Witchfinder Balls

Joe Strummer

This abject corruption, because that's what it clearly is, by so called " people of faith" shows how morally bankrupt these schools actually are.

In my own city of Glasgow, just like in Northern Ireland, this appalling sectarian apartheid in our education systems on grounds of alleged "faith" has perpetuated nothing but religious division and bigotry down the generations since the 1918 Education Act.

This poison will still be here in 100 years time if the bigots get their way in keeping this nonsense going.

Gavin

Come off it! If they're asking for money, they're not state schools, and shouldn't receive state funding. The additonal religious educaton unconvincingly cite should be paid by the relevent church/mosque/synagogue etc.

Thinkster

The solution is simple, we need to engineer the removal of the current government who have and continue to destroy this country. Else, a few years from now, (frankly, we're already there in a way!), the population who have not fled, will consist solely of a single class of CCTV monitored subservients, as so accurately forecast in the SciFi movies of the 70s, such as Logan's Run. Tag: Revolution.

Eric Coombes

Balls's malice is reminiscent of the equally mendacious attack made by Gordon Brown on Magdalen college, Oxford some years ago, with his entirely groundless remarks in the Laura Spence affair. The malevolent little creep follows his master faithfully.

George

Typical bolshevik behaviour - why are you so surprised?

Kevyn Bodman

This issue is more complex than presented in this article.There are serious shortcomings in the education system.

But the role of faith schools presents big problems.
'the state only funds the secular education they provide' i.e. not the religious indoctrination.

That's as it should be.

Faith schools are divisive; they are bound to be divisive because different faith schools teach religious 'truths' that exclude the religious 'truths' of the others.
Faith schools inevitably damage social cohesion.

I'd withdraw ALL state funding for any school that includes religious faith as an element in its admissions policy.

But that still leaves problems to be addressed: the poor standards in many schools, and the need that Melanie mentions for Jewish schools to fund their own security measures.(That IS something that the state should be providing.)

We need to address a wider problem in the education sector than difficulties faced by faith schools.
So; an unrestricted voucher system, parents to do what they want with them. (No, I don't at this stage suggest a value for the voucher, the costing needs to be worked out.)

But as soon as religion is brought into polcy discussions my reaction is to become both suspicious and resistant to the claims made.
Religious freedom, OK.
ANY privilege based on religion, not OK.

alan stoddart

Read Simon Heffer in the 'Telegraph'.... 'Labour is malignant, not incompetent' ...that should be 'not just incompetent.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/opinion/2008/04/02/do0201.xml

field

Why should the state be subsidising faith schools?

I can think of no logical reason.

Faith schools are completely divisive and encourage "group think" among minority faith communities.

Religious tuition has no place in schools and there should be some controls over how much children are subjected to it outside school. It is a form of child abuse in some cases where children are sent for hours' more teaching in religious schools.

david skinner

The attack by the government on faith schools is totally consistent with their desire to get rid of them completely because, quite correctly they perceive them to be one of the last strongholds of resistance to their Marxist/ anarchist ideology. The attempt to discredit faith schools is in line with the aims of the incitement to homophobic hatred crime which is in its last stages of being passed in the House of Lords.

The public, being so stressed out with living in the “successful society” that Britain has become( Hazel Blears) are either so paralysed or asleep that they are oblivious to what is going. Even as I write this the incitement to homophobic hatred crime legislation is in the last stages of going through the House of Lords. Freedoms, such as the freedom of speech that have taken two thousand years to win are overnight being signed over the to government, without a sign of struggle or protest.

One of the key personalities in setting up the witch hunts and who bears in my mind a striking resemblance to one of the most notorious personalities of the Spanish Inquisition, Cardinal Guevara, painted by El Greco, is Sir Trevor Phillips, the party boss of the Commission of Equality and Human Rights. who even before the hatred bill has been passed is setting up his instruments of public humiliation, fines, loss of jobs and possibly terms of imprisonment of up to seven years: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/opinion/2005-5796.html

The Christians concern for upholding truth and compassion, for justice and mercy, he rightly perceives to be their strength and weakness. Sir Trevor will attempt to destroy the strength by inflating the need for the weakness. He has therefore determined that after softening up the public with propaganda about homophobic bullying and violence, to crush any dissent and close off any avenues of escape by pressing for legislation that will make it easier to accuse dissenters of inciting hatred. If bullying can be shown to be taking place there must surely be hatred….. and he will find it and root it out.
The Christians tender conscience can be pushed to the extreme and encouraged into confessing not just a lack of love, compassion and care, but all manner of hidden hatred. He pushes it in the direction that it will naturally fall. And like the show trials in Stalin’s reign of terror, in Russia, Sir Trevor Phillips will get his confessions .

We have already seen Christians come under police harassment , heavy fines and the threat of having to attend re education re education re education classes , such as with the Bishop of Hereford: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6904057.stm

The Police are being instructed to search to the furthest and most remote corners of Britain to root out prejudice and bullying
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6184.html

One of the most perverted and disgusting organisations called Gaydar.com have been invited to help in these witch hunts: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-3050.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article624010.ece (Firemen).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2585372.ece (Firemen Fined and disciplined for uncovering homosexual orgy in public space).

Sir Trevor Phillips has said :
"Let me put it as crudely as I can do it as a public official. If somebody is guilty of discrimination of any kind, and with sexual orientation we usually know what it's about with sneering and contempt and all the rest of it, we want them not to be just be punished by the court but frankly to feel the contempt and hatred that they have visited on other people.

"They can argue what they like, but there's a law now and frankly if these people want generally to pose as they often do as the decent and moral people in the community, perhaps they should remember that the first elements of decency in a liberal democracy is the rule of law.”

"There is a law. Your faith does not protect you. I understand what you are asking me but to be perfectly honest I haven't got time for it. If people want to use in my view, the mantle of faith to be bigots, I'm not buying it."

If people are still wondering why the voice of the people counts for nothing and why this present government ceases to represent the people, especially the stable, monogamous marriages that are made up exclusively of a mother and father and that actually produce the children and families who will make the most contribution to society, they have to look no further than to see who controls government: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6417.html (Introducing Spencer Livermore)

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6416.html. (Who’s Who of homosexual influence and power in government)

Ian C

Those who think that state schools should not fund faith schools are thinking inside the box. Outside the box, there should be no schools run by the state. We all know, and have known for a very long time and certainly since the early 80's on, that the state cannot run anything. The political interference that results leads to inertia, buck passing and inadequate quality control and rapid deterioration once a service deemed adequate is up and running. Schools should be freed to run themselves without political interference, with a contribution from the state per politically fought over formulae. The schools in richer areas would get less per head than those in deprived etc. And they could then be free to charge for the extras that each school wishes to per its own ethos and what it can sell to its catchment. It means bringing the excellence of the private schools to the public sector and where this is difficult it means more per head funding. Michael Gove needs to push harder on this type of open door because the electorate will buy into it or some version of same in a big way. (Vouchers are the wimps’ way to introduce it - not radical enough and will be far to open to criticism and will leave it for another generation before moving on to this type of solution).

