Thursday, February 25, 2010

Teaching abortion in an ‘enlightened’ and ‘non-judgmental’ way

There has been much to-ing and fro-ing about who blinked first and who conceded what to whom in the latest Education Children, Schools and Families Bill to pass through Parliament.

The contention, as ever, is in the provision of sex education.

The Catholic Education Service and Archbishop Vincent Nichols are apparently so content with the settlement that they provided Ed Balls with abundant quotations to that effect (or, rather, they have not sought to correct his interpretation of their apparent acquiescence or his self-promotion as the guardian of religious liberty).

Yet the National Secular Society and the more Tablet-inclined Roman Catholics are appalled by what they see as a Government climb-down and ‘pandering to religion’.

And so are a few liberal Jews and those ‘fairly classic’ sorts of Anglicans.

The liberal religionists accuse the Secretary of State of diluting the ‘enlightened’ compulsory requirement for all schools to teach about contraception, homosexuality and abortion in a ‘neutral’ kind of way.

The orthodox are foaming at the mouth over the imposition of secular or ‘enlightened’ values upon schools whose religious foundation repudiates that such moral issues could or should be addressed in a ‘neutral’ fashion.

It is not a new clash of worldviews: indeed, the ‘special’ status of what have become known as ‘faith schools’ can be traced to the very foundations of the state education settlement in the nineteenth century, which was enshrined in law for the modern era in the 1944 Education Act.

But it is a bizarre and undignified spat, because anyone can see that it is the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales (as represented by the Catholic Education Service and led by the Archbishop of Westminster) which has shifted on this; it is they who have (apparently) agreed to propagate the ‘enlightened’ secular amorality of New Labour.

One can understand that socialist zealots are blind to the dogmatic orthodoxy of their own state coercion that ‘enlightenment neutrality’ must be imposed upon all children: they are, after all, socialists, and it is intrinsic to their political creed that children are the property of the state and that the state has a duty to inculcate them with a sense of what is permitted and induct them with the state’s notions of truth. The creed is as illiberal as the most illiberal religion, and as unenlightened as the most medieval attitude.

If parents no longer have the right to educate their children in accordance with their own religious laws and values, England has just lost the religious liberty which has developed over the past three centuries. The steps towards emancipation which Nonconformists, Jews and Roman Catholics have taken over the years have resulted in greater liberties in their teaching, worship, marriage and the right to stand for public office.

It is ironic that these hard-won liberties are now being steadily eroded, and the authoritarian state is rediscovering its repressive instinct.

As a result of this Act, all schools in England (for education is a devolved competence) are now required by statutory instrument to teach all pupils about contraception, homosexuality, civil partnerships and abortion.

Faith schools, however, may do so in accordance with their religious precepts. The amendment inserted by Mr Balls reads:

Page 14, line 6 [Clause 11], at end insert—

‘(7A) Subsections (4) to (7) are not to be read as preventing the governing body or head teacher of a school within subsection (7B) from causing or allowing PSHE to be taught in a way that reflects the school’s religious character.

(7B) A school is within this subsection if it is designated as a school having a religious character by an order made by the Secretary of State under section 69(3) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.’.


You might think, therefore, that (say) a Roman Catholic school would be free to teach that contraception exists but it is expressly forbidden by the magisterium as being contrary to the purposes of God; that homosexuality is, as the Pope says, an ‘intrinsic disorder’; that civil partnerships are nothing but a perverted parody of the institution of marriage; and that abortion is... well, murder.

Not so. The exemption is illusory.

Mr Balls has said of faith schools: ‘What they must not do is teach discrimination’.

This begs the question of whether the Secretary of State knows the difference between prejudice and discrimination, not least because the very existence of faith schools enshrines discriminatory provisions within the education system.

He also says: “Faith schools will not be able to opt out of statutory lessons on sex and relationship education when the legislation comes into effect in September 2011. This includes education about contraception and the importance of stable relationships, including marriage and civil partnerships. It will not allow the teaching of homophobia...”

Which schools teach ‘homophobia’? How is this defined? Is it not clear that any move to teach that civil partnerships are somehow inferior to marriage runs the risk of allegations of ‘homophobia’?

And so Labour now require that all matters of sex and sexuality be taught in a ‘non-judgmental’ way.

But it is difficult to see how this may be done without setting aside the traditional moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and the very words of Pope Benedict XVI.

To state that homosexuality is an ‘intrinsic disorder’ is... well, judgmental.

To state that abortion is murder is no less so.

Unless one is to teach that homosexuality is an intrinsic disorder but then expound its carnal joys and bonding pleasures; or that abortion is a grave moral evil and a mortal sin, but then provide girls with all the information and encouragement they require to procure one and all the emotional comfort they need afterwards.

The reality is that this Bill forces every faith school to conform to the ‘fairly classic’ sort of Anglicanism: but it is not a statutory via media which attempts to tread somewhere between the liberals and conservatives, but a statutory instrument which obliges the conservatives to adopt liberal values and expound liberal doctrine, which, to them, is manifestly unorthodox. They are henceforth coerced by the state’s concept of ‘neutrality’. These schools are obliged to present as ‘choice’ what hitherto has not been a choice; to give pupils the options as though they were all morally equivalent; to promote what has traditionally been judged to be ‘sin’. It is facilitation under the guise of information.

