AS the mother of two teenage daughters, I feel duty-bound to counter the claim made by Bashir Maan [pictured] that ''most Scottish parents fervently share Cardinal O'Brien's concerns on Scotland's sex education policy'' (Letters, September 1). Both of these gentlemen obviously hold very strong religious beliefs and, as such, their observations are bound to be coloured by the teachings of their faith.

It is the duty of all parents whether religious or secular to ensure that our children be raised in a caring, understanding and moral environment. This will enable them to grow into responsible adults with a strong feeling of citizenship. It is not the duty of parents to burden their children with feelings of guilt and shame, encouraged within many religions. They should not be judged by their sexuality or criticised for their views. Instead, they should be encouraged to view all relationships and friendships as nurturing and caring and be shown that more is to be gained by building loving partnerships than by promiscuity. Religious control or comment is not required to do this.

The results of the 2001 Census show that 27.55% of the Scottish population state that they follow no religion. The results also show the combined total of the groups represented by Mr Maan and Cardinal O'Brien to be 16.72%. This begs the question: on what does Mr Maan base his statement?

As a result of these statistics and from my own personal research among my peer group, and those of my children, I feel that there is a strong and moral case for children to be educated within a secular environment. Within a secular curriculum our children could study all religions and cultures. This would promote a broader understanding and acceptance of the beliefs and customs of others and perhaps help heal the scars caused by religious division and bigotry. Religious instruction could then be left to the home and to the relevant churches.

Mr Maan and Cardinal O'Brien do not speak for me. They do not speak for most. I hope the Scottish Parliament remembers this.

Elaine Mackenzie,

15 Park Crescent, Eaglesham.

Bashir Maan repeats the same misinformation which Cardinal O'Brien has so irresponsibly voiced. Having both a professional background in sexual health and a parliamentary involvement as co-convener of the Cross-party Group on Sexual Health, I can say with confidence that nobody - but nobody - is proposing to flood Scotland's nurseries with graphic, sexually explicit material. This ludicrous notion was used to whip up fear during the Section 28 debate, and is again being circulated by the cardinal, by Mr Maan, and by more openly bigoted commentators in your pages and elsewhere.

What the draft strategy suggests is that we should try to help children and young people to develop the skills and motivation to lead healthy lives. This means giving them information that's age-appropriate as well as accurate. It also means encouraging them to think about themselves and other people, about respect and difference, and about all the kinds of relationship (such as with friends, parents, teachers, etc) in their own lives.

This can help people to build better relationships in later life, taking better care of their emotional and physical health and that of their partners. It can reduce the guilt and negative feelings so many people still associate with sex and sexuality. But there is another important benefit which the cardinal should consider - it increases the likelihood that young people being subjected to abuse will tell someone about it and that it will be stopped.

The Catholic Church has taken welcome steps in recent years to begin to combat the child abuse which is carried out by its employees. Let's not jeopardise that progress by blocking the kind of initiative which can give real power to the victims.

Patrick Harvie, MSP,

The Scottish Parliament.

I'd just like to set the record straight for those of you who might have heard the Lesley Riddoch show on Monday or saw the spin with which that programme has been reported in Tuesday's Scottish Daily Mail.

Contrary to the forceful assertions of an individual caller to the BBC radio programme (who I believe is associated with a minority religious pressure group) Stonewall has played no part in recent meetings at Greater Glasgow Health Board nor as was specifically detailed has it made any calls for either sexual education or ''teaching on homosexuality'' for the under-fives.

Presented by the caller to the phone-in programme as hard fact, this seemed to be a deliberate and ''cynical'' move to directly link an LGBT group with these proposals in order to increase the ''fear and alarm'' factor for the general public. It was then reported unquestioningly by the Mail who apparently subscribe to the gospel according to the Lesley Riddoch show.

We are fully supportive of the executive's strategic proposals for sexual health and relationships education and have participated actively in the consultation (as have many other groups). Our view is that all such teaching should be appropriate to the age and stage of development of the children concerned and should seek to work with and develop the expertise of parents. It should underpin values of respect, self-esteem, confidence in negotiating relationships (leading to informed consent when that relationship might become sexual) and an appreciation of the diversity of human experience.

We consider the apparent attempts of certain parties to make this into an extension of the Section 28 debate both manipulative and disingenuous and they go contrary to the type of mature and informed discussions we would like to see in Scotland on issues that touch on so many sensitivities. Trying to gain support for your own perspective by scaring people with distortions and lies is an irresponsible approach that belittles Scotland and the people who live here.