Harry

I live in Barnet and the issue has been on the front of the local papers where parents and headteachers are furious with Balls.

The contributions asked for a voluntary and are very small in the scale of things. The local paper says the schools in question asked for £50 thereabouts - if the parents felt able to do so. They were never forced to pay a penny.

It was never money for places, which is what Balls made it out to be. His allegation was in his own words based on “unverified desk research”. What does that mean? He didn’t ask anybody the facts?

As for “social cohesion”, well, we’ve got plenty of other schools in the area whose set up Balls would no doubt approve of and they’re nothing less than mini-fight clubs. Local parents move heaven and earth not to let their kids end up in these zoos.

How do these disgusting schools that Balls thinks are part of the blueprint for a socialist utopia and in which teachers no longer have control of the classrooms help with “social cohesion”, exactly? They’re full of knives and violence and precious little academic achievement.

Balls wants to deflect attention from this - and by stoking this smokescreen row has successfully done so.

It’s worth pointing out, too, that the timing of Balls’ opening salvo was designed to muffle the shrieks of the boho Guardian readers in Brighton and the surrounding areas waking up to realise what socialism means.

This is because Balls’ first attack coincided with the results of the first state schools lottery in Brighton (there are, I believe, more pilot areas, but none so fashionably New Labour than Brighton).

Jonty and Harriet’s parents, who’ve espoused socialism all their lives, moved out of London and down to Brighton precisely so they didn’t have to send their child to a cesspit inner-city state school.

“We’ll play the post code game,” they thought. Only now, with the lottery system, they’ll get what they’re damn well given by the state. And do they like it? Well, guess what, applications to private schools in Brighton have gone through the roof.

Raymond Joseph Douglas

Also,it is my belief,that this government hates the christian ethos of church.In our area of northamptonshire,it is the faith schools that have been particularly picked for criticism's ,this is despite other state schools performing less well.Not only this,but balls and company are desperate to get church schools to conform to NULABs secxual equality agenda as they are the churches themselves.This government is the most hostile,anti-christian outfit that we have ever seen!

John

The post about bigotry in Glasgow due to faith schools is rubbish. Any bigotry is down to the likes of the Orange Order. I have never found Catholics in any way bigoted.

P Lewis

There is a real nasty undercurrent with this Balls guy.

Ive got 2 kids in London state schools (non-denom)in East London and it is infuriating to see the prominence he is giving to this non-issue and the success he is having in deflecting attention from the awful state of secondary education here. I have no objection to faith schools or parents for sending their kids there when the alternative is so bad.

In 2006 when we had to 'choose' a school, the statistics available were, I think, deliberately misleading. I and many others assumed that the pass rates included Maths & English - they didnt. Revised stats were issued months after the deadline for bids which revealed those figures.

My sons school was Ofsted'ed in January. OFSTED calls it a 'good' school. Only 36% of kids get decent Maths and English results - that is a 'good' school. In 1 week 2 months before inspection over 20 pupils were temporarily excluded for possession of knives and assaulting a teacher. OFSTED's description? a 'safe' and 'improving' school.

phil

I went to a grammar school which I suppose was christian as assembly prayers were for christians -The Jewish boys went to seperate prayers ,I think both sets of boys were fed up with it anyhow ,nevertheless this split marked us all out as different and caused difficulties between us until we became older and mature enough to decide who was decent a guy or not .Many noses bled and many friendships lasting to this day, were made when we discovered our blood was the same colour.We had to go to extra religious classes after school which of course we did not like and our parents paid for those classes seperately -I need to say from experience that marking kids out as different is not a good idea and I do not in principle agree with faith schools ,but if they are to continue I see nothing wrong in asking the parents to contribute to the extra costs ,they do have an alternative and I wish they would take it

Paul

Skinner: "The attack by the government on faith schools is totally consistent with their desire to get rid of them completely because, quite correctly they perceive them to be one of the last strongholds of resistance to their Marxist/ anarchist ideology."

What are you, sixteen? "Marxist/anarchist idelogy" - are we talking about the same conservative, vaguely centre left British government? You need to get a grip, mate.

With regard to the issue at hand - all faith schools should be wound down and all funding stopped. There should be no place for such superstitious idiocy in any modern society - especially ours. If you think there should be, don't complain about the growth of Islamic schools and their malignant influence. They are merely the extreme result of what happens when you let religion have any role in 'educating' our kids.

Paolo

There is another reason, Melanie, which neither you nor Mr.Gove seem to have noticed. A few years ago, the government decided to allow Muslim state-aided schools to be set up, on the ideological premise that all religions are equal. Now it is becoming increasingly clear that Muslim schools are divisive and dangerous. In order, therefore, to rescue his and his owner Brown's ideology, Balls now has to prove that Christian and Jewish schools are as divisive and dangerous as Muslim. And so he has picked an excuse to pick a fight against Christians and Jews. After all, it would be bad for Labour votes if anyone were to conclude that Islam has something about it that is more dangerous to the community than Christianity or Hebraism, right?

Ian G

It is worth remembering that 'faith' schools started the whole business of educating the masses. It's something Christianity inherited from Judaism. It is based on the need to read the Bible. Protestantism and the printing press made it possible for education to become universal.

It was the 'Sunday Schools', which were schools and not just religious classes, and the 'Ragged Schools' that educated the poorest in society. We have lost our history and religion has been airbrushed out and/or misrepresented. Many of the atheist comments are based on myths about faith schools. I have taught in Roman Catholic, Anglican, Jewish and Islamic schools. Generally speaking, they are much nicer places to teach in than the state schools. The exceptions are those church schools (RC and CofE)that have all but abandoned their faith and Islamic schools that have allowed themselves to be overly influenced by extremists. I only ever taught in one Jewish school as they are rather rare.

NuLabour have undermined the family, made it all but illegal to be a believing Christian or Jew, are trying to destroy the last redoubts of decent education, kow-tow to Islam and homosexuality and are trying to lock us into the EU beyond recall. Do you remember the much-condemned posters of Tony Blair with demon-eyes?

Commondog

To those few contributors whose rampant and astoundingly assumptive atheism affords them the privilege of deciding for all of us that their way is the one and only, I would point out that wherever there is a choice in any area, between sending a child to a school which observes the idea of a particular faith, or to a school which has no religious affiliations, it is overwhelmingly the former which is favourite.

Why is that I wonder?

So much of what atheists enjoy about this constructed society of ours, is there very largely because the Judeo-Christian tradition put it there. Until they devise something better - and they haven't - they should consider themselves very lucky freebooters.

Gordon Neil

Attacks on Faith schools by the thuggish politicos of NuLab , like Johnson and Balls are little more than infantile name calling. The NuLab secularist dream has turned into a nightmare leaving us after 11 years with failing schools, a failing health service, a moral and intellectual vacuum at the heart of government, and an executive frightened of the electorate. With nothing to offer and faced with a track record of dismal failure, they 're desperate to create scapegoats and deflect blame elsewhere.