Harry Cohen MP, a Labour backbencher, asked Vernon Coaker, junior minister for schools:

"Will my hon. Friend assure me that no faith school teacher will be allowed to spread long-term fear among children by telling them that if they subsequently have an abortion or partake in homosexuality they will end up going to hell?"

To which Mr Coaker replied: "Of course I can give my hon. Friend that assurance."

And so Parliament has grabbed the Keys of St Peter. And the state’s office of the Inquisition – Ofsted – will ensure compliance, lest an otherwise outstanding school be publically criticised and humiliated for ‘failing’ to provide an ‘adequate’ programme of PSHE.

Since this Bill cannot become law before the General Election, it remains to be seen what the Conservative Party intends to do with it.

One would think that a party which traditionally eschews coercion and recognises the right of parents to educate their children in accordance with their own religious precepts would let this Bill fall by the wayside. The problem they have is that it is enmeshed with issues of gay ‘equality’ and minority ‘liberty’.

For all three main political parties, moral ideas have become a desiccated sediment: they had significance while they were suspended in the fluid of religious and social tradition. Labour have been drawing off the water of life in which our moral ideas were suspended, pouring it down the drain with the sewage, leaving us with nothing but dust.

Labour have de-legitimised morality and replaced it with abstract moralising, as though the vagaries of human sense were a substitute for millennia of accumulated wisdom. The nation’s Protestant Settlement, which bequeathed us a tradition of benign social authority, has been subsumed to a malign socialist anti-authoritarianism and ultra-liberalism which is inexorably changing our culture beyond recognition and foisting upon everyone a value-free vernacular.

One cannot be ‘neutral’ about sex, sexuality or the sanctity of life without being indifferent.

It is time for Christians to repudiate New Labour’s old tyranny.

75 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Presumably, for the rules of anti-discrimination to be applied consistently, state schools should be required to explain Christian teaching on sexual ethics, for to omit to do this would discriminate against Christian pupils in the school.

Presumably, in the interest of the promotion of understanding between secular faith and Christian faith, the state schools should be asked to explain the justification for the various ethics on offer. However, as this would serve only to demonstrate that secular faith has no objective grounds for its morality beyond "some of us think and feel this is right" it is unlikely that this will happen and pupils will simply be indoctrinated by the state.

Neil

25 February 2010 at 11:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

Brilliant analysis!

‘What holds our nation back, according to Tony Blair, is the battle with the forces of conservatism’, so reported The Observer newspaper back in 1999.

And now the political elite, using the instrument of law, will finally destroy: the forces of conservatism – beginning with our children.

Some of us will recall that last year, in east London many parents withdrew their young children form a school because of what was being taught in ‘sex education’.

Let Cameron make no mistake and let him mark this well: if this bill is not extinguished by his party then the Conservatives are on a collision course with millions of paernts.

25 February 2010 at 11:50  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

The governments own amendment to the sex education bill states:

"Schools with a religious character will be free to express their faith and reflect the ethos of their school, but what they cannot do is suggest that their views are the only ones."

... and converted into plain English:

Catholic and Islamic faith schools (religious character) will be free to indoctrinate children (express their faith) and reflect their prejudice (ethos) but they must also inform children about contraception, abortion, homosexuality etc in a totally neutral and balanced way (and pigs will fly).

Cranmer says “Labour have de-legitimised morality and replaced it with abstract moralising, as though the vagaries of human sense were a substitute for millennia of accumulated wisdom”.

Religion does not confer a special insight into matters of morality it simply expresses its own prejudice. For abstract moralising I assume that you mean a moral blueprint that is not derived from your own particular supernatural deity.

The one thing we can agree upon is the fact that the bill satisfies nobody.

25 February 2010 at 11:58  
Anonymous Simon said...

The pope did not describe homosexuality as an "intrinsic disorder", he described it as "[homosexuality] is a tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil".

Do you think Gay people are evil Your Grace, and if not, why then should the teaching about their lives not show them as equal human beings to everyone else, with the same rights and responsibilities in society?

And Neil...

However, as this would serve only to demonstrate that secular faith has no objective grounds for its morality beyond "some of us think and feel this is right" it is unlikely that this will happen and pupils will simply be indoctrinated by the state.

Have you any idea how ridiculously pompous you sound when you say the religious have the sole claim to the basis of morality in society. If that's true how do you explain the millions of law-abiding agnostics and atheists in the world?

25 February 2010 at 12:05  
Blogger Botogol said...

Your Grace is being disingenuous (again). You say

"If parents no longer have the right to educate their children in accordance with their own religious laws and values, England has just lost the religious liberty which has developed over the past three centuries"

This is not what is at stake here: OF COURSE parents retain that right.

What is at stake is whether parents should expect that the State will fund and supply, for free, an education that is in accordance with their particular religious laws and values.

Well obviously not. For the state can have only one set of laws and values, which is never going to align with any particular church, and nor should it.

