eChurch Christian Blog

Barbara Smoker has written an open letter to the National Secular Society as follows:

In all the media coverage on the character of John Venables [one of the murderers of Jamie Bulger] I have yet to read or hear any mention of the fact that he and his co-murderer were, at the time of their horrific crime in 1993, attending a CofE primary school where, instead of receiving moral education, they were fed violent, vindictive bible stories.

What a despicable and unfounded comment and yet the NSS felt happy to include this in their e-mailshot.

Before you read this one, do have a quick look at this link from a very recent post, in which it is proffered that there is no good evidence that education leads to secularisation, in fact, the opposite may be true.

Opposing Views – by American Atheists

A study claiming that liberals and Atheists are “more intelligent” than religious believers is causing a buzz in the news media and academic circles.

Authored by Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics, the study claims that “more intelligent individuals may be more likely to acquire and espouse evolutionarily novel values and preferences (such as liberalism and atheism…) than less intelligent individuals.”

Fellow academics are saying that Kanazawa’s research and conclusions are flawed.

And now, some Atheists agree and are speaking out.

Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists, said that “intelligence” — especially as reflected by so-called IQ tests — can be difficult to define and quantify. “There are often cultural, ethnic, and even sexual biases at work here, and a good case can be made that there are actually many different kinds of intelligence,” said Buckner. “Something like ‘intelligence’ has to be understood in a very broad context, and Dr. Kanazawa seems not to have given that sufficient consideration.”

“We have never said that Atheists or other non-believers are inherently ’superior’ or ’smarter’ than religious people, even though we do assert that logic and evidence are on our side regarding our conclusions.

Questions about religious beliefs and whether ‘god’ exists should be discussed and argued based on the best evidence.”

Buckner also noted that members of American Atheists vary considerably regarding political philosophies, saying that “liberals, libertarians, conservatives, and other (less orthodox) categories can all be found among our members and leaders.” He added that a Catholic or Muslim with an IQ score higher than a random non-believer, for instance, does not constitute any special evidence regarding claims any of them might make.

“And we’re totally against Atheists suddenly telling the world, ‘Hey, look at us, we’re right because we’re bright!’ ”

Kathleen Johnson, Vice President for American Atheists, said that she prefers to suggest that all or at least most Americans can, with sufficient reasoning, understand the need to question religion.

“There are all kinds of Atheists, just as there are all kinds of believers,” said Johnson. “We advocate a polite, courteous, and ’spirited’ exchange of views, and we encourage everyone — Atheist and religious alike — to exercise their First Amendment rights by expressing their opinions in a constitutional manner in the public square. We can win in the marketplace of ideas without invidious comparisons or pointless insults aimed at those with whom we differ.”

Oftentimes we receive comments on this blog that correlate intelligence with faith in God, and I don’t mean in a positive way.

Today I came across a very interesting article in which it is proffered that there is no good evidence that education leads to secularisation, in fact, the opposite may be true.

New Scientist:-

HERE’s a fact to flatter the unbelievers among you: the bright young things at the University of Oxford are among the most godless groups ever studied in the UK. Of 728 students surveyed in 2007, 48.9 per cent claimed not to believe in any god, with 49.6 per cent claiming no religious affiliation. And while a very small number of Britons typically label themselves as “atheist” or “agnostic” (most surveys put it at about 5 per cent), an astonishing 57.3 per cent of the Oxford sample did.

This may come as no surprise. After all, atheism is the natural stance of the educated and the informed, is it not? It is only to be expected that Oxford students should be wise to what their own professor Richard Dawkins calls “self-indulgent, thought-denying skyhookery” – and others call “faith”. The old Enlightenment caricature, it seems, is true after all: where Reason reigns, God retires.

Of course, things are never quite that simple. Within the sample, for instance, the postgraduates (that is, the even-better educated) were notably more religious than the undergraduates, in terms of both belief in God and self-description. Although the greater number of non-Europeans in the postgraduate population is almost certainly a significant factor here, evidence from elsewhere backs the idea that there is no straightforward relationship between atheism and education.

Let’s look at some results from the World Values Survey, an international attempt to assess the global state of socio-cultural, moral, religious and political values. The 2005 results show that while there is a clear positive correlation between education and lack of belief in God, the effect is slightly weaker, not stronger, among those with a university education (14.8 per cent were non-believers) compared with those whose highest attainment was secondary level (17.2 per cent).