John

Kevyn Bodman,

Why withdraw state funding from faith schools? The parents of children in those schools are taxpayers too so deserve full funding in the same way that parents of children attending comprehensives enjoy. Rather than taking money from faith schools, my proposal is that all schools that promote radical left wing agendas and social engineering (gender and equality studies and the like) ahead of academic subjects should have their funding withdrawn. I don't want my children's minds being infected with state-sponsored socialism, so why should my taxes pay for it?

Nick Kaplan

Kevyn and Joe; I am an atheist, but I support faith schools for one reason; they Work. Faith schools continue to achieve significantly above average results for their pupils and are a shining example of success in a system that is broadly characterised by failure. It seems to me that putting Children’s education above principle (ideally I would prefer a secular education system) is preferable in this case.

Soreofhing

Some time ago I went for a job interview at a Catholic school and I was required to fill in a form where there were questions such as:
Religion
Place of Baptism
Church where you regularly attend mass.
As an atheist I'm not surprised that I didn't get a job at that school.
All schools should be secular and faith based schools should be closed down--I don't care if they indoctrinate Christianity, Cathicism or Judaism.
I have no objection to a general background being taught about the world's religions but religion must be kept out of education, after all, "religious education" is an oxymoron.

London Calling

If Balls subsequently admitted he hadn’t checked his facts when he first made this claim, then we must question why?. His claim is obviously motivated by a deep resentment of faith schools simply because they excel and the education system under Labour has failed. This is a classic political incentive, divert the public gaze from the truth by shifting the blame elsewhere and everyone except those with insight will fall for it, but not I. so typical of a government that was educated at university for free and now send their children to private schools or Grammar schools outside their borough of residence. Labour are finished and they know it, but still they continue to destroy everything good in their path whilst their political ship sinks along with their spiteful vengeance.

Bob Gray

Paul: re-read some of the commenters here. Notice anything? The vast majority display courtesy, offering considered, rational opinion. This is supplemented, by people like Phil, with a generosity of spirit and compassion for their fellow travellers, and by realists like Commondog, who have a heightened perception of how this World works.
"There should be no place for such superstitious idiocy in any modern society - especially ours." Half a mo'- is that as in 'religion being the opiate of the masses' or some other Marxist, simplistic doctrine? How old did you say you were?
In answer to Commondog's rhetorical question, most people prefer their children to receive an academic education in an environment which fosters standards of common decency and moral guidance. Which type did you go to Paul? (I'm sorry, I don't know your last name.)

Paul

Commondog: "Why is that I wonder?"

I'll tell you why, nobby. It's because, for whatever reason, faith school types, particular of the Christian variety, tend to be very middle-clarss. It's all about money and class and the luxury of being able to sit on your ring all day and contemplate life, the universe and your very special place within it all.

It doesn't make you any more right. In fact, it makes you all the more wrong - because you reveal your pathetic 'faith' to be nothing more than some class throwback. You should, really, get yourselelves proper lives - as lived by the vast majority of normal folk in this country.

Bob Gray

Come on Verity - we're all waiting...and don't spare the rod!

Peter Q

As an English-born Australian, just here on a short visit, I find this whole "debate" a bit bizarre. Rarely have I read such a lot of Stalinist responses, essentially saying that the only source of education should be the state. Then,if that is not the case then private schools should not receive any tax dollars (i.e. the taxes the parents paid to cover education).

You Brits really don't have a clue how to run a mixed public/private environment for education or health, do you? We aren't perfect at this in Australia, but it works reasonably well and people understand it. Our biggest concern is that we've just been dumb enough to elect a Nu-labour clone and that they could start doing this sort of thing.

Commondog

Soreofhing.
Well! You go to interview for a post at a Catholic school and you're surprised they have an interest in details of your faith/absence of?
Don't let this put you off though. Keep your eyes peeled for a school which espouses the obscure 'Cathicism' you mentioned. They might be scraping the barrel.

Paul.
Calm down my friend and try to make one sentence develop some point made in an earlier one. Do that long enough and you might one day form your first cohesive argument.
Peculiarly, Catholic schools tend to have large numbers of Catholic children in them. If we were forced to generalise about the families of these people, then 'middle-class' would not be the most fitting of terms.
I can assure you there is very little time in the lives of these families for the esoteric musings of your imagination.
Chin chin.

C Powell

The faith schools which cause problems in this country are the Islamic ones, funded by Saudi Arabia, and preaching hatred of Jews, Christians and the West. Furthermore, it is the Muslim community which has problems in integrating and it is those Muslim ghettos which are creating the breeding grounds for terrorism. The problems are not caused by Catholic and Jewish schools and it is disgraceful that the Government and others have sought to equate those communities, who have a successful record of integration into and contribution to this country, with a community and faith which so far largely has not. The Government knows this but and is unwilling to do anything about those schools/mosques which are disseminating material and ideas hostile to the West and a danger to our social cohesion. Hence the attacks on all faith schools (see the attempt to force them to take children from other faiths thus undermining their ethos etc). Now comes another attack to deflect attention from the failure of state schools. The state should simply be one of many providers of schools: if the schools it provides are good then parents will want to send their children there. The real problem is that too many of its schools are not the ones parents want and rather than deal with that the Government seeks to attack parents, good schools, anyone rather than remedy its own faults. We will not solve this until we remove the dead hand of state control and socialism from the provision of education.

phil

Thank you Bob Gray -kind words like that make all this work worthwhile . .Most of us here want only a better and more just world. so I feel that I have many friends here even though I dont know them.I am stll surprised that no comment has been made about the feelings of difference when religion is brought into play in the choice of schools ,as I mentioned earlier-- -I dont doubt the standard of education is higher in a faith school but it still leaves us with the dilemma that children grow up feeling that others are different and perhaps not as worthwhile as them - I dont have a solution just a problem

Ann

Bob Gray asks another poster 'How old did you say you were?' - and then has the nerve to complain about the same poster's 'lack of courtesy' for daring to attack Medieval religious superstition!
---
I am an atheist, and the brainless attacks on atheists one can see in this thread are the best proof possible that religion should be banned from all day schools, state or non-state. It has no place in a statutory establishment. And one has to laugh at the neivety (if that's what it is) of the poster who claims that Catholics never ever exhibit bigotry.
---
If parents want to give their children a religious education, fine: do it after hours. But religion has been the greatest force for evil in the history of humanity. Those who try to blame atheists qua atheists for the ills of this country, are simply doing an Ed Balls: deflecting justified blame by launching an attack on a convenient target. This is thuggish behaviour, whether displayed by incompetent and barely literate government apparatchiks or by religious posters.
----
As to independent schools as such, that's another matter. I am strongly in favour, since the idea that only the state can provide education is Stalinist by defintion, the adolescent sniggers of those who cannot see the Stalinist direction this country is taking notwithstanding.