Ali Jarvis,

director, Stonewall Scotland,

11 Dixon Street, Glasgow.

I AM pleased that Nigel Pounde, the Church of Scotland's HIV/Aids project co-ordinator, has strongly rejected Harry Reid's claim that ''the silence of the Kirk is a disgrace'' in respect of the Scottish Executive's Sexual Health and Relationships Strategy. Mr Pounde reasonably points out the various ways in which the Church of Scotland has been contributing responsibly to the formation of the strategy, and expressing its views effectively through consultation rather than in the glare of press publicity.

Perhaps Mr Reid could have found this out for himself if he had checked with 121 George Street before writing his article, but I suppose that as a former journalist he would not want the facts to get in the way of a good story or headline, or his constant sniping at the Church of Scotland. Mr Pounde also points out that the executive's consultation paper was publicly debated by the recent General Assembly, but I don't remember The Herald reporting this in its very inadequate daily coverage of our national Church's annual conference.

What the Church of Scotland did not do, unlike Cardinal O'Brien, is launch into print and ensure banner headlines by vehemently objecting to policies that do not exist, and are merely the product of a fevered imagination. This is one of the oldest tricks in the book of dirty politics, but it is sad that the senior cleric in Scotland of the Roman Catholic Church should employ such tactics. The real disgrace is that by doing so he has raised quite unnecessary fears among the parents of young children.

All credit to Jack McConnell for immediately denying the existence of any such executive policies, and for stating clearly that there is no intention of giving sex education lessons to children of nursery or early primary levels, or of providing free contraceptives to secondary pupils.

The responsible media and sensible people must not allow this non-event to be turned into another Section 28-type controversy, which made our new parliament a laughing stock, and gave so much publicity to the extreme views of bigots with more money then sense.

Iain A D Mann,

9 Arnwood Drive, Glasgow.

Harry Reid (August 31) bemoans the fact there is no response from the Church of Scotland in contrast to that of Cardinal Keith O'Brien.

Personally, I prefer silence to the kneejerk response from the Catholic Church in Scotland. Harry Reid seems to think that one person can respond effectively on such a diverse subject, which has indeed been widened by the intervention from the cardinal. If Harry Reid wants a response on the educational aspect of the debate then I am sure that the Education Committee can respond once the proposals have been fully considered, whereas the Board of Social Responsibility can respond on the moral aspects raised in the debate. The Panel on Doctrine could no doubt reply on the theological aspects of responses from the Roman Catholic Church to proposals from the Scottish Executive, and the Committee on Ecumenical Relations can offer support to the Catholic Church in Scotland.

Hopefully, small-minded journalists, who are not of the same stature of Harry Reid, will not misrepresent the four different responses to these four quite separate matters as conflict within the Church of Scotland.

I am sure that many will have found themselves in the company of colleagues or friends when someone has made an outrageous comment directed at someone in the group. The normal reaction of any onlooker is to remember a pressing engagement, go to the toilet, refresh one's drink or break into a smaller group discussing the finer points of double-entry book-keeping. The two protagonists are then left together and the matter is sorted out.

That has happened in this case: Jack McConnell has welcomed comments from Cardinal O'Brien and has politely pointed out that the cardinal has misunderstood the proposals from the Scottish Executive.

Sandy Gemmill,

10 Mertoun Place, Edinburgh.

FOR up to 2000 years, and despite the most appalling physical and psychological punishments, ''religion'' has failed to resolve the many perceived problems associated with sexual behaviour. Yet still their leaders criticise others who suggest solutions, without themselves offering any workable proposals. Their real fear is that they will lose their medieval control over their few remaining followers, and it is time that they stopped this self-interested meddling in what is no longer a religious society.

Perhaps, too, we should all ponder on the only half-sensible thing said by the late Nicholas Fairbairn: ''What is forbidden becomes attractive.''

James Clark,

8 Thistle Place, Scone.

I don't think we adults should get too uptight about sex education for young children. Some years ago a friend of mine was asked the question by her son which I'm sure many mothers dread: ''Mother, where did I come from?''

My friend believed that she should always tell the truth to her children; so she sat her son down and told him the facts of life. She was rather surprised that he didn't seem very interested, so she asked him the question: ''Why did you want to know where you came from?''

''Well,'' said her son, ''a new boy came into our class today and he comes from Bellshill.''

Fred McDermid,

8 Boghall Street,

Stonehouse.