What is more, the survey shows a far stronger correlation between education and certain “irrational” beliefs: for example, only 29.6 per cent of those without even an elementary education believe in telepathy, compared with 51.8 per cent of people with degree-level education.

Closer to home, an analysis of the 2008 British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey by David Voas of the University of Manchester reveals that the historical correlation between being educated and being “non-religious” has not only weakened but reversed. Looking at white British people, for example, the findings show that only around 25 per cent of men aged between 25 and 34 claiming “no religion” have degrees, compared with around 40 per cent of those describing themselves as religious. For women in the same age group, the difference is less marked but the trend is the same. The picture is more complicated across different ethnic groups, although the overall trend remains the same.

It appears that Enlightenment assumptions about the decline of religion as the population becomes more educated will no longer do – at least, not without considerable qualification. Why is it that, despite the long history of the study of religion, the picture seems to be getting more and not less confused about what it means to believe in God? We, and the scholars who gathered in December last year for a conference at Wolfson College, University of Oxford, think we may have the answer. The problems stem from a long-term, collective blind spot in research: atheism itself.

This oversight might seem remarkable (or remarkably obtuse on the part of the social scientists) but it is one with deep historical roots. Many of social science’s 19th-century founders, including Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim, Auguste Comte and Max Weber, were unbelievers, or “religiously unmusical”, as Weber memorably put it. For them, religion was the great explicandum: how, they wondered, could so many people believe in something so absurd? What they failed to recognise was that their own, taken-for-granted, “lack” of belief might itself be amenable to inquiry.

Ironically, sociologists, psychologists, economists and, particularly, cognitive anthropologists have become so skilled at explaining why humans seem to have such a widespread bias towards theistic beliefs that a new question readily presents itself: if religion comes so naturally to us, why are so many people, especially in western Europe, apparently resistant to it? In the UK, for example, a sizeable 43 per cent said they had “no religion” in the 2008 BSA survey.

Moreover, social scientists themselves consistently rank as the most atheistic of all academics: see a recent study by Neil Gross at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and Solon Simmons of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, Arlington, Virginia (Sociology of Religion, in press).

What we need now is a scientific study not of the theistic, but the atheistic mind. We need to discover why some people do not “get” the supernatural agency many cognitive scientists argue comes automatically to our brains. Is this capacity non-existent in the non-religious, or is it rerouted, undermined or overwritten – and under what conditions?

Continue Reading

My goodness there is plenty of vitriolic criticism against Ed Balls for this move.

The real question is why on earth do we need schools to teach our children about sex, should this not be the preserve of the family?

Should “faith institutions” receive state-funding, as this always leads to state control and interference, not to mention resentment and criticism from non-religious groups.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) – Government u-turn on Sex and Relationships Education against recommendations of Human Rights Committee

Ekklesia – A disagreement has broken out between equalities, education and children’s groups and Government secretary of state Ed Balls over the Children, Schools and Families Bill’s amendments concerning Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education (PSHE).

Guardian Another exemption for faiths – Ed Balls has amended his own bill, giving faith schools an opt-out on sex education. Why the special treatment?

Guardian – Bill ‘will allow schools to teach that homosexuality is wrong’ Campaigners say government has performed U-turn as Catholic group claims a victory

Christian Institute – Humanists and the Lib Dems have both attacked a Government bid to protect the freedom of faith schools to teach sex education in keeping with their beliefs. Supporters of faith schools say some form of protection is needed because the Government’s plans for sex education are so radical.

Times – Ministers were accused of making a U-turn on sex education in faith schools after a Commons amendment effectively allowed them to skew teaching towards their particular religion.

BBC – Ministers are being accused of caving into pressure from faith schools over sex and relationships education.

I liked this little snippet from a Christian Institute article earlier:-

….family groups who already think the Government’s sex education plans are a radical snub to parental authority.

How true. The government wish to become the parent (or should I say “big brother”) of our children in all respects, in order to “mind-mould” them to their own peculiar worldview. Perhaps they deem most parents too dysfunctional to be able to teach their own children on sexuality, morality, ethics and relationships.

My advice…..home educate!

It is frustrating that the term “creationism” has come to be exclusively tied to the literal 6/24 creation paradigm. I’m assuming this is what is being referred to in the following article from Ekklesia. The reality of course, is that there are a plethora of Biblical and theological interpretations and understanding, relating to the “creation” issue.

Notice this comment in particular:-

“And one thing that we will make absolutely clear is that you can not have schools that are set up which teach people things which are clearly at variance with what we know to be scientific fact”.

