with HIV!  It's easy to say perhaps they deserved to die for beliving this drivel, but these people would have been desperate and looking for a permanent cure.  So they become easy prey for these vultures who call themselves pastors and prophets. 

And to me, the cherry on this sundae of disaster is the fact SCOAN is registered in the UK as a charity.  It's almost ironic, but I seriously hope the Charity Commision revokes that.  Why should these people get rich off the backs of vulnerable people and the country by peddling death and stupidity?

What has the church got to say about this whole debacle?

"We are not the Healer - God is the Healer. Never a sickness God cannot heal. Never a disease God cannot cure. Never a burden God cannot bear. Never a problem God cannot solve.
"To His power, nothing is impossible. We have not done anything to bring about healing, deliverance or prosperity. If somebody is healed, it is God who heals.
"We must have a genuine desire if we come to God. We are not in position to question anybody's genuine desire. Only God knows if one comes with true desire. Only God can determine this.
"That is why, if anybody comes in the name of God, we pray for them. The outcome of the prayer will determine if they come genuinely or not."

  You hear that?  It's not their fault if you're still sick and on death's door.  It's all God's work, so if you don't go in believing in his all-powerful healing, then it's actually your fault you're not cured.  Way to pass the buck, guys.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need something sweet to wash the bitter taste of rage and horror from my mouth.

Awww, just kiss and make up already.

Advertising is designed to get certain emotions going to sell their products or ideology.  Quite a few adverts cause controversy.  United Colors of Benetton have released one such ad campaign which has sent people up in arms.

Benetton's Unhate campaign is trying to spread the message of tolerance and "unhate".  Quoted from their website...

What does UNHATE mean? UN-hate. Stop hating, if you were hating. Unhate is a message that invites us to consider that hate and love are not as far away from each other as we think. Actually, the two opposing sentiments are often in a delicate and unstable balance. Our campaign promotes a shift in the balance: don’t hate, Unhate

I think this is a WONDERFUL message to spread.  It's not everyday that a big firm would release a specific campaign urging people the world over to stop hating each other.  Unfortunately, this message is a little lost on some people.  First in line to argue this "controversial advertising" is the Vatican, on behalf of Pope Benedict.

Don't they make a lovely couple?

Locking lips with the Pope in that image is Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb, a prominant imam and scholar of Sunni Islam from Cairo.  Other images in the campaign has Barack Obama kissing the leaders from China and Venezuela, Angela Merkel kissing Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of Palestine kissing the Prime Minister of Israel, and another personal favourite of mine, Kim Jong-il kissing the president of South Korea, Lee Myung-bak.

Unfortunately, the Pope's poster hasn't been up for more than an hour before they were forced to pull it from their website due to complaints from Vatican City. 

"This shows a grave lack of respect for the Pope, an offence to the feelings of believers, a clear demonstration of how publicity can violate the basic rules of respect for people," said Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican's spokesman.

The posters were unveiled in a "series of guerilla actions" according to the company, with the posters of Benedict/Ahemd, Merkel/Sarkozy and Obama/Hu Jintao being revealed in Rome, Paris and Milan respectively.  As of yet, the Pope is the only one considering taking legal action against the company for his particular poster, although I would be very interested in hearing the reactions of the other posters from the other featured leaders.  Alessandro Benetton, the deputy head of the company, knew what he was doing in this provocative campaign but wanted to share the ideal notion of love through these posters.  Good on him, I say; I love this campaign.

"The central theme is the kiss, the most universal symbol of love, between world political and religious leaders," Alessandro Benetton said in a statement.

 I suggest heading over to their website and check out the other posters.  It's like looking at movie posters for an upcoming rom-com next summer.  

(News source: Daily Telegraph)

Bob Larson: The Pimpin' Exorcist.