Ann

For an Australian to berate this country with such superior arrogance when they have just elected the same sort of government, smacks of bigotry, or stupidity, or something.

London Calling

Paul, What 'Normal Folk' are you talking about? I don't know what window your looking out of, but I suggest you open the shutters and get a better view of the situation. Are you talking about
the sprawled 'Normal Folk' who pave our streets each weekend the breadth of Great Britain in a drunken stupor, cause criminal damage and violent crime to others?, or are you talking about the 'Normal Folk' who carry Gun's and Knifes and are involved in selling Drugs to our young? This is not about 'Class', all of the above
come from different class's, not the same class and the people of
the 'Pathetic Faith' as you claim, come from all walks of life, from the Butcher to the Baker to the Candle stick maker, or in modern terms, the street cleaners, the supermarket checkout, doctors and judges. The 'Normal Folk' who are classless and faithless only exist in your own imagination and it is not a true representation of the facts. There is a very good reason why the majority of parents in Britain want Moral guidance and the right environment for their children to be educated, and at present it is only Faith Schools that can provide this. What you must ask yourself truthfully is why?,
with respect.

phil

Thank you Bob Gray -kind words like that make all this work worthwhile . .Most of us here want only a better and more just world. so I feel that I have many friends here even though I dont know them.I am stll surprised that no comment has been made about the feelings of difference when religion is brought into play in the choice of schools ,as I mentioned earlier-- -I dont doubt the standard of education is higher in a faith school but it still leaves us with the dilemma that children grow up feeling that others are different and perhaps not as worthwhile as them - I dont have a solution just a problem

david skinner

Dear Ann, were you born an atheist or are you one of those born again kind? May I also remind you that even the most brainless and dim witted attack, if it is true, will hit the mark, whereas the most intelligent but devious and lying accusation will only rebound on the attacker. Truth always wins. As for the claim that the greatest force for evil in the history of humanity is religion, what role, may I ask did atheism have to play during the reign of terror in the French Revolution, or the millions of people murdered by Stalin and his communist heads of state in countries like Romania, or in the continuing state controlled oppression of China, not just on Tibetans but Christians.? Did atheism have no role play in Cambodia or present day North Korea? What about Cuba and the continuing persecution there? If these were not atheist countries, Ann, please point us to one and show us how atheism has contributed one iota to the sum total of goodness there. I await with baited breath

Edward the Thirst

Not one of the posts above, which speak up for faith schools, insist on the universal imposition of their point of view.
On the other hand, many of those who are in favour of secular schools, are adamant that this model is the only one which should be permitted.
Yet it is those with religious beliefs who are routinely labelled as bigots.

London Calling

Phil, I understand how confusing it must have been for you as a child at school to experience difference and separation from others and also the feeling of inequality.
Generally separate faith schools function better independently, whereby the difference you experienced would not have arisen and I agree with you,no one should be made to feel different and in your case this was wrong, as your school did not take into account the feelings of others whilst accommodating different faiths.
It may comfort you to know that neither you, me or anyone else here is different, apart from the fact we have different experiences and sometimes do not understand one another so well because of this:)

Terry

C Powell here sums it up perfectly.

We all have to pretend there is some sort of moral equivalence when we know that isn't the case at all. If it were, Christians and Muslim apostates would be commonplace in Saudi Arabia. Of course they're not - and never will be.

And we know why.

Ann, I went to a religious school and it hardly had any effect upon my views on faith. I was then and am now an agnostic.

Whether we like it or not, we are all products of our history and the Judeo-Christian beliefs that have molded our education system down the centuries are what made it such a once-great education system.

Be careful of removing something if you don't know what you'll get in its place.

As Peter Hitchens keeps pointing out, all the Dawkinsites who think they'll lead us to some atheist Avalon will in the end do no such thing.

They'll simply lay the foundations for the Caliphate.

It's going on as we speak.

You'll have soft religion or hard religion, but you'll never ever be free of religion - humans are not programmed that way. Choose wisely.

david skinner

Edward the Thirst ,

You are probably aware of the knights sitting around the table of Sir Trevor Phillips, OBE , no less, the Commissioner for the Joint Council of Equality and Human rights and amongst whose ranks sits Ben Summerskill , the chief executive of Stonewall.
The JCEHR came out with a truly staggering statement, last year with regard to sex education in schools:

“In our view there is an important difference between this factual information [about sexual morality] being imparted in a descriptive way as part of a wide-ranging syllabus about different religions, and a curriculum which teaches a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true. The latter is likely to lead to unjustifiable discrimination” (paragraph 67).

This basically is saying that the JCEHR are imposing their own universal, absolute and objective law , which is that there is are no universal, absolute and objective law concerning morality.

There is a very good critique of the work of the JCEHR here.

http://www.gaysandfascism.com/note/gay_note_2nd_march_2007.htm

But the consequences of the atheist and secularist religion are found below.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/31/nwrong31.xml
(Teachers to stop teaching children right from wrong)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_page_id=1772&in_article_id=489358&in_author_id=256 (children as judges)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=447743&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&ct=5&expand=true ( Encouraging pupils to blackmail and threaten schools).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=438621&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true (Outcry over explicit sex education video shown to five-year-olds)

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=373 ( Trojan Horse of Sex Education)

http://www.tht.org.uk/informationresources/publications/gaymengerneralinformation/bottomlinethirdedition124.pdf (Terrance Higgins Trust and its dream for our children)

http://www.tht.org.uk/howwecanhelpyou/youngpeople/thtatnumber10/ ( Gordon Brown’s encouragement of Terrence Hiiggins Trust. Play the video).

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/03/16/boy--murdered-for-his-dog--89520-18762535/ ( kodjo Yenga)

phil

London C thank you for those pleasant remarks even though we have crossed swords in the past I do appreciate your sentiments -my school was a great school the only problem we had was the assembly prayers in the morning which separated us -I don't believe it was meant in any way to be hurtful it was just what had gone on for many generations ,certainly before Jewish boys attended the school ,and to this day I am confused as to whether it should have been changed-- I side towards no change as it had always been a school with Christian tradition and we live in a Christian country,so I cant really see we had any right to expect a change .It was just that nagging feeling that it accentuated the difference between the boys What I would emphasise is in the early months we did have difficulties between some of the boys but in the end as we got to know each other we made lifelong friends , so it is probably apparent that-II believe mixing is by far the better option:- but I must say that having seen the posts of the representatives of atheism on various subjects here at Melanie's (Soreofhing and ann)I think I am going in the direction of faith schools as those people of faith do not seem to pour out vitriol ceaselessly(lol)

david skinner

Phil, an excellent way of judging the underlying spirit behind any group is to let them speak. As soon as people start to use ad hominems, incivility and hatred you can tell pretty well where they are coming from. Frankly I am surprised by the scarcity of atheist contributors to this post, unless that is, they were so typically abusive , that their comments were pulled ?