Is theistic evolution or intelligent design at variance with what we know to be scientific fact? Obviously many of the most vocal scientists will answer a resounding yes, but let’s not forget that many scientists would not. It must surely also be remembered that science has not yet reached a perfect conclusion on all things and is an ongoing investigation into the “how” of our world and so what may be considered “scientific fact” today, may well be considered a defunct scientific paradigm tomorrow.

It would seem to me that Science tends to focus in on observable material, therefore, is it not likely to always come to a material conclusion, negating its own ability to study the “why” of our world.

Ekklesia:-

Tories would close down creationist schools

A Conservative government would not allow schools that teach creationism, the shadow schools secretary has said.

Michael Gove MP told BBC1’s Andrew Marr programme ths morning (14 February) that ‘fundamentalist groups’ who taught in a way that undermined ‘democratic values’ would be challenged, and if necessary closed down.

He said the inspection regime would be crucial in challenging them.

“To my mind you cannot have a school which teaches creationism” he said. “And one thing that we will make absolutely clear is that you can not have schools that are set up which teach people things which are clearly at varience with what we know to be scientific fact.

“But critically inspection is key here” he continued. “We do have some schools at the moment – independent schools – that have been set up by religious groups. You mentioned Islamic groups. Let’s be clear, there are other fundamentalist groups as well which have schools in the private sctor. If those schools are properly regulated and inspected then we can ensure that anyone who teaches in a way that undermines our democratic values can be brought to public light, challenged, and if necessary closed down.”

Religious Education specialists point out that while creationism is strong in many areas of the US and has been growing among fundamentalist believers in parts of Europe and elsewhere, it is opposed by the official teaching of mainline churches and by theological specialists.

But a global opinion survey in October last year showed that the British public continued to be confused about how evolutionary science should be taught in school classrooms and whether opposing non-scientific views should be included.

I know that my view won’t be very popular, but frankly who cares anymore what is taught in Religious Education. The fact of the matter is, that true Christian education should be the preserve of the family and the church. It is not the responsibility of a publicly funded education system to pump out Christians.

I did note that among the ‘obscure religions’ to be taught as part of ‘Religious Education’, we can find secular humanism. This raises a couple of interesting questions in my mind such as, why have the government opted to include Humanism in religious education?

Are we to conclude that Secular Humanism’ is in fact a religion, and if it is, how does this impact their war on religion? As Humanists favour the removal of religion from the educational environment, will they be asking for Humanism to be removed from this governmental guidance.

Or is it perhaps that our children simply need to know why all religion is crap, from the Humanist worldview?

Some Christians will be up in arms over all of this (as usual), but for me personally, I learned nothing of Christianity from my Christian RE teacher and looking at my sons school work, it might be better all round if the public education system removed religious education altogether.

This is from my sons school RE book:-

Christians have been responsible for two millenia of suppressing women and Christians believe that if they are good they will go to heaven.

Islam was cited as bringing science and mathematics to humanity.

Uh huh!

Mail Online

Children as young as five to learn about minority faiths

Primary school children should be taught about obscure religions that believe plants have souls and the dead must be eaten by vultures, according to government guidance.

Ministers are recommending that pupils as young as five learn about minority faiths – some of which have a few thousand British followers – alongside Christianity and Islam.

Areas of study in the first religious education programme for primaries include humanism, the faiths of Baha’i, Zoroastrianism and Jainism along with Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism and Christianity.

But critics have condemned the guidance as ‘educational nonsense’ and a ‘multi-faith mish-mash’.

The programme is not mandatory but is likely to be taken up by most primaries and will mean children learning beliefs such as the Zoroastrian tradition that the dead should be eaten by vultures.

Jains believe in non-violence and think that all animals and plants have souls, each of which are of equal value.

The Baha’i faith teaches followers that all religions have valid origins and has laws prohibiting alcohol, drugs, adultery and party politics.

Read more:

Brilliant cross-post from The Young Mr Brown of the Marmalade Sandwich blog, following the comments made by Nick Clegg relating to faith schools.

Nick Clegg, faith schools, and bullying

According to the Telegraph, Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, has said that faith schools should be required to have anti-homophobic bullying policies in place. “If they’re suffering higher rates of homophobic bullying and violence then we need to put serious pressure on them. It needs
to be a requirement.”