Demon possession and exorcisms are a great money-spinner for those eloquent readers of holy scripture who want to swindle a bit of cash from the gullible and vulnerable, we all know this.  They glamourise their so-called profession, making it seem like it's almost a neccessity to have them around, to protect us from the evils of Satan.  Even though these fraudsters are often debunked and revealed for the fakes they are, they have fooled enough people to believe what they do is real and to stand up and vouch for them.

One guy I'm focussing on this time is one Reverend Bob Larson.  I only hit upon him by chance today whilst browsing the magazine rack at work, bored out of my mind.  It was the headline "I'm a TEENAGE EXORCIST" that caught me.  So, succumbing to my curiosity, I shelled out the 70p for the magazine.

The article was about a young woman called Savannah Scherkenback, a nineteen year old from Arizona.  She talks about her studies under Reverend Larson, how she's studying to be an exorcist after she went to his ministry for an exorcism (which, to be honest, sounded more like she needed a Senokot and a good fart). 

And young Savannah isn't the only young exorcist in the ministry.  In fact, Bob Larson has quite a few young ladies under his wing, training them in the ways of scamming the vulnerable exorcising demons.  In fact, in the Reverend's own words,

We've found that our female, teenage exorcists are particularly effective, because they're so sensitive and very pure.

Excuse me whilst I suppress this ominous shudder down my back.  

Others in Savannah's class include her younger sister Tess, Larson's own 16 year old daughter Brynne and Melanie and Christina Massih.  All of them under 20 years old, all of them very beautful girls and all of them believing this bull of demons possessing people and stalking the planet for prey.  I will commend them for their intended spirit - by all accounts, they believe they're doing good in the world.  But I can't help but gawk at them.  The people they help sound genuinely in need of professional medical and psychiatric help, like most victims of exorcisms.  Unfortunately, these girls have been brainwashed into a cult, thinking themselves as warriors for God.  I dread to think what would happen to one of these girls if one of their exorcisms goes wrong and either they or their client ends up seriously hurt or dead?  

In my search for info about this guy, I found his website, a Facebook page dedicated to him and a Youtube account with videos of his exorcisms.  Incidentally, his website offers a "Demon Test" so you can find out if you're in need of his ministry (although you do need to pay $4.99 for the privilege, which I am just not inclined to do right now); his Youtube channel is probably not for the faint-hearted.  I only watched the most recent video which was uploaded in April, but it did take a lot for me to sit and watch it as he exorcised a demon from two women.  Even though it was him shouting a lot and waving his Bible around, I have a certain awful taste at the back of my throat about it.  I suppose because I know how easy it is to fool someone into thinking they are possessed.  I know, being someone who believed that themselves (I might blog about that some day, actually).  

This isn't his first apperance in any media, by any means, but learning about Bob Larson has made me wonder - just how many of these people are there?   And just how much do people believe them?  It kinda makes me sad to think about it too much.

And yeah, I'm still raising a skeptical eyebrow over his popular team of sensitive and pure teenaged female exorcists.  I'm sure I've seen that episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

All these equal rights are taking away our religious privilege!

Don't worry, these aren't my words, per se.  Rather, I was translating what one Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, has been saying.  It would seem that he, along with other religious leaders, are worried about the lack of "religious liberty" and that the number of believers in England are "extraordinarily low".

"I share a real concern that the attempt to impose the current prevailing template of equality and discrimination on religious organisations is an erosion of religious liberty."

He suggests that with the rise of equality laws and rights in England, many religious people will be repeating history by leaving the country in what he calls a mass exodus on the same level as the Mayflower pilgrimage from the 17th century when English Separatists left England for America. 

At face value, you would feel sorry for them if there was a good reason for why they feel like they are not being given their religious liberty.  What then is it that these people are disappointed about? 

> Charles Wookey, the assistant general secretary of the Catholic bishops conference of England and Wales, told the MPs that religious organisations were struggling with “rapid social change”. This meant they were forced to alter practices that had been in place for many years, he said.