For example: if the state aligned itself with the Church of England we'd be teaching children that women are OK in middle management but unfit for senior leadership postions. Good job the state is more enlightened than the church on this issue at least.

25 February 2010 at 12:24  
Blogger Sinful Soul said...

Your Grace,

The Socialists under the fluttering flag of "equality" are going for the children,they will stop at nothing to indoctrinate their young minds with Socialist values,thus they will destroy Conservatism.

Future generations with have minds of grey goo and the morality of apes,all the easier for the Socialists to mould their offspring and so on and so on..

They want a moral no mans land in which to bury their mines...Evil.

25 February 2010 at 12:24  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Simon,

The Pope said:

"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

Ergo, homosexuality (even the inclination) is an intrinsic disorder.

And your question about whether His Grace views homosexuals as evil is designed to misrepresent precisely what he is saying

25 February 2010 at 12:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Simon Have you any idea how ridiculously pompous you sound?

25 February 2010 at 12:37  
Anonymous Stuart said...

it remains to be seen what the Conservative Party intends to do with it.

And this is the heart of the problem for me personally...will the Conservatives be any different?

As a Christian I have become absolutely and totally utterly politically disillusioned.

How do we as Christians now repudiate New Labour’s old tyranny?

To whom do we turn?

25 February 2010 at 12:40  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

I know that this is a (C)conservative blog but some of the anti-socialist rhetoric here could have come from the mouth (or somewhere else) of Sarah Palin. (sinfulsoul) Despite its obvious flaws and many failures socialism at least aims towards a more equal (just) society. How can Christians of any flavour be so antithetical towards it? Conservatism whilst embracing a more realistic (Darwinian) view of human nature cannot be said to have a more morally just philosophy.

25 February 2010 at 12:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

What is the socialist objective in Education?

It is liberation – but from what?

Since time immemorial all our great masters have taught us that reason and self-control will liberate us from the tyranny of our desires. It is through reason and self-control that we achieve mastery over our selves. This is not only good for our selves but also for our neighbour.

The left-Liberal conception of education is diametrically opposed to that classical ideal. It makes the passions the master and Reason its slave: broken Britain.

When our Cardinals and Bishops collaborate with the left-Liberal project, what they are saying is that sin is not really sin. And the old accusation fired at us by our adversaries really becomes true: that our conception of liberty is really license.

This brings me to what is probably in the eyes of the left-liberal a paradox in the Bible in that we are continually advised to have self-control which would suggest we know little about personal freedom.

St Paul writes, “Our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin….Likewise you also reckon yourselves to be dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:6, 11).

And yet it is in the suppression of wrong-doing that we experience freedom. Think of the man who smokes cigarettes and longs to be freed from that habit; the man who is an alcoholic and who knows that because of it he is losing his wife, children and home; the man who beds woman after woman and finally ends up alone staring at the world from behind net curtains.

Whilst other people’s children are slowly absorbing the values of this left-liberal ‘liberation’ (the surrender to the passions) it will be they who end up playing the fool. We Judaeo-Christians must continue to educate our children in the tried and tested ways of our past masters. We must continue to teach them to aim for Heaven so that the Good Lord may throw Earth into their laps.

25 February 2010 at 12:44  
Blogger andy said...

As a teacher who has had to teach some parts of the sex education curriculum over the years, I find the real problem being the requirement to teach a 'balanced and truthful' curriculum - especially when huge swathes of important information is ignored. For instance, very few syllabuses include abstention as an option, whilst no mention of potential psychological problems is made in the discussions of abortion.

25 February 2010 at 12:49  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

Do you think we can teach about homosexuality in a rigorously scientific method i.e by observing behaviour


Aids - HIV - the Gay plague
Bathhouses - blood and excreta everywhere
Fisting
Rimming
Cottaging
Frolics on Hampstead Heath, Clapham Common and the like.
Bullying Demonstrators outside Churches (recently in Chicago, Westminster)
Further bullying, trying to disrupt Church services (Holland)
The grotesqueries of the gay pride marches
Seeking to lift the ban on Gays giving blood - HIV for all.

and on, and on a continually expanding agenda.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

25 February 2010 at 12:49  
Blogger andy said...

sinful soul wrote:

Future generations with have minds of grey goo and the morality of apes,all the easier for the Socialists to mould their offspring and so on and so on..


We need to remember that it isn't socialism or any particular political party that is indoctrinating our children: rather, it is people with certain belief patterns. After all, historically, this same issue has arisen under right-wing parties as well. Rather than attacking political beliefs, we need to appreciate that it is the secularising elements in all parties that seek to demolish the moral foundations on which society is based.

25 February 2010 at 12:55  
Anonymous Simon said...

And your question about whether His Grace views homosexuals as evil is designed to misrepresent precisely what he is saying

Your Grace, with respect, I know what the Pope said and I know what he meant - despite his guarded rhetoric. I believe are dissembling, but then it's your blog and you can do what you like.

The Church clearly DOES regard it as evil as it actively preaches against it. Surely if it is forbidden by God, then it is a sin, and sin surely is the basis of evil.

And there we have it, The church regards Gay people as evil, it just doesn't have the guts to come out and say it properly; primarily one imagines as it sounds a bit like "hate speech" and they might be in serious trouble.