So what are we to make of this? Well, let us note first of all that Mr. Clegg uses the word “if.” He is not sure about whether faith schools are suffering higher rates of homophobic bullying and violence. Are they? According to a report compiled by Stonewall in 2007, 75% of lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils attending faith schools claim to have experienced homophobic bullying, as opposed to 65% of LGB pupils generally. So perhaps they are. But who is to know? To claim to have been the victim of bullying is not the same thing as to have actually been bullied.

But Mr. Clegg’s suggested remedy leaves me somewhat concerned, for the following reasons.

1. He seems to believe that faith schools should be lumped together and singled out for serious pressure, despite the fact that 75% is not that much higher than 65%. Yet Mr. Clegg’s words would suggest to the casual observer that he thinks that faith schools have a significant problem that other schools do not have. Even if one accepts the findings of the Stonewall report at face value, it is probable that some faith schools do not have a significant bullying problem, and that some non-faith schools do. This business of lumping all faith schools together is a bit like the way some people say “If members of a certain ethnic group are considerably more likely to be involved in crime, then we need to target that ethnic group.” And I think that Mr. Clegg would not like that.

In passing, I might add that his approach reminds one of the approach of the government to home education. A review of 74 local authorities found that while 0.2% of children in the UK population were known to social services, the figure was 0.4% among those who were educated at home. The government’s response to these statistics has been to propose draconian and intrusive regulations for home educators.

2. The idea that the way to address the problem is to insist that schools have “anti-homophobic bullying policies” in place is depressing. Everyone has to have a policy in place for every eventuality. If a school has good leadership and good discipline, there is no need to have a policy in place, because bullying will be appropriately dealt with.

3. As a libertarian, I do not believe that it is the job of central government to insist that individual schools have any policies at all in place. This is simply not a central government function. (No doubt Mr. Clegg will be absolutely horrified by my saying this.)

4. And why this big concern about homophobic bullying? Why not simply be concerned about bullying per se? And of course the answer is because some people are obsessed with hate crime. As Tom Paine, over at The Last Ditch, says:

Why is the Left so obsessed with “hate speech” and “hate crime?” If I am injured, I want justice, whether my attacker was motivated by hate or merely indifferent to my plight. If my goods are stolen, I don’t care if the thief was driven by envy, hatred or greed. I just want my stuff back and the thief out of circulation.

If I am being bullied, does it really matter whether I am being bullied because of my expressed sexual preferences, or because the bully finds my voice irritating, or he doesn’t like the fact that I have different tastes in music from him, or whatever? Or course not. The problem is not homophobia – it is bullying.

Yes, I know that Mr. Clegg is a politician, and when he is being interviewed by Attitude magazine, he will be playing to the gallery and making a pitch for the LGBT vote. But I still find his words rather disappointing.

Edit: I also note that that Mr Clegg has apparently said that faith schools should be legally obliged to teach that homosexuality is “normal and harmless.”

Liberal Democrats? That is about as illiberal as it gets. “Stalin Democrats” would be a more accurate name. I’m sorry, but they have just joined the BNP and Labour in the “parties that I would not even consider voting for” category.

Love them or hate them, faith schools are rarely out of the mainstream media of late and every bloomin’ politician has something to spout about them and whenever they do, I’m always reminded of how controlling and meddling these politicians really are.

Telegraph:-

In a pitch for the “pink vote,” he called on all the parties to prove that they supported full equality for homosexuals, and accused David Cameron, the Conservative leader, of being untrustworthy on the issue.

The Liberal Democrats support measures forcing teachers, including those working in faith schools, to implement policies to combat homophobic bullying, with lessons teaching that same-sex relationships are “normal”.

Mr Clegg said: “Crucially faith schools should have a requirement to have an anti-homophobic bullying policy at their school.”

Read More

Archbishop Cranmer has commented on this one:-

Before Cranmer tackles the hermeneutics of ‘normal’ and ‘harmless’, he wishes to ask what kind of liberal is it which insists that all schools must teach anything? What kind of liberal seeks to subsume religious conscience to a radical and uniform social agenda? What kind of liberal demands that centuries of religious tradition and orthodoxy should be swept aside in favour of a social fad?

I rather enjoyed this post from The Young Mr Brown over at the Marmalade Sandwich blog, looking at faith schools from a Libertarian perspective.

Faith schools and libertarianism

Cristina Odone, (who has, at various times been editor of the Catholic Herald and deputy editor of the New Statesman), has a piece in the Telegraph entitled “Why does Labour hate faith schools?”