At the heart of all this is hatred and the irony is that if there had been ( heaven forbid) a religious hatred law which made it a criminal offence to verbally incite hatred against a person or group of people on the basis of their religion, Ed Balls would have fallen on his own sword; and yet the government was going to force that very kind of law on the British people in 2006.

Perhaps this is leaping ahead too far but, even as I write, the government is planning to control our emotions. In order to make society run smoothly like a machine it is deciding who can feel and express hatred and who cannot. Atheists and homosexuals will be given carte blanche to indulge in an orgy of hatred, whilst below them there will be a descending scale human rights to express hatred, given to those who are black, women, gypsies, the disabled, the hard of hearing, the ginger haired, foxes, whales, and finally at the bottom Christians.

1984 may seem to be a bit a late but it arrived four decades and no one noticed.

david skinner

Sorry, I forgot, there is actually a group even below the Christian- that is unless your are a Christian Goth: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/campaigns/equallydifferent/Pages/MarcusRamshaw.aspx

in this evolutionary pecking order of human rights, so low in fact that they aren’t even represented around Sir Trevor Phillips round table of Equality and Human Rights. I am of course referring to the approaching seven million souls whose best start in life, according to the governments Surestart programme - http://www.surestart.gov.uk/aboutsurestart/ - is to be incinerated at the rate of 200, 000 a year.

As for Islam, bring it on, we deserve everything they have in store for us.

Ben K

The whole notion of 'Secular Education' is grounded in the nonsense that there is some 'neutral' or 'objective' position from which the world can be viewed. There isn't and it can't be. Whatever the curriculum is students _will_ be taught values and they _will_ be taught a world view; to demand that education be 'secular' is simply to demand that they be taught whatever dogmas happen to be in fashion in the DoE and the various faculties of education rather than the dogmas of a church.

That a free people could consent to the mandatory state indoctrination of their children is appalling.

Dominic L-R

Melanie's attachment to faith schools seems to me a little at odds with many of her views on multicultural society. The existence of faith schools is a natural part of a multicultural ethos - i.e. all cultures and faiths have equal validity, so it is acceptable to allow different faiths to school their own children and pass on their own religious, moral and cultural values. In most of her writing, Melanie points out the hazards and dangers of the multicultural ethos, and yet she seems to make an exception for faith schools. Similarly, she is ruthless in exposing a lack of reason and logic in her opponents, and yet she defends religion (albeit in its more benign manifestations). Is there not a great contradiction here?
Also, David Skinner's questions about the role of atheism under regimes such as Stalinist Russia and North Korea deserves a response. This is a claim made quite frequently, and yet it is totally without substance.
While Stalin and Mao were atheists, they did not perpetrate their atrocities because of their atheism. There is nothing about atheism that necessarily leads to mass murder or genocide. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god. It is not in itself a belief system - it is a rejection of the supernatural.
Contrast this with the Inquisition. The atrocities perpetrated were because of a doctrine held by the church, and the thoughts of those deemed to be heretical.
If you can show me how totalitarian fascism necessarily follows from atheism, then you might have an argument.
In fact, the actions of totalitarian regimes have far more in common with religious, rather than secular values: do not question the leader, submit unthinkingly, or else. These are the catchphrases of totalitarians through the ages. In the religious context the leader is God, the authority is the Bible and the "or else" the Inquisition. In a secular context the leader may be Hitler, the authority "Main Kampf" and the "or else" the Gestapo.
The root problem is unquestioning, unthinking attachment to Dogma, which can lead to horrors. The antidote, is genuine free thought, skepticism and critical thinking. The Killing Fields, the Gulag and the Holocaust were not the result of societies that became too attached to critical thinking, or too demanding of evidence

Ann

"were you born an atheist" -- I was born a human baby, as is everyone. Yes, Skinner, even you. I chose to be an atheist once I started thinking for myself.
---
"what role, may I ask did atheism have to play during the reign of terror in the French Revolution, or the millions of people murdered by Stalin and his communist heads of state in countries like Romania, or in the continuing state controlled oppression of China, not just on Tibetans but Christians? Did atheism have no role play in Cambodia or present day North Korea? What about Cuba and the continuing persecution there?" --- the answer is 'None'. The persecution was not in the name of atheism, but in that of Communism or some other form of fascism. The absurd accusation that atheism is to blame is trotted out by slow-of-thinking theists time and again, but however many times you blare it out, it's still nonsense. On the other hand, the century upon century upon century of slaughter by Christians on Moslems, Moslems on Christians, both of them on Jews, Christians on Native Americans, the repression of natural human urges by Christians - these were all done in the name of religion.

Tin Man

The key word, Dominic L-R, is “multi” - not cultural. You won’t see heaps of Christian faith schools springing up across Saudi Arabia any time soon.

Funny how we’re signed up to what VS Naipaul refers to as “multi-culti-whatsitcalled” but no-one else is.

The logical progression of multiculturalism is civil war.

Given the advent of characters such as Dhiren Barot and the 7/7 and 21/7 posse I’d say it’s already well under way.

david skinner

Dominic multi- cultural does not equal multi- religious. Cultural tradition and religion are entirely different things. Islam, for instance is a universal religion practised within different cultural traditions - the same with Christianity but on an even larger scale, world wide.

You also say that:

“the existence of faith schools is a natural part of a multicultural ethos - i.e. all cultures and faiths have equal validity, so it is acceptable to allow different faiths to school their own children and pass on their own religious, moral and cultural values.”

Who said that faiths have equal validity? In that case Satanists and Aztecs who ripped the still beating hearts out of their victims would be equal in yours eyes. Not only that I am being led to understand by your party that the murderous regimes of the twentieth century, like those Communism and fascism that killed millions and millions (compared with the thousands attributed to the Spanish Inquisitors and crusaders) were not truly atheistic but idolatrous because they worshipped men like Stalin, Hitler and Kim 11 Sung. In that case why shouldn’t we, in the name of multiculturalism erect statues to these demi - gods also?

If these were not truly atheistic regimes, where in all the world are they? When you have found the fruits of these promised lands please bring back their fruits so that we can all enjoy them.

Unlike Christians who have had to put their faith to the test, in many hard places in the world, atheists brought up in the material comfort of the west can indulge in idle fantasies about man being the master of his own destiny. Bertrand Russell’s daughter, Kate, had something to say about the buoyant and totally dishonest optimism of her father’s atheism. "They all offered the same solutions: reason, progress, unselfishness, a wide historical perspective, expansiveness, generosity, enlightened self-interest. I had heard it all my life, and it filled me with despair."
Kate eventually found an answer in Christianity: "The doctrine of original sin gave to me, when I finally understood it, the same sense of intoxicating liberation my father had received from sexual emancipation. It was normal for me to be bad, and I need not feel ashamed."
She came to understand what Russell never could: it is only by acknowledging our sins that we can hope to gain freedom from them.