 > Roman Catholic adoption agencies have closed because they cannot reconcile the requirements under the new laws with their belief that children should not be placed with gay couples.

So....Lord Sacks and other religious leaders are angry they have to keep up with the times, drop out-dated and irrelevant practices and not be bigotted?   Oh dear, poor them!  How dare we treat gays, women and the secular society as equal human beings?  How dare we allow gay couples the right to adopt, to tell people that they cannot pass their bigotted ways down to children, that people cannot use their faith to mistreat others as they see fit? 

Lord Sacks has it all wrong.  England is one of the few countries in the world where ANY religion can be practiced freely, without fear of prosecution as long as it does not infringe on the rights and welfare of others.  So no, sirs, you cannot complain that you are being singled out, silenced and downtrodden.  You are only complaining that you cannot do the singling out, the silencing and keeping the heathens down yourselves.  If you want the Government to stop telling you to open your doors and stop being such bastards to others, then by all means, hop on a boat and leave (I think you might find some brethren in America who would gladly take you in).  The people left behind will be grateful for it. 

Some monstrosities know no bounds

Religion is often an inspiration for people to do good in the world - a ready moral compass for some.  For others, religion is nothing more than a mask - a horrible, mangled mess of a facade to hide their cruel and heinous behaviour behind.  It's an easy tool for the spiritually immoral to wave around and manipulate those who are scared or weak-minded to do the bidding of those less scrupulous people. 

It doesn't strike me as too odd that this story came out of Africa, but nonetheless, I am in shock that a community in South Africa allowed such an incredible monster into their midst. Paseka Mbhoro Motsoeneng claims to be a prophet, a son of God and performs "demon banishing rituals" in his Incredible Happenings Church.  The explicit stories that reporters have bourne witness to and subsequently reported have done nothing but leave an uneasy sickly feeling in my gut.

Sitting on the lap of a female congregant, Motsoeneng placed his hand on the head of a 17 year-old teen, who cannot be identified due to her age, and started praying for her.

Motsoeneng told the congregants her tummy had swelled up because some sorcerers had cast an evil spell on her.

 As he was praying for her she collapsed. Motsoeneng then told the teenager, who was lying on her back, to open her legs, which she did.

He then plunged his fingers into her private parts and started moving his fingers inside her vagina.

There's just no words for this.  But wait, there's more!

Part way through this ridiculous farce, another woman brought and fed him ice cream.  So, he's sat in the lap of one woman, fingering a teenage girl and being fed ice cream by another woman.  This scene would probably have made a straight-to-dvd movie in a sex shop somewhere, but no, this was one man claiming to wield divine power when he's really just getting his rocks off.  And all the more unfortunate for the poor girl being sexually assaulted, the ordeal isn't over.

He then invited a woman he said was a “medical doctor” and whom he called Zozo to examine the teen.

“This is a qualified doctor who will tell us what the problem is with this woman,” he said. 

By this time a group of female congregants had draped her lower body with what looked like a towel and surrounded her to prevent voyeuristic people from seeing her private parts. 

“Dr” Zozo then inserted what she said was pregnancy test apparatus into the girl’s vagina, with Motsoeneng looking on.

“The pregnancy tests came out positive. She is pregnant. I could also feel the limbs of the foetus,” Zozo announced .

Pregnant?  This girl needs a PROPER medical professional, a hospital and a clean and safe environment AWAY from this monster's grasp.  But unfortunately, what happened next is all the more sickening and tragic.

As Zozo was leaving the scene, Motsoeneng screamed: “Zozo, she is bleeding and her tummy has subsided.”

Zozo went back to inspect her before she rushed outside. She then came back wearing gloves and holding a pregnancy test kit.

She inserted them into the teen’s vagina and took them out.

She announced: “Now the kit shows neither positive nor negative results.”