Now, I don’t know if Labour really do hate faith schools. Nor do I know if Miss Odone is correct in her assertion that Ed Balls “so loathes the notion of religious-based education that he prefers to tolerate Britain’s increasing social inequality.” But I do know that faith schools don’t go down well with some people.

The British Humanist Association is fairly representative of those who are opposed to faith schools. What do they want?

“An end to the proliferation of maintained faith schools; discrimination in admissions and employment in faith schools outlawed; a comprehensive curriculum across all subjects, including beliefs and values education, sex and relationships education, and citizenship education to be taught objectively in all schools.

Ultimately, all faith schools should be absorbed back into the secular schools sector, becoming inclusive community schools. We campaign against ‘faith schools’, and for an inclusive, secular schools system, where children and young people of all different backgrounds and beliefs can learn from and with each other. ”

I am most amused to read that they want to see all faith schools absorbed back into the secular schools sector. Back? The implication is that faith schools were once in the secular schools sector, and that in the good old days, all British schools were secular. This, of course, is not quite so. At one time, in fact, almost all British schools were, in some sense, Christian schools – and the trend has been for their Christian character to be eroded over the decades.

The hope that all subjects, should “be taught objectively in all schools,” is laudable, though somewhat naive. After all, who is to define what constitutes objectivity?

One also wonders if they really mean that “all faith schools should be absorbed back into the secular schools sector.” Does that mean that faith schools will be banned, and only secular schools will be permitted?

And their call for a comprehensive curriculum across all subject implies that they accept the received political wisdom that it is the job of the state to decide what is taught in schools. The implication is that it is the state that shall decide how children are educated, rather than parents. There may be some humanists who are libertarians, but they don’t seem to wield much influence in the BHA.

So, what do libertarians think about faith schools? Well, actually the LPUK manifesto doesn’t mention faith schools or religion. That is quite deliberate. We support a voucher system, similar to the one that was introduced in Sweden in the 1992, giving parents a free choice of what kind of school they send their children to. That is because we believe that it is parents, rather than the government, that should decide how children should be educated.

The hope that all subjects, should “be taught objectively in all schools,” is laudable, though somewhat naive. After all, who is to define what constitutes objectivity?

This is the bit that really makes me laugh with secularists and humanists. They seem to imagine that children can be taught in a kind of pure, sterilised objective environment, free from all subjective bias and indoctrination.

Of course this is ludicrous and the reality is that all education systems are riven with political, cultural, commercial, intellectual bias, paradigms and indoctrination, however, not all biases and indoctrinations are equal in the secularist / humanist worldview.

Any positive bias towards the reality of a living God is not to be tolerated in education and the formal teaching of such is classed as akin to abuse.

Telegraph

The Rt Rev John Goddard, the Bishop of Burnley, suggested it would be more sensitive for the Islamic charity behind the project to consider a location in another part of the country.

His greatest fear is that the presence of the all girls’ school – which hopes to take 1,500 teenage boarders from around the world – might inflame Right-wing extremists and therefore “skew” the progress being made in integrating local communities.

The bishop also pointed out that both the Church of England hierarchy, and that of the Roman Catholic Church, deliberately held back from establishing their own new faith schools in the aftermath of the 2001 riots.

Bishop Goddard’s comments follow a warning by Gordon Prentice, Labour MP for Pendle, that the school, described as a Muslim ‘Eton’ for girls, would both damage existing schools and colleges in the area and stoke community tensions.

“The last thing we need is single-sex, single faith schools for girls,” he said. “It pulls against community cohesion.

“It makes me weep to think so much time, energy and effort has gone into the community to get people to mix together. [This] goes against all public policy.”

The Mohiuddin Trust, based in Birmingham, insists that its college would actually strengthen ethnic and cultural relationships within the community.

It was formerly known as the Al Ehya Trust, says on its website that it seeks to promote cohesion by “strengthening inter-community relationships”.

It was founded by Hazrat Pir Alauddin Siddiqui, an Islamic scholar based in Pakistan.

Read More

Click here to read previous post:-

BBC

The Supreme Court has ruled a Jewish school in London did act unlawfully by only offering places to pupils it considered to be ethnically Jewish.

Court president Lord Phillips said the school broke race relations legislation by restricting its admissions.

The case against the JFS was brought by a man whose son was not given a place because he was not regarded as Jewish under rules set by the Chief Rabbi.

The parents were angered at having their Jewish status questioned.

Lord Phillips, the president of the Supreme Court, said the justices had come to a split decision on the matter, five to four.