25 February 2010 at 12:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'And there we have it, The church regards Gay people as evil,...'

No it does not.

25 February 2010 at 13:02  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Simon,

With respect, His Grace does not dissemble, though he may not always clarify his meaning in the manner in which others demand.

Your mistake is in appropriating to His Grace the beliefs, teachings or 'guarded rhetoric' of the Pope. While His Grace may or may not agree with these teachings, it is possible to report without affirming.

25 February 2010 at 13:04  
Blogger Sinful Soul said...

Graham Davis said-Despite its obvious flaws and many failures socialism at least aims towards a more equal (just) society. How can Christians of any flavour be so antithetical towards it?

FOOLISH man socialism and the welfare state is evil.

Charity is a noble instinct; theft, legal or illegal, is despicable.

Or, put another way: Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man with ones own projects is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property ie wages of one person and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil.

It uses evil means coercion,force and taxes to achieve what it claims as good deeds,its own pet projects,to produce its own dependants,its own drones,its own voters.

an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote.

And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.

25 February 2010 at 13:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank You for a clear and well balanced appraisal of the situation.
I suppose we should expect to be persecuted for our Faith if we follow the path Christ trod, but it makes you want to weep at seeing so many people led down a path that can only lead to despair and not fulfilment.
Incidentally, I totally agree with Stuart - To whom do we turn?

25 February 2010 at 13:19  
Anonymous Simon said...

UGOC

Do you think we can teach about religion in a rigorously scientific method i.e by observing behaviour:

BBC News - Pope meets Irish bishops on child abuse scandal

Salem parents convicted of abusing three kids with wires, sticks

Christian Parents Biblically Beat Child to Death for Mispronouncing Word

Child Fatalities From Religion-motivated Medical Neglect -- Asser and Swan 101 (4): 625 -- Pediatrics

Trials for Parents Who Chose Faith Over Medicine

And the "no true christian" fallacy will be deployed in 5....4....3...

25 February 2010 at 13:33  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

Simon

You said to Neil:

/...you say the religious have the sole claim to the basis of morality in society. If that's true how do you explain the millions of law-abiding agnostics and atheists in the world?/

Well, whether Neil's claim is true or false, it is a non-sequitur that the existence of millions of law-abiding atheists refutes it
because to do so it would have to be the case that morality and compliance with the law were the same thing.

Plainly they are not. It is perfectly possible to be a cheat, a liar, a hypocrite, or a betrayer of trust, and stay safely within the law. Many of our politicians are particularly expert at it.

25 February 2010 at 13:37  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

"they are, after all, socialists, and it is intrinsic to their political creed that children are the property of the state"

What complete and utter garbage! Surely you should just say that we are the spawn of the devil and then there is no need for any argument whatsover.

25 February 2010 at 13:41  
Anonymous Simon said...

Well, whether Neil's claim is true or false, it is a non-sequitur that the existence of millions of law-abiding atheists refutes it because to do so it would have to be the case that morality and compliance with the law were the same thing

Perhaps my use of law-abiding wasn't great. My point was that a single atheist living a moral life crashes the logic of the idea that only religion is the basis of morality. And frankly some of the things done in the name of religion show quite clearly that it has no claim to absolute morality whatsoever.

But then of course we get the "no true Christian" argument and "Religion is not God" etc... This comes across as a failure to internalise the bad - the religious always have someone else to blame "the devil made me do it, I was tempted by sin, blah blah blah".

25 February 2010 at 13:48  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Of course you don't expect education to make anyone aware of alternative views on many different subjects because in your eyes such views do not have any validity and are hence not worthy of promulgation. Remember how the old Conservatives tried to stop democracy and trade unions by attacking the freedom of association.

Perhaps those of us (socialists and others) who believe in freedom of spirit and conscience actually trust people to make up their own minds between different views and values.

25 February 2010 at 13:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Simon,

The church does not regard gay people as evil. it regards homosexual ACTS as evil, in the same way as it regards sex outside marriage as evil, or robbery as evil, or lying as evil. All men (and women) are equal before God. We all have the ability to perform evil acts, hence the phrase "there but for the grace of God go I". None of us can look at another and call him evil, for we do not know when we ourselves may succumb to the same or another temptation. God loves you just as much as he does his saints in heaven.

25 February 2010 at 13:51  
Blogger greenalien said...

I agree, secular law and thinking should be replaced with religious one, and then we could pretty tents on women to suppress evil male urges, and then we could outlaw all other religions, and unite the world in worship of Allah.

25 February 2010 at 13:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

Why are these idiots so intent of trashing a childs right to childhood?

Or a teenagers right toi adolescence?

My main concern in life at primary school age was where is my velvet elephant/golliwog?

In adoleescence it was teenage spots!

How and why did so many lunatics get into parliament?

25 February 2010 at 14:04  
Blogger Dominic Mary said...

Simon;

you said to Neil :
'Have you any idea how ridiculously pompous you sound when you say the religious have the sole claim to the basis of morality in society . . .'

Hopefully you would agree that it isn't pompous to speak the truth.