Dominic forget the tooth fairy and father Christmas, the reality is that you and I have got a big problem which is that both of us are in bondage to things that constantly try to rule over us and which, if it were not for the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, would ultimately bring us into terrible judgement. If my hope in Jesus Christ is fantasy, then give me more of it, because the reality that Britain is becoming is for many already a living hell.

Edward the Thirst

Dominic L-R

The hazards and dangers of the multicultural ethos are that its proponents either fail to, or refuse to, raise their eyes from the deck and so do not see that the ship is moving. What today is termed multiculturalism was not even recognised thirty years ago. In thirty years time, if this course is kept, the term and the ethos will have slipped away, for by that time the true destination will have been reached.

This is not a multicultural society, it is a transcultural society, in which one set of traditions is to be displaced by another.

Those who rejoice in the final victory of a liberal humanist democracy, and the death of God are woefully misguided. In truth they have eschewed the basic guidance of a moral code set by one religious tradition, only to create a void to be filled by another code.

Therefore the crucial point is not simply whether faith schools per se are beneficial or not, rather it is a more real-world concern over which faith is to be granted a place in the future. In addition, there is nothing which precludes the religiously observant from the application of reason and logic.

Atheism as it is practised, has become quite a bit more than merely the denial of any God. It has developed from this, to the insistence that belief in God must be eradicated. Going on from this, there in fact does seem to be an intrinsic hatred within the atheist mindset which cannot abide the fact that believers persist in their erroneous and tiresome folly, and that the tension generated by this irritation, has always a tendency towards persecution.
In that sense, atheism can indeed be regarded as at least potentially predisposed to the totalitarian path. We are none of us, fully immune from the strictures of unthinking application of dogma. On that point we agree.

JoeStrummer

In Glasgow as in Northern Ireland, "faith schools" are known as "bigot factories" and with very good reason. They have produced nothing for generations but the same bigoted blinkered attitudes, division, hatred and sectarianism of the worst kind.

We would rightfully be appalled and would not tolerate if entry to schools was based on skin colour so why do we tolerate this on grounds of religion.?

Teachers as well at these particular schools and who are not of the "faith" required are also subject to discrimination when seeking promotion and are barred from being Headmaster or Headmistress. Is this fair.?

Should we then discriminate in turn against RC teachers employed in non-denominational schools in Glasgow and prevent them from seeking promotion in these establishments just to even up the score.?

Children should never be separated at the age of 5 into different schools based on the spiritual views of their parents. Whatever race or creed they belong to, they should be both learning together and from each other.

This isn't " multi-cultural dogma" ,just common sense.

MikeS

The State should have nothing whatever to dio with faith schools of any denomination. Ideally there should be none anyway but it would be an unwarranted restriction to ban them. However,"faith communities" should pay for them in their entirety if they think they are so important.

david skinner

That religious schools are divisive is an accusation often levied against them. Such profound statements must surely come from the INCLUSION AND DIVERSITY FACTORY Co. (extremely) Ltd. (IDF)
When the allied troops landed on the beaches of Normandy, at the end of the WW11 they were handed little pieces of metal which when pressed emitted a loud clicking sound . This was to enable our soldiers to identify themselves as friends and not foes in the darkness. What the allies didn’t do was to inform the enemy of their arrival and to drop the clickers to the German troops so that they too could be included.

The context of Christianity has always been a battle zone - something that the Anglican Church under its Druid Archbishop has tragically forgotten. We fight not with material weapons but with the truth and prayer. The enemy is deception, delusion, denial and death - clearly the products of the IDF Co. Ltd.
Indeed like the troops with the clickers they are meant to be identified by their difference of behaviour and attitude. All the great Christian reformers like Wilberforce stood out against the social trends. They acted as salt and light in a darkened world. They were imitators of Jesus Christ and this brought mockery, humiliation, persecution and for many death.
Do those shouting for inclusion want to be included in that ?

The closest secularist and atheist get to making a moral stand is when they put on indulgent and sentimental protests about the disappearance of the whale , the giant panda or the Buddhists monks of Tibet, completely ignoring the fact that Christians have been persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and put to death in China for many decades.

Frankly I am surprised at the lack of atheist and secularist comments on this blog. I don’t know how Melanie decides who goes up and who doesn’t but I suppose in the end it doesn’t matter, because they all use the same tired old methods of attack.

First as Bill Muehlenberg says from Culturewatch, they may claim to speak in the name of science, but much of their writing more accurately reflects scientism, not real science. Scientism is the idea that science alone is the source of truth. Only matter matters. There is no supernatural, only the natural. There is no metaphysical, only the physical. This of course in not scientifically provable. It is a faith-based commitment. Materialists cannot prove their case empirically. Instead, they have smuggled their naturalism in as an unproven presupposition.”

Second, their deep-seated hatred of God is not supported by scientific or philosophical discussion, but ( only) by kindergarten temper tantrums. Naturally this hatred of God is turned onto the Christian with vile and obscene ravings. All they can do is attack the person but not the arguments.

Third, when they do critique religion in general and Christianity in particular, they are usually way out of their depth….. Terry Eagleton had this to say:
“Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince.”
He continues, “The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster.”

To even attempt to argue why religion is not the same as cultural tradition, or that all religions are not equally valid or that communist countries were indeed living out their atheist philosophy, or that the thousands who died during the Crusades and Inquisition were a drop in the ocean compared the millions and millions who suffered under atheist regimes,……… to argue all this and still not have my request answered which was that any atheist on this blog could point us to one country, one town, or even only one individual who, guided solely by atheist principles, has added one iota to the sum total of goodness on this planet is, to say the least, vexing.
At the end of the day the atheist runs out of both gas and runway pretty quickly.

TonyS

For goodness sake Melanie, you are spot on about so many issues in our democracy where religon is the poison at the bottom of the well, why the blind spot when it comes to 'faith' schools? They are dreadfully divisive, teach nonsense at the states expense and are just utterly wrong in so many ways I don't have the space to bore on about here. Religon and state; keep them seperate, always full stop and we might have a chance.

Dominic L-R

David Skinner urges readers to produce "one country, one town, or even only one individual who, guided solely by atheist principles, has added one iota to the sum total of goodness on this planet". The question assumes that there is a set of 'atheist principles' or a belief system known as 'Atheism', which is misleading. Not believing in God (or any supernatural being) is only a part of belief system. The only reason we even have the term 'Atheist' is in contrast to a belief in the divine which has been prevalent for thousands of years, but it is no more a belief system than 'not believing in fairies' or 'not believing in alien abductions' or 'not believing in crystal therapy'. To say that someone is an atheist doesn't tell you very much about their moral outlook on life. An atheist could be rationalist, humanist, liberal, conservative, even fascist. Now if you were to ask me to name an individual who has contributed to "the sum total of goodness on the planet" based on their rational, humane approach to life... well, how long have you got? Just think of any advance in medicine which has saved thousands of lives and you have your answer.
David Skinner also refers to "the same tired old methods of attack" by atheists. However, he is himself guilty of producing one of the oldest and most tiresome methods of attack on atheists.. that of claiming "when they do critique religion (...)they are usually way out of their depth". In other words, unless you have a PhD in Theology, your comments are worthless. To which I would respond that the atheist only needs to know about the element that they are criticising. Most theological tracts take it as given that God exists. They do not debate that matter. Therefore they are of no value to someone debating the question of God's existence. This is such a common criticism of Atheists, especially of Professor Dawkins et al, that the biologist and writer PZ Myers has a witty satire on this complaint that I reproduce here:
"I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics."