‘Not racist’

“The majority of the court has concluded that the JFS admission policy does discriminate on the grounds of ethnic origin and is, in consequence, unlawful,” he said.

“A minority disagrees, considering that the admission requirement is exclusively a religious requirement and does not depend on ethnic origin.”

But he stressed that while the school had acted unlawfully over its admissions, it should not be regarded as racist.

“The majority have made it plain in their judgments that the fact that the JFS admission policy has fallen foul of the Race Relations Act certainly does not mean those responsible for the admissions policy have behaved in a way that is racist, as that word as generally understood.”

The school went to the Supreme Court after three judges at the Court of Appeal ruled in June that the entry criteria had racially discriminated against the boy, known as M.

Read More

Cranmer has blogged about this one and so has Melanie Phillips, oh and Ruth Gledhill. The British Humanist Association have also released a statement about this, but they’re not getting a link, you can find your own way there.

Scary stuff from WND

Christian fathers put in jail for shunning explicit sex education lessons – International organization fighting for parents protecting their children

An international human rights organization today announced it will pursue a civil lawsuit on behalf of parents who want to control their children’s education and withhold them from explicit sex education and play-acting classes required by the German government.

Joel Thornton of the International Human Rights Group told WND the government in Salzkotten, Germany, is sending the fathers of the children to jail for terms of one week because they have refused to turn their children over to school officials for mandated sex classes.

According to a report from Richard Guenther, European director for the IHRG, eight families of Christians have decided to withhold their children from required sex education classes in Salzkotten.

Sex education classes in Germany are explicit, and the issue is one of the major reasons why families – and not just Christian families – choose to homeschool their children even though the government has maintained its illegality since the days of Hitler.

The students who are being held out of sex education classes also are not being allowed by their parents to participate in a play-acting program called “My Body Belongs to Me,” which essentially teaches children how to engage in sex, the report said.

Guenther reported that one father already has served his week in jail and is scheduled to be released this weekend, while the fathers of seven more families still are facing a similar fate.

The government already has imposed fines on the families, which continue to accrue. Thornton said the families are being targeted with a “Bussgeld,” a fine described as “repentance money” designed to show contrition for wrong behavior.

The families so far have refused to pay because that would be admitting guilt.

Thornton said the cases being brought against the families – whose names are being withheld for the protection of the children – reveal the dedication among German officials to punish parents who refuse to hand over their children to the state for education purposes.

The government’s determination is evident, Thornton said, whether parents are objecting to an explicit sex class or whether the family chooses to homeschool their children.

“Unlike American officials, German officials do not recognize the right of parents to opt their children out of offensive classes such as sex education which overrides the parent’s beliefs or desires for their own children,” Thornton said.

“One of the reasons for this is that German officials view the children as belonging to the state, particularly during the time they are in school,” he said.

So the IHRG has launched a new “radical approach” in Germany.

“Early next year, January or February, we will be filing a civil lawsuit on behalf of a number of homeschool families to try and force the court to recognize the rights of parents to control the education of their children,” Thornton said. “We will not continue to only react to these forceful actions by state officials against these families.”

Michael Farris, who heads the U.S.-based Parental Rights website, said it’s not surprising that the German government is reacting the way it is.

“They basically believe that the government knows best in every sector of life,” he said.

He said the actions also align with the general international sympathy for U.N. protocols such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which essentially gives children rights to make their own decisions on every facet of their lives.

He cited a case a decade ago when the government of Wales allowed parents to opt children out of sex programs and it was found to have been in violation of the convention because it did not first consult the children about their desires.

{…..}

Germany has been notorious for its treatment of parents decide to homeschool their children. Just weeks ago, a mother and father in Archfeld were fined $181 for homeschooling their children by a judge who spared them the jail sentences demanded by the prosecutor, according to the Home School Legal Defense Association.

The organization has been monitoring and working on the case of Juergen and Rosemarie Dudek. The HSLDA previously reported the prosecutor had suggested only jail was a deterrent to homeschooling families.

But the ruling from the judge, identified only by his surname of Drier, said the parents were guilty under the criminal law in the German state of Hessen of homeschooling even though they were providing a good education for their children.

He fined them 120 euros, or $181.

“We recognize in our German basic law about philosophical and religious conviction and that parents have rights, but the basic law also includes that it is the state’s role to educate all children,” the judge ruled.

Practical Homeschool Magazine has noted one of the first acts by Hitler when he moved into power was to create the governmental Ministry of Education and give it control of all schools and school-related issues.

In 1937, the dictator said, “The youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.”