No atheist can have any claim to the basis of morality, because s/he has no belief in an absolute and external power which can be such a basis : all an atheist can do is to behave in a morally satisfactory way, which I'm happy to acknowledge that many of them do.

However, their ethically sound conduct is wholly subjective, often based on nothing more than what was once defined as 'enlightened self-interest' : only religion can provide an objective morality.

Therefore, Neil was speaking the truth.

25 February 2010 at 14:09  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

“only religion can provide an objective morality”

Objective!

Your imaginary friend tells you how to behave and you call that objective? Tosh!

25 February 2010 at 14:14  
Anonymous Simon said...

Anon

God loves you just as much as he does his saints in heaven.

If that's true, and accepting for a moment that God exists and created us all, why are Gay people fashioned by Him in such a way that the expression of their love is strictly forbidden in His moral philosophy.

Gay people are meant to arbitrarily suffer a life of celibacy, without love or sexual intimacy compared to heterosexuals, then? In that way, as I see it, he is wilfully torturing them. I cannot find much love in that.

25 February 2010 at 14:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And if Graham Davis told his children how to behave: would he call that objective?

Where did Davis get his values?

Awshucks! He borrowed them from other people or goes along making them up or a combination of the two! Indeed he is sure to have believed in one thing on Monday morning at 9 am and changed his mind by Friday 6 pm.

And by which objective standard would Davis decide between his values and those of Smith and Jones?

Indeed on what basis can Davis criticise the Nazis? Unless he can show that he has discovered an objective moral basis?

But if he can’t thus show then he can’t object to the knock on the door at three in the morning.

25 February 2010 at 14:22  
Anonymous Simon said...

Dominic Mary

Where did I say that Atheists claim to hold the basis of morality? What I said was that religion's claim to hold sole moral authority is clearly and demonstrably wrong.

The problem with the "external basis" of morality claim for religion is that no-one actually knows whether it's true. You may believe it to be true; but you can't possibly know - therefore it is not correct to claim religion provides an objective basis for morality - it is in fact an entirely subjective view.

You don't, I presume, believe that adulterous men and women) be put to death by stoning do you? Of course not. Yet the biblical texts instruct it (Leviticus 20:10). You take the subjective view that killing men & women for that reason would be wrong; but if your claim that religion is the basis of an absolute morality is right, you're also then saying you don't actually believe it! Strange.

That is not say to Atheism holds all the answers, but then we don't claim to either. And we don't use Atheism to bash members of society for their innate natures.

25 February 2010 at 14:34  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Archbishop Cranmer (12:28)—Ergo, homosexuality (even the inclination) is an intrinsic disorder.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘intrinsic’ as “3. Belonging to the thing in itself, or by its very nature; inherent, essential, proper; ‘of its own’.”

The Compact Oxford Dictionary defines ‘intrinsic’ as ‘belonging to the basic nature of someone or something; essential.’

Surely that makes the phrase ‘intrinsic disorder’ an oxymoron? If homosexuality belongs to a man by his basic nature, how can his sexuality be a disorder in the eyes of the God by Whom he was created?

25 February 2010 at 14:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Somebody mention ‘innate natures’? Where do they come from?

From the primeval slime, you see! Bio-chemical determinism, you see?

But if that is correct, then you have no free choice and if no free choice then no freedom, and if no freedom then no democracy.

25 February 2010 at 14:41  
Anonymous Tanfield said...

Your Grace
If this Bill is passed and a new Conservative Government does not repeal it, or alter it in relation to this matter, I await with interest the first attempt by OFSTED to enforce these provisions against a Muslim faith school.

25 February 2010 at 14:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A Conservative government repeal it?

Nah! They’d rather see Bradford go up in flames.

25 February 2010 at 14:43  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Simon

Those activities @13.33 related to Roman Catholic religious are a disgrace. And I wish that I could say that they arise as a product of the 60's, but I can't. Atrocious behaviour has occurred albeit at a very low level throughout the ages and has to be rooted out time and time again.

The Church was lax in this instance and has been rightly excoriated for this. Interestingly, a lot of the recent problems has been a result of allowing men with homosexual tendencies to become priests. And now the Church gets criticised by homosexual activitists for not allowing people of such proclivities into the priesthood.

But there are countless numbers (hundreds of millions) of Christians who don't get up to such things. And the vast majority of priests don't either. These religious shaped today's civilisation. Even Aldous Huxley, not a friend of the Catholic Church acknowledges that Europe owes an incalculable debt to St Benedict, to quote just one example.

But, back to my original points: recently the leader of the Liberal Party claimed that the homosexual lifestyle is normal and healthy.

Hmmm a new definition of normal and healthy, methinks.

And you say: 'why are Gay people fashioned by Him...'

If this is a reference to the gay gene, strange that has no one has found it yet. They have looked hard enough...

25 February 2010 at 14:49  
Anonymous Simon said...

Does D Singh know anything about Biology... or Logic?!

25 February 2010 at 14:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your guide to the forces of conservatism

The Observer, Sunday 3 October 1999 04.14 BST

What holds our nation back, according to Tony Blair, is the battle with the forces of conservatism. The Observer has compiled this guide to conservatism with a small 'c' with Downing Street help.