Jerry Levin

In 1945 there were 450,000 Jews in Britain. Now there are 350,000. Articles like this make it clear another Edward I is not needed to drive the Jewish religion out of Britain.

Ann

Brilliant post and brilliant satire, Dominic (although 'genitalia' is a plural noun ;-)) ). Of course, Skinner uses another tiresome, old and brainless method of attack, one we have seen and responded to above; namely, that because Communist countries do not have a state religion, and because Communist countries are oppressive and commit mass-murders, therefore atheists qua atheists are guilty of mass-murder. You and I know that this is an idiotic argument. Sadly, Skinner (and others who use this pseudo-argument, and there are many) seems unable to see the fallacy.

TrevorH

"malevolent little creep" your description is far too kind.

Is there a more odious person in politics?

er ... well there is actually, Mrs Balls.

david skinner

Dominic you have said, “ Now if you were to ask me to name an (atheist/ humanist) individual who has contributed to “the sum total of goodness on the planet” based on their rational, humane approach to life …..well, how long have you got? Just think of any advance in medicine which has saved thousands of lives and you have the answer.”

Well Dominic; I have to tell you I have given up waiting.

As a teacher in a large successful grammar/ comprehensive school, of which the head was a Christian, I remember that the science rooms were named after famous Christians , such as Flemming, Lister, Pasteur, Newton and so on.

The link below is created by a scientist and he has this to say :

“ Arguing science does not produce faith but the Word of God does……... One other thing, since I refuse to argue with folks on this subject, I often give them a list of scientists who do believe in creation. This usually causes folks to back down since this list of professionals is huge and therefore gives great credance to creationism. here is the list: http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/evidence.html

As far as Dawkins I am sure he would endorse these statements :

"We civilised men ... build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. [...] Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1882)

"The demand that it should be made impossible for defective people to continue to propagate defective offspring is a demand that is based on most reasonable grounds, and its proper fulfilment is the most humane task that mankind has to face." (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf)

Andrew Sibley of the Creation Science movement says:

“Secular humanism, with its adherence to Darwinism, seeks to push back the boundary of science in the name of human centred progress. But human progress, that rejects God’s grace, has consistently failed to make society better and often makes things worse. Secularism is instead left floundering for an objective, consistent and coherent basis for morality. The question that needs to be answered is how can secularism stop science sliding back into the Nazi scientific research programme of Dr Mengele and others if they persistently push back those boundaries of science? This is the fatal paradox of humanism. Christians need to speak out with confidence for the sake of values in science, as secular humanists have no objective basis for ethics at all. The idea of creating human-animal hybrid embryos for experimentation should be rejected, as well as those other proposals that destroy the rights of other human beings who should be treated as moral patients.”

Ann

"as secular humanists have no objective basis for ethics at all" -- yeees ... and the word of god as revealed to Skinner is 'objective', right? As so often, here too theists steal the terminology of science (in this case, 'objective'), and abuse and misuse it in a completely perverse sense to mean something quite different (if not the diametrical opposite), simply because those words sound good in an argument (and thus might persuade the slow of thinking, even while not having a clue as to what they mean). The theists thus hope to benefit from something they neither created nor understand.
---
And of course, Skinner is running away from answering the thorough rebuttal of his non-argument about atheism => mass-murder. Ignoring the rebuttal and hoping it'll go away.

phil

If I may intervene in this incredible intellectual battle between messrs David and Dominic, which at this stage I am scoring on points to Dominic,but there may be a late rally by David and I have been wrong before .I might have to disqualify Dominic for his lovely second ann jumping into the ring with her usual insults nevertheless -I would like to offer my very simple view that one should judge a person not by what he says he is ,but by what he does -I am firmly on the side of goodness and compassion and I dont care what you call that religion-keep it coming guys I do enjoy the intellectual input,its a lot better than the hate posts we keep seeing

david skinner

Dear Phil, your comment about my coming in with a late rally is the warning bell that I ought to alight at the next stop, for it seems that I am being drawn into a fruitless game of table tennis, in which, though one might win a contest against an opponent, one can also harden his mind, his heart and therefore his eternal soul. This is no game.
What I would say in my defence is that I have as far as possible, grounded all my arguments with material facts, of people, places, times of hard evidence that anyone, especially in this day of the internet, can easily check; in others words I have related those things that we can subjectively experience with “objective truth,“ the gospel of Jesus Christ. Ann quite rightly points out, the word “objective” is a word from the Enlightenment which pre- supposes that a human being can arrogantly stand in an autonomous place of absolute objectivity - which they cannot. Humans are not a sufficient integration point in themselves - they are finite, not infinite. Only God stands in that place. There is certainly nothing “objective” about her emotionally charged postings.

Even though I have repeatedly asked for evidence from my opponents, they have only been able to deny evidence that I offer and to pour invective on me personally. Indeed their arguments are unrelated to reality or reason. They are the stuff of “ ruffled flounces, puffy pantaloons and imaginary fabrics. ” In other words it is all wind and trousers.

Phil, allow me to offer one last piece of material evidence related to the truth that we live in age of madness. Stonewall who are the political wing of Gaydar. Com are determined to destroy every Christian charity, school, family and child in this country. They hosted a fund raising evening, in London, on Thursday 3rd April

Lisa Nolland from Anglican Mainstream reports :

“Stonewall, England’s largest and most well-known homosexual activist organization, held its annual fundraising dinner last night, raising over $600,000. A sizeable chunk of the funds raised came in thanks to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair – the same Tony Blair who was received into the Catholic Church only a few months ago by top English prelate Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor.
The opportunity to have tea with Tony Blair secured a bid of $40,000 in an auction held at the dinner. Incidentally Blair was the keynote speaker at last year’s Stonewall fundraiser. During his speech Blair thanked the gathered attendees for their help in passing his legislation to permit homosexual civil unions. Blair said that of all the pro-homosexual legislation passed in recent years, the civil partnership law gave him more than just pride, "it actually brought real joy." The first same-sex civil union caused him to give "a little sort of skip," he said, it was "just so alive, and I was so struck by it."
Another piece of legislation passed under Blair, the Sexual Orientation Legislation, affects the Catholic Church directly. In addition to Christian schools being forbidden from teaching against homosexuality, adoption agencies, Catholic included, must permit adoption of children by homosexual couples. Blair ignored warnings from a UK Catholic bishop that Catholic adoption agencies would have to close if such legislation were passed.
And guess which agency was most concerned with ensuring that the Catholic Church could not maintain its freedom of conscience on adoptions? You guessed it – Stonewall.