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, commented previously on the issue, contending the government “has a legitimate interest in countering the rise of parallel societies that are based on religion.”

Drautz said schools teach socialization, and as WND reported, that is important, as evident in the government’s response when a German family in another case wrote objecting to police officers picking their child up at home and delivering him to a public school.

“The minister of education does not share your attitudes toward so-called homeschooling,” said a government letter in response. “You complain about the forced school escort of primary school children by the responsible local police officers. … In order to avoid this in future, the education authority is in conversation with the affected family in order to look for possibilities to bring the religious convictions of the family into line with the unalterable school attendance requirement.”

Christian Institute

I have just come across the Open University online survey that analyses what Christianity means to the viwers of the BBC 4 “History of Christianity” series.

I must confess that I haven’t seen any of the BBC4 series, as I have an aversion to TV, however, I have read that the programme triples the regular BBC 4 audience when shown.

I’m not sure what to make of this survey and especially the results, as it would seem to me that the likely participants, that have arrived fresh from watching the show, would not be typical of the populace as a whole.

However, here is a link below for you to have a look, if you are interested:-

OU (philosophy & ethics) Christianity Survey

Absolutely and totally agree with these comments from Alastair Noble on the Comment is Free Blog. It is fine and dandy to teach 5 year olds about sex and drugs, but government forbid, we should teach an alternative to evolutionism and encourage critical thinking by also offering intelligent design.

Quite interesting this research, as it does fly in the face of those that criticise faith schools as being socially divisive, however, just as a small word of caution, this research was funded by the Church of England.

Let’s face it, it doesn’t matter how much groups such as the Secularists and Humanists criticise Christian faith schools, by and large, they are jolly good and non-faith parents will jump through hoops to get their kids in!

The report, Strong schools for strong communities: Reviewing the impact of Church of England schools in promoting community cohesion, is available for download here.

And this is the press release from the Church of England website

BBC

A study funded by the Church of England found faith schools were rated higher than others by Ofsted inspectors on what is called “community cohesion”.

The church says its schools take all faiths seriously and look for common ground while respecting difference.

Campaigners against faith schools say the Ofsted checks do not go far enough.

The research, carried out by Professor David Jesson of York University, involved the analysis of Ofsted reports on 400 secondary schools and 700 primary schools.

He examined how schools were rated by inspectors on their new legal duty to “promote community cohesion”, which came was introduced in September 2007.

Prof Jesson says at primary level, faith schools were rated the same as non-religious schools.

But among the secondary schools surveyed, faith schools were rated higher.

Of the 74 secondary faith schools surveyed, 24 (32%) were rated “outstanding” at community relations.

Of the 337 non-faith secondaries analysed – 55 (16%) were given the same grade.

‘Divisive’

In his report, Prof Jesson said there was “clear evidence that faith schools were awarded substantially higher inspection gradings for promoting community cohesion than Community schools”.

“This finding… runs completely counter to those who have argued that, because faith schools have a distinctive culture reflecting their faith orientation and are responsible for their admissions, they are ‘divisive’ and so contribute to greater segregation amongst their communities.

“This is clearly not supported by this most recent Ofsted inspection evidence.”

Church leaders have been stung in the past by claims that faith schools divide communities and increase segregation.

The Reverend Janina Ainsworth, chief education officer for the Church of England, says schools with a religious foundation have a particular role “in modelling how faith and belief can be explored and expressed in ways that bring communities together, rather than driving them apart”.

“In Church of England schools that means taking all faith seriously and placing a high premium on dialogue, seeking the common ground as well as understanding and respecting difference.”

Opponents of faith schools have criticised the criteria used by Ofsted to rate schools on community cohesion.

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, chairman of the Accord Coalition, says inspectors should consider admissions policies and the religious education curriculum of faith schools.

“Building community cohesion is vitally important and we congratulate all those schools that have been working hard to meet the duty,” he said.

“The most pressing issue is whether the criteria used by Ofsted are sufficient.

“While school linking projects and classroom discussions of diversity are commendable, inspectors should also consider the impact on cohesion of discriminatory admissions and biased RE lessons.

“Occasional meetings with other groups have little merit if the children move in closeted circles most of the time and do not receive a broad education in class.”

Quotas

Three years ago religious groups in England joined forces and thwarted government attempts to force them to have quotas of children of other faiths (and none) in their schools.

However, a voluntary agreement was reached that in new faith schools, 25% of places would be reserved in this way.