British Medical Association
Self-interested defenders of the health service

Police Federation
Institutionally bigoted

National Union of Teachers
Jobsworths resisting national curriculum

Oxbridge vice-chancellors
Elitists pretending to protect standards

Civil service mandarins
Tunnel-visioned protectors of their own patches

Football Association
Money-grabbing destroyers of family fun

Prison Officers' Association
Ditto

Businesses not on the Net
Blaming high interest rate for failure to modernise

Scottish Nationalist Party
No understanding of devolution

Fox hunters
Toffs masquerading as yeomen

Hereditary peers
Toffs masquerading as thinkers and statesmen

Labour Party activists
Dangerous sentimentalists

Newspapers
Carping defenders of all the other forces of conservatism

FORCES OF PROGRESS

Downing Street Policy Unit
Mobile phones
Internet geeks
Concerned fathers at the school gates
Alastair Campbell

25 February 2010 at 14:52  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Oh dear I have set D Singh off on one of his rants

I have explained previously the biological origins of morality. My moral compass is constant and enduring as are those of my (grown up) children. We probably share many values Mr Singh although I am proud to say not those that you cherish the most.

The fear of sex and of homosexuality in particular that you and your co-religionists express reveals repressed development and/or latent homosexuality. I have several Gay friends, two in particular who have been monogamously together for more than 20 years. They are good, moral people and you should all be utterly ashamed of your attitude towards these your fellow human beings.

25 February 2010 at 14:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

‘The fear of sex and of homosexuality in particular that you and your co-religionists express reveals repressed development and/or latent homosexuality.’

Is that from the Davis school of Jungian psychology?

25 February 2010 at 14:56  
Anonymous Simon said...

UGOC

Hmmm a new definition of normal and healthy, methinks

Oh god, a definition of normal....go on, give us one if you can. Of course it's normal. And by-the-by all of the stuff on your list has been done by heterosexual people over the years. Extreme sexual acts - check. Public sex - check. Managed to get themselves infect with HIV - check. Need I go on. Let's not kid ourselves it's all missionary position with the lights off in the straight world, because it ain't.

As to healthy, I see what your implying. You might like to know that in the year to June 2009 in the UK, there were MORE heterosexual cases of transmissions of HIV than cases for Homosexuals. Let me repeat that for you: MORE straight people became infected with HIV than
gay people. Health issues you say, I agree, but they are not just in the gay community. Of course Catholics don't like condoms - just killing poor brown people - in His name - as the Pope spreads lies about them.

Me, I say, don't be stupid - sheath up every time.


And you say: 'why are Gay people fashioned by Him...'

I am not talking about the Gay Gene , I am talking about the idea that we are fashioned in His image, that we were created in His template - he is omnipotent - so presumably he doesn't make mistakes - so why the Gays then - just someone to subject to lifetime of prejudice on a whim? Nice.

25 February 2010 at 15:01  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

As always Mr Singh you never respond to the substance ie “They are good, moral people and you should all be utterly ashamed of your attitude towards these your fellow human beings”

25 February 2010 at 15:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Och! Mr Davis it is not them as human beings. I refer you to an earlier post:

‘'And there we have it, The church regards Gay people as evil,...'

No it does not.

25 February 2010 at 15:06  
Anonymous Simon said...

Here's a link to my stats, by the way:

UK Statistics by transmission route

...and here's a quote from the site on transmissions:

However, the number of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in the UK has risen dramatically over the last 15 years. In 1999, for the first time, the rate of heterosexually acquired HIV diagnoses overtook the rate of diagnoses in men who have sex with men. In 2008, heterosexually acquired infections accounted for just over half of new HIV diagnoses with known transmission route (the peak was 64% in 2003).

25 February 2010 at 15:07  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Dominic Mary

I think you will find that all atheists/humanists accept that morality is wholly subjective to society/groups of individuals (which is how they would define a religion in the absence of a supreme being). Some conservatives have a problem with their being such a thing as society - they would be the ones that define morality by relation to their self interest or what God tells them - very worrying but explains a lot.

25 February 2010 at 15:15  
Blogger Sinful Soul said...

Mr Davis,

Its really easy,I believe homosexual acts are a sin....I would not want Socialists teaching my 6 year old son that homosexual acts are a good thing,if I want schools to teach sexuality at all then it should be to teenagers learning the biology of reproduction and the benefits of abstinence.

I would not want the socialists sexualising my infant.

25 February 2010 at 15:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

‘I think you will find that all atheists/humanists accept that morality is wholly subjective to society/groups of individuals…’

And that is why the government is a national socialist government.

But the socialists have perhaps taught the elements of a future government a great lesson: so long as you have power you can do what you want to anyone.

25 February 2010 at 15:21  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Simon

Yes, I've looked at those - and the US data.

All it shows that AIDs/HIV is spreading into the hetero population, but no prizes to guess where it came from.

Quite an achievement in the 45 years (or so) since the legalisation of male homosexual acts in this country.

Never in the course of human sexuality was so much mayhem unleashed upon so many by so few.

25 February 2010 at 15:47  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

The overwhelming characteristic of posts to this blog is FEAR!