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/04/07/some-catholic-tony-blair-is-now-raising-funds-for-homosexual-group/#more-3154

Dominic L-R

We seem to have veered somewhat away from the original topic of faith schools! To return to the original subject – I still feel that Melanie’s position on faith schools (and indeed the whole issue of ‘passing on religion’ to children) is inconsistent. On the one hand, she rightly acknowledges the dangers of indoctrination and the horrors of “Palestinian toddlers being taught to sing about murdering the Jews” or being told that ‘Jews are pigs’.Yet she seems reluctant to follow this objection to its logical conclusion – that all religious indoctrination is bad, and faith schools in England are part of that process. Clearly, most religious schooling in this country is benign (and I share many of the values that David Skinner and other Christians espouse), yet the principle is the same. If we object to Palestinian children being taught hatred, and if we object to genital mutilation of young girls (and I hope we all do), shouldn’t we be trying to move away from this kind of education in general?

However, having said we shouldn’t veer off topic, I can’t let some of David Skinner’s recent points go unanswered. So here goes:
First: He alludes to the supposed inevitable moral consequences of Darwinism. He is ‘sure’ that Richard Dawkins would endorse statements like that of Adolf Hitler, that it should be made “impossible for defective people to continue to propagate defective offspring…” This is an outrageous accusation. It is clear that David Skinner has either never read Richard Dawkins, or has not understood him. This is a crucial point and it is worth quoting Dawkins on it: “Natural selection is the dominant force in biological evolution,… yet we can fight against it as human beings (…) I support Darwinism as a scientist, yet I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our human affairs. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators”
Hardly the voice of one favouring eugenics, is it?

Second – he refers to the number of scientists who were Christians. Of course it is true that many scientists were Christian, but that does not mean that a belief in Christianity or the Supernatural led those Scientists to their scientific achievements. In fact, the church has often greatly hindered science. Whenever newly discovered scientific truth contradicted doctrine, the church usually pronounced that science to be wrong. Copernicus and Galileo are obvious cases. Behaviour like that can hardly be described as supporting science. Science developed in spite of religion, not because of it. Where is science and the search for knowledge recognized as "good" in the Bible?
Perhaps in 100 years Christians will will be taking credit for the acceptance of gay marriage, the amazing success of embryonic stem cell research, and human genetic engineering to make a more peaceful, intelligent, and compassionate species. Perhaps they will claim that only a tolerant Christian society would have made such advances possible…

Lastly: David Skinner is still urging us to produce a ‘succesful’ country, guided by ‘atheist principles’. Let us put this to bed: Some of the most civilised, liberal and prosperous nations in the world are "atheistic" in the sense that a majority of the population do not believe in God. In Sweden for instance, over 80% of Swedes say they don't believe in God. Yet Sweden has some of the lowest crime and poverty rates in the world. It is a functioning liberal democracy with very little social unrest and a near 100% literacy rate. Clearly, a widespread disbelief in God is not incompatible with a healthy, happy, prosperous and civilised society.

Ann

Phil, it's obvious that you have nil reading comprehension skills nor do you have the intellectual capacity to see that you are guilty of the very insults you complain of in others. I demolished Skinner's arguments logically. You have decided to hate me, and like a three-year old throw a tantrum every time I post, confusing logical arguments with 'insults'.

Ann

"There is certainly nothing “objective” about her emotionally charged postings" - more nonsense from Skinner. I have torn your argument about atheism logically leading to mass-murder to shreds: that was an objective response on my part, to which you are powerless to reply (you have been running away from it for quite some time now). I have torn your argument about theists coming from an 'objective' moral position to shreds - and you are running away from that. You are the one regaling us with reams of emotionally-charged diatribes about the bad atheists, offering us nil facts - it is breathtaking arrogance to claim that you are the objective one and that your critics are not.

Nick Kaplan

David Skinner; after our last discussion, I had given up hope of reasoning with you as you dissented into a rant based purely on quoting a strange mixture of people from Napoleon to Ghandi, but your most recent blogs are so infuriatingly ludicrous that remaining silent has become physically painful. Your ravings against ‘Scientism’ are really just a cover for rants against the scientific method, which may not be the only way to discover the truth, but is certainly the best. How, other than by examining evidence and then reaching a conclusion based on that evidence, could one ever come to know anything? What other methods of proof are there? Take note, i am not denying the possibility of there being other methods, I am just interested to know what you believe is more appropriate. You go on to claim “There is no metaphysical, only the physical. This of course is not scientifically provable. It is a faith-based commitment. Materialists cannot prove their case empirically. Instead, they have smuggled their naturalism in as an unproven presupposition.” Now this is quite obviously a fairly stupid claim, if one starts from a position of disbelief, which seems the most sensible place to start, the obligation on any of us in making a claim that we want someone to believe is to provide evidence. The lack of evidence for the metaphysical is the reason for denying its existence, it is not a blind assertion. Of course we don’t have physical evidence for the lack of the metaphysical and a request for such evidence is self-evidently ridiculous. Instead, we take the lack of evidence in favour of the metaphysical as evidence against it and await the time when somebody proves us wrong. If you were to show me conclusive evidence in favour of the metaphysical, I would, as a rational being, have no choice but to accept its existence. You go on to say “Second, their deep-seated hatred of God is not supported by scientific or philosophical discussion, but ( only) by kindergarten temper tantrums”, which leads me to believe that you have never read any atheist writing, because atheist arguments rely on both the philosophical (e.g. A.C. Grayling) and the scientific (e.g. Dawkins). Finally you go on to say atheist are out of their depth when talking about theology, I suppose you can only mean like those fundamentalist Christians are out of their depth when they claim there is no scientific basis for evolution.... But wait a second, you’re one of those evolution deniers, how do you square this circle David? Your argument here seems to make the unreasonable demand that the only way an atheist can fairly asses religion is by coming from a position of belief in it, otherwise, you suggest, they cannot possibly understand what it is they are disputing. Such a demand is self-evidently mad. I shan’t ask you for evidence in what you believe, as the last time I made such a request you responded with a list of 7 arbitrary statements all of which assumed God’s existence as part of their premise, instead I will just sit back and despair at my wasted effort in attempting to reason with your bizarre vendetta.

Nick Kaplan

David Skinner, you requested examples of “one country, one town, or even only one individual who, guided solely by atheist principles, has added one iota to the sum total of goodness on this planet” while no state is based on atheism because it is not an ideology, the most successful and free country in the World was founded by a group of rational thinkers who were predominantly atheist or agnostic, here for example are some quotes by the founding fathers: “I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.” (Jefferson)
"The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."(John Adams, second president of the USA)
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." (James Madison, Fourth President of the USA)
“My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself." (Franklin)
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of....Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all." (Thomas Paine)
Similarly many key figures in the