Faith schools, when they are oversubscribed, can use religion when allocating places along with other factors such as distance, aptitude or whether siblings already attend.

About a third of state schools in England are faith schools – a majority of these being Church of England and Catholic, with a smaller number serving Jewish, Hindu, Sikh and Muslim communities.

About 14% of Scotland’s state schools are faith schools – almost all are Catholic.

A spokesman for the Department for Children Schools and Families said: “We know that many faith schools have been working very hard to promote community cohesion through programmes such as ‘Faith in the System’ which encourages schools from different faith groups to work closely together.

“We applaud the efforts that have been made in this area.”

The Christian Institute

Great post from Cranmers Curate today (as usual) that I am cross-posting:-

Cranmer’s Curate commends this guest post by Richard Symonds to the youth group:

70 years ago, Moral Philosopher Dr CEM Joad (1891-1953) pleaded with his colleagues to mend their newly-found philosophical ways, predicting that failure to do so would render philosophy increasingly irrelevant – and increasingly vulnerable to totalitarian thought.

CEMJ’s warning ‘fell on deaf ears’ in his time – and continues to do so….except for a few readers of Cambridge University’s Alumni Magazine (“Essay : In Defence Of Moral Philosophy” by Professor Simon Blackburn – Michaelmas 2009 Edition).

The totalitarianism, which George Orwell – a contemporary of Joad – was warning against in 1949, was already prevalent within many social and economic policies of the time – borne primarily from the ‘false teachers’ of philosophical Relativism (eg The Vienna Circle). Times have not changed.

CEMJ, as a Moral Philosopher, was warning against Moral Relativism 9 years earlier:

In 1940, Joad warned his profession of the dangers in rejecting its ‘Classical’ tradition (eg Plato’s ‘Forms’ of Truth, Beauty & Goodness), and pleaded for a return to that tradition (“Appeal To Philosophers”, University of London Aristotelian Society – XL 1940).

Dr. CEM Joad continued to warn – but nobody was listening….except a few debaters at Oxford University:

In June 1950, 5 months after Orwell’s death (and 3 years before his own), Cyril Joad won an Oxford Union Debate : “That This House Regrets The Influence Exercised By The U.S. As The Dominant Power Among The Democratic Nations” – resulting in Randolph Churchill accusing him of being a “Third Class Socrates”.

‘Professor’ Joad, also a celebrity wartime BBC Brains Trust panellist, was treated with ridicule, contempt and disdain by most professional philosophers at the time – especially Bertrand Russell – and his warnings were ignored and dismissed within his profession, and beyond – and remain so.

CEMJ was a Moral Realist – in direct opposition to Moral Relativists – and later developed his “Transcendence-Immanence” ideas in his last book: “Recovery of Belief – A Restatement of Christian Philosophy” (Faber & Faber 1952)

Today, we can’t say we were not warned of this ‘totalitarian’ danger – now more prevalent than ever – and we can’t say moral philosophy (& philosophers) have had nothing to say in dealing with the problems which continue to haunt us.

Joad is still ’shouting from the rooftops’ – through his many books – but we need to understand (and deal with) the unpalatable reasons why such clear warnings are still ‘falling on deaf ears’.

A greater understanding of Moral Philosophy – especially in the work of CEM Joad – will be a critical pre-condition for Humanity’s survival in the early 21st century.

Richard W. Symonds is a member of the International Society For Philosophers ( www.isfp.co.uk) and author of “Mega Theory & The Moral Instinct”. He can be contacted by email : richardsy5@aol.com or at his website: Gatwick City of Ideas

Two interesting articles today (I thought), both analysing the portrayal of Israel:-

The first from CAMERA looking at the academic portrayal of Israel:-

Gale Cengage Encyclopedia Uses Falsehoods to Equate Zionism and Racism – Extreme Anti-Zionist Commissioned to Author Article on Zionism

The second from Pajamas Media looking at the political and media portrayal of Israel:-

Israelis are being painted as peace refusers, terrorizers, killers, torturers, and recently, pilferers of internal organs.

It is fine and dandy to teach 5 year olds about sex and drugs, but government forbid, we should teach an alternative to evolutionism and encourage critical thinking by also offering intelligent design.

TimesOnline

Conservative plans to grant schools freedom from central control risk bringing the creationist doctrines of a “Religious Right” into the classroom, the Government warned last night.

Ed Balls, the Education Secretary, this week introduced new rules making the study of Darwin’s theory of evolution compulsory in primary schools. Previous