Motsoeneng chimed in: “It is because she was sleeping with an animal.”

 ~~~

Motsoeneng then asked a women(sic) to fetch a bucket.

The young lass was then lifted from the ground and made to sit on the bucket with her legs wide open, bleeding profusely, while Motsoeneng looked on.

Let that sink in.

This horrendous monster, this scum of humanity, stood by and watched as a poor girl miscarried in front of an entire congregation, offering no help, no real medical expertise or heck, even any hint of sympathy.  Even more amazingly, the same girl appeared on his TV show a fortnight later with two stones, claiming she had given birth to them, when no such thing even happened!  I don't know which is more incredible, the fact Motsoeneng was able to get away with such deplorable behaviour, or that the girl went along with his scheme. 

This girl wasn't his only victim - he also "helped" a woman have better sex with her husband by feeling her up in front of him (but it's okay, the hand he used was sprinkled with holy water!) and also accused another girl of being a Satanist (the girl was spared expulsion after pleading from the congregation, but not until after he ordered her vagina be checked if it was wet.  How that became grounds for Satanism, I cannot fathom.)

It completely and utterly blows me away how this filth could get away with these crimes in front of EVERYONE - it's sexual and indecent assault.  It's deplorable, it's despicable and it's WRONG.  But because he's hiding behind religion and manipulating the weaker wills of everyone else, it's okay, because he's sent from God to help them.  I can only hope these people will one day wake up to the monster in their midst.

A step in the right direction

 As reported by the Daily Telegraph , a group of Jesuits have agreed to pay out a massive cash sum to victims of abuse from the priesthood as "part of bankruptcy proceedings".  This is a massive win for the victims - an order of Catholic priests have actually put their hands up and admitted to the crimes performed by members of their fraternity and are giving out proper compensation and apology for it. 

In recognition of their atrocities, the US Northwest order of Jesuits "has agreed to pay $166 million to compensate some 500 mostly American Indian child victims of 'horrific' sexual abuse at religious mission schools".  For some, unfortunately, this compensation would come too late as they have passed on.  However, more recent victims could take some hope away with them from this story - if these Catholic priests are willing to put their hands up and admit the crimes commited in their brotherhood, then it'll be only a matter of time until the more recent victims can have some closure.  We can only hope, can't we?

WBC vs Everyone (again)

So, four months ago, Westboro Baptist Church had the tyres of their minivan slashed after protesting at another funeral.

Shortly after protesting the funeral of Army Sgt. Jason James McCluskey in Oklahoma, members of the Westboro Baptist Church headed back to their minivan, only to discover that its front and rear passenger-side tires had been slashed. To make matters worse, when they drove into town they were unable to find anyone who would repair it.

Yes, old news, but I only came across the link thanks to someone on Facebook.  It also gave me some food for thought.  What the WBC do is heinous.  But, begrudgingly, they have a right to have their say (as wrong and bigotted and awful as they are).  And isn't slashing their tyres giving them more reason to be even more angry at everyone?  And not helping them either?  Again, people have their own opinions and are perfectly within their rights to refuse to help bastards.  But will that really help the problem?  I suppose this is my rose-tinted glasses at work, but wouldn't showing them that "okay, you're bastards, we hate your message, but we'll be the bigger people here and help you out".  Though I guess that would only give them reason to go all out and assume they're winning support or that everyone else are just pushovers.

Then again, the WBC are easy targets in themselves.  And make lovely inspiration for counter protesters.

Question of the day: Would it work the other way and make lesbians straight?

I don't know why - might be his happy grin, or my love of the word "fabulous" but this was my favourite picture.

Too Much Too Young?

Sex!

Got your attention, didn't it?  It is a buzz word after all and opens up a lot of discussion and debates on every angle.  No more volatile a topic it becomes than when you put it into the context of education.  Teachers and parents are already under a lot of pressure to properly teach their children about the birds and the bees, given the rates of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.  But when do you start teaching them?  What's the right age to start explaining different things to them?  It's already a hard enough question without some nuts barging in and putting their two cents in.

