Obviously it depends on your definition of "dominant" but I'm thinking late medieval and Tudor - prescribed (and proscribed) behaviour, sexual activity, belief, thought, speech ...

Thogh I will grant you that, in another sense, the state at the time seemed less dominant in some respects, because they were so ill-equipped to catch people at it.

"The most dominant the State has ever been in this country is when the State was tightly controlled by the Church."

Which particular stage of history would you be referring to, then?

I meant that, say, 100 years ago, the right to beat children - ie with a belt or stick - was thoroughly enshrined.

No one complains about that valuable right being stolen by the state, yet apparently this is a principle we should all live and die for.

"precedent set by the State in removing the right for parents to beat their children"

I thought "mild smacking" was still considered permissible in the UK? (However I think there is an outright ban in other European countries)

Scarlet

Re full text

"In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions."

You do have that right to "ensure" - the syllabus is not secret and, if you decide you don't like it, you also have the right to withdraw your child from State education.

I am "in favour of withdrawing rights" because this should never have been a right in the first place. The most dominant the State has ever been in this country is when the State was tightly controlled by the Church. Anything which further weakens this ridiculous bond is potentially a very good thing.

Seeing that we're talking about principles, and not facts, how do you feel about the dangerous precedent set by the State in removing the right for parents to beat their children, the right for husbands to rape their wives, the right of parents and employers to put children to work at the age of 10 or even 5, and the right of publicans to serve intoxicating liquor to children? Are these also rights we should be sorry to see the back of?

Juuule - sorry to disappoint you, but, much as I disagree with Scarlet, I don't think she is insane.

That's because she's not proposing a utopia reminiscent of the Khmer Rouge's Year Zero as an alternative to compulsory sex ed.

MIFLAW I can't be bothered to go back over these pages to see who said what and when but I really doubt I'd share your views.

If my children go to any collective act of worship then it's had no impact on them as they don't seem to think their school has one. I have more important things to be concerned about.

There are no state imposed regulations on vaccinations yet Ed Balls wants to force parents to comply on the subject of sex education....Eh? So much for consistency....

Although Im happy for my children to receive sex education I have to say I'm a little perplexed by the fact that, statistically, teenage pregnancies in the UK are increasing despite the fact that it is more or less part of the school curriculum.

I thought this was an interesting article and relevant to the tread...

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lifeand_style/women/the_way_welive/article5208865.e ce

MIFLAW - I think we'll just have to agree to differ on this one.

I remain perplexed by the way you seem to positively embrace the withdrawal of rights from parents in favour of the state. Because this is what is happening here - it isn't a new right being granted, it's an existing right being removed. Even if you think it is a good idea in this particular instance, can't you see the inherent dangers? Who knows what parties may come to power in the future? BNP? And when children are indoctrinated with all the rubbish about miscegenation and so on... will you still think the State knows best?

Full text of article 2, for your information:

"No person shall be denied a right to an education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. "

Still, how lucky we are to have finally reached that level of educational nirvana when all children leave school at the age of 16 fully literate and numerate and well-informed about a wide range of topics and issues! The State does such a good job at teaching the basics, it's obviously going to be the ideal choice for teaching SRE to children and teenagers....

MIFLAW I think you would consider anyone who doesn't agree with you insane.

I am pleased that your father had excellent handwriting.

The sad truth is that a lot of children left school either not fully literate and numerate, or else being literate and numerate at the expense of everything else (other languages, for example, or an understanding of history). This is no longer a sustainable model for modern society.

And it squares perfectly with the ECHR article because you do have that right - as long as you pay for it or else do it yourself. The protocol does not guarantee state provision of your needs, only your right to have them recognised.