My children have grown up in an areligious, freethinking, liberal household. I am proud of them because they are decent and moral people. They are not perfect but then nor am I, nor were my parents or my grandparents. But in common with many other families we are decent if unremarkable people. Each generation unknowingly models behaviour for the next and so values of honesty, loyalty, friendship, fairness etc are seamlessly transferred.

This is so obvious that it hardly needs stating and as with so many things it is the exception that proves the rule. In dysfunctional families the converse happens and it is the immoral behaviour is transferred.

Rather than be fearful that your children will be corrupted by knowledge of sex you should have the confidence that they have absorbed your values and will behave well. However if you insist on a repressive regime as sure as eggs is eggs they will turn and bite you as they did with Sarah Palin.

You have been corrupted by a religion that emerged from the ignorance of the Iron Age and whose teachings have grown more obscene with the passing of time. If you must believe in something then let it be the innate decency of most human beings.

25 February 2010 at 15:52  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

D Singh

Good to see that you haven't changed in my absence - still the same old stream of illogical drivel I'm afraid.

It really is about time someone knocked this nazis = socialists line that you right wing nuts have on the head. No respectable historian supports it - and it is only the passage of time and the increasing ignorance of what actually happened that allows such comparisions to be made to day. No one sensible from the 1930s to the 1950s ever seriously sustained such an analysis.

25 February 2010 at 15:55  
Anonymous Simon said...

UGOC

All it shows that AIDs/HIV is spreading into the hetero population, but no prizes to guess where it came from.

Oh, HIV spontaneously arose in Gay people did it? Really? What a preposterous statement. Gay people must have been infected from somewhere else - it just spread through the population because of the promiscuous sex (you'll get no argument from me about that) - but why were they like that?

I wonder if it's because Gay people and their activities were pushed underground by the prevailing attitudes of the time - particularly in the USofA - and primarily driven by - yes, you guessed it, The Religious and The Right!

Pushed undergound and away from conventional social structures - when they could have been encouraged to come out and form stable couple relationships - it all might have been so different.

You do want to see or hear from Gay people - but you STILL want them to behave how YOU see fit. Amazing.

25 February 2010 at 15:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Simon

I am afraid that as homosexuals comprise parhaps 2% or 3% of the population, a statistic showing that homosexual transmission of HIV accounts for about half of all cases does not aid your argument much.

I am enjoined as a Catholic to extend to homosexuals the same respect and concern as I would to any other person.Nevertheless I believe homosexual sex to be sinful. There is no contradiction there.

And this is what Catholic schools should teach. I would normally vote Labour but think we are wandering very close to state instructed ethics.

25 February 2010 at 16:04  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

"If you must believe in something then let it be the innate decency of most human beings."

Hear hear - but I fear that this may start them debating what is meant by original sin.

25 February 2010 at 16:11  
Blogger Sinful Soul said...

Mr Davis,

I`m sure your children are a credit to you,I want my children to be a credit to me .not to Socialist Ideology

25 February 2010 at 16:42  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Sinful Soul

I am not a socialist!

25 February 2010 at 16:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TBNGU

Nazi.

National+socialism = Nazi

25 February 2010 at 17:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TBNGU

You state: 'Perhaps those of us (socialists and others) who believe in freedom of spirit and conscience actually trust people to make up their own minds between different views and values.'

For Karl Marx's sake!

A! A! A! You must remain consistent to your dialectical materialism: there is no such thing as 'spirit' and 'conscience' in your philosophical system.

25 February 2010 at 17:10  
Blogger Sinful Soul said...

Graham Davis 12:40 said

-Despite its obvious flaws and many failures socialism at least aims towards a more equal (just) society. How can Christians of any flavour be so antithetical towards it?

Mr Davis said-16:56-

Sinful Soul

I am not a socialist!


Mr Davis,an apologist for Socialist tyranny perhaps?.

25 February 2010 at 17:12  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

As I've said may times not all socialists, or even social democrats, are Marxist.

25 February 2010 at 17:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You defend a national socialist government.

That makes you a collaborator with the Nazis.

25 February 2010 at 17:17  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

D Singh

It's quite common for bodies to have titles which represent different ideals to their own - e.g. the DDR, the Conservative Party (when it comes to the environment and perhaps even with regard to the Unionist bit when it comes to some English nationalists), the Moral Majority etc.etc.

Perhaps it is worth noting that communists and socialists were among the first people Hitler started killing while at the same time making alliances with "conservatives" and it is funny that most of appeasers of Naziism were not socialists isn't it? Where are the contemporary sources/respected historians that equated nazism with socialism?

25 February 2010 at 17:35  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

D Singh

You say the most stupid things - I'll refrain from saying what it makes you.

25 February 2010 at 17:38  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

"Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property ie wages of one person and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil."

Yes a moral case can be made for taxation - and many have done so on both the left and right and from all major religions. Go and do some research if you don't believe me. Of course you may feel you only need to refer to one source - but please note that taxes were far from unknow in Biblical times yet somehow the Bible does not appear to have concluded on the matter.

25 February 2010 at 17:45  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Simon

I am old enough to remember when the gay plague first appeared.

Promiscuous - I'll say! As soon as it became legal in the US -- wow! Some of the gays had over 300 contacts per year.