I'm refering to the Christian Institute here in England.  They have recently released a report that I shamelessly ripped the title of to name this post. According to this news article by the Guardian, 

Children as young as five are being shown "explicit" images to teach them about sex.

The Christian Institute has complained that at least 10 books or teaching packs used in English primary schools for lessons on sex and relationships, contain images or descriptions that are "obviously unsuitable". 

Now, being told that five-year old children are being shown "explicit" images is bound to get people talking.  But, how sordid are we talking here?

I'll wait until you finish laughing.

Apart from that looking like a bit of fun for us grown-ups, I have to say that it's not as explicit as some would think.  Heck, I drew worse when I was six! (I was a precocious little brat).  This delightful little picture is from the book "Mummy Laid an Egg" by Babette Cole.  I read the full version of the book and continued laughing. Through the chuckling, I was impressed.  I would show this book to my youngest niece, who is coincidentally five years old.  Apart from the page with the clowns (seriously, read the book), there is nothing in here that might surprise her.  She knows full well what a woman's body looks like, and I don't think seeing how it differs from a man's body would scar her for life (especially when the drawing in question left me feeling very sorry for the guy).  And it does show in a very biological sense how babies are made without being too sordid. 

The Christian Institute suggests that parents would be upset that these pictures were being shown to their children.  Okay, maybe you would be a little shocked - I don't think anyone over the age of twenty remembers ever being taught about sex in primary school because it was too taboo.  But speaking from a scientifically biological standpoint, knowing how babies are made isn't that bad anymore.  What child is satisfied with "the stork brought you" anymore?  I didn't buy it when I was five, what modern five year old would nowadays? 

I would also like to see what resources they have collected.  I had a nosey at the Christian Institute's website and came across this press release. There's books on oral and anal sex for ages five and up?  Prostitution?  Identifying the clitoris?  Some adult men can't find it, what makes you think a five year old could?  Again though, this sounds more like drum banging and inciting mob outrage.  I highly doubt that those books are for 5 year olds.  15-year olds, yes.   

To feel a little less raging at this article, I was happy to find another report on the subject by someone who knows what he's talking about.  In his counter article (also in the Guardian), Justin Hancock (editor for a sex and relationships website for young people) points out that sex education in the curriculum is more than just showing porn in classes to kids too young to understand.  It's about teaching about the family and friends, feeling that can arise in relationships, how to spot abuse and basically how your body works.  I had a read through the curriculum and at the questions posed.  Hancock states that this curriculum is also a recommendation - teachers and parents who have had regular contact with children are the only ones who can tell when a child is ready and able to understand the different points being made with regards to sex ed.  And I explicitly agree with one other thing - parents have a lot to do with their child's education.  It's no use plonking them in school and expecting the teacher to be able to teach them everything.  If a touchy topic like this comes up, I don't think you have any right to be outraged because you've made the decision to wash your hands of teaching your children anything when they come home. If you made a baby and intend to raise it into a fully stable adult, you need to have a large role in educating them properly.

As for teaching children when to recognise sexual abuse, I'm all for it.  Too many kids are being sexually abused and they don't understand why or how.  A little excerpt from the curriculum for 3-6 year olds asks

• Which parts of my body are private?
• When is it OK to let someone touch me?
• How can I say ‘no’ if I don’t want someone to touch me?
• Who should I tell if someone wants to touch my private parts?

It's a tough subject, but I am VERY sure there are plenty of people out there who wish they could have been told where they could go for help, or when they're victims of "bad touching". It doesn't stop at age 6 either, or at sexual abuse.  As you go higher up the age brackets, the curriculum suggests when to teach about how to spot when you're being abused, when to start sexual health issues and talking about homosexual relationships.  I might contest some of the age ranges for individual topics, but only based on my own experience and the level of understanding of the children in question.

Right, rant over.  Now I'm going to read "Mummy Laid an Egg" again and wonder how exactly you can have sex whilst tied to balloons in midair.