First Gays showed the disease (some of them boasting how many they had infected), then the bisexuals, the drug users, then the poor haemophiliacs being given contaminated blood, then those who just had a blood transfusion.

The religious right might have disapproved but this was all above board and legal.

25 February 2010 at 17:48  
Blogger Sinful Soul said...

TBNGU-It uses evil means coercion,force and taxes to achieve what it claims as good deeds,its own pet projects,to produce its own dependants,its own drones,its own voters....Evil!...

25 February 2010 at 17:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TBNGU

'Where are the contemporary sources/respected historians that equated nazism with socialism?'

Why don't you do some research instead of being spoon-fed, little girl?

Go to the Bruges Group website. Use the 'Search' facility and look up Bernard Connolly's essay: 'The Circle of Barbed Wire' - just for a start?

25 February 2010 at 18:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TBNGU

'Yes a moral case can be made for taxation.'

Are you suggesting that we ought to be taxed without our consent?

25 February 2010 at 18:24  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Are you suggesting that we ought to be taxed without our consent?

Depends what you mean by "our" in this context - I don't believe that taxes should be raised without democratic approval - but I don't believe individual consent is appropriate. When you get into minorities oppressing significant minorities (rather than individuals who object to the idea of taxes) then it becomes more complex.

Adam Smith's tenets on good taxation are not without merit as astarting point - but no I don't believe they define a position on flat taxes.

25 February 2010 at 23:04  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

D Singh

I have done plenty of research on the topic - happy to provide a Reading list if you want - of current histories both Kershaw and Overy are good - or you could read Bullock. Connoly is a "trader" and not a historian and the essay you refer to is about the EU not Nazi Germany.

25 February 2010 at 23:09  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

And perhaps you should re-read what Connoly says i.e

"In terms of political science, Nazi Germany can again be classified as anarchic, given the feudal chaos and lack of unifying principle of Nazi administrative practice."

Check!

25 February 2010 at 23:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would argue that the present government is a national socialist government. Many of its leading members have been in Marxist (or) communist organisations – which trace their ideological paths to Hegel:

‘The philosophical root of Marxism is found in Hegel. So is the philosophical root of racism, and so too is the root of totalitarian nationalism. If the EU/NSU bans the nation-state, it risks leading either to the anarchy, the gangsterdom, of class, race, tribal, linguistic, or religious self-interest or to the authoritarian imposition of empire. (The scenarios presented at a seminar a couple of years ago by the EU Commission's Forward-Planning Unit all envisage some variant of chaos followed by the imposition of authoritarian "European" rule.) "Classes," in all countries, and races, in many countries, interact with each other on a daily basis. If there is class or racial conflict it is immanent. Nations are, in contrast, geographically distinct from each other. The whole point of the nation-state is to maintain at least some aspects of separateness from other countries while creating a national community that minimizes the risk of class or race conflict within the nation. That is, a nation-state is defined by the willingness of its citizens to say, "We, and only we, will make the laws that govern us, and only us." (B. Connolly, Circle of Barbed Wire)

That is why I do not hesitate to call the present government a national socialist (signed up to the Lisbon Treaty) and you I see as a collaborator with the Nazis.

For a good brief introduction about why the socialists are attracted to what I would call ‘supra-national socialism’ – see Lord Tebbit’s remarks in the DT today.

26 February 2010 at 09:31  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

There is no denying that Marx shared philosophical roots with Hegel - but he clearly used a different analysis and reached different conclusions.

I am not a Marxist and never have been - I think you will find that Marx also acknowledged that he had philosophical differences from social democrats and other socialists at the time.

Many divergent viewpoints can often be identified as sharing some common philosophical roots and may even have some policy prescriptions in common - but that doesn't mean that they can be equated e.g. look at the number of different political philosophies that can genuinely claim to have Christian roots - and to take a more ridiculous example I like the trains to run on time but that doesn't make me a follower of Mussolini

Connolly's logic on the EU is somewhat garbled - i think you will find that many nationalists (and even German Nazis) who favour the nation state could also have their philosophical roots traced back to Hegel.

Connolly's claim that the EU wants to get rid of the nation state is somewhat tendentious anyway.

Many of Margaret Thatcher's advisers were former communists (in fact they were often her favourite advisers) but that doesn't make her a communist/Marxist either.

Connoly explicitly does not share your analysis that the Nazis were socialists.

BTW Connolly's previous job as head of Global Strategy at AIG hardly recommends him as a deep thinker - look it up.

Checkmate!

26 February 2010 at 09:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

‘Connolly's claim that the EU wants to get rid of the nation state is somewhat tendentious anyway.’

It was never a claim.

It was a prediction.

And the nation-state has been superseded by the federal state. It is federal law that is superior to British law.

It is the European Court of Justice that is superior to our Supreme Court.

No state: can have two ‘sovereign’ powers.

26 February 2010 at 11:31  
Blogger PaulineG said...

Your Grace,

You say:

"Since this Bill cannot become law before the General Election .."

I do so hope you are correct. Are you willing to explain this statement so I can break open the bubbly?

26 February 2010 at 14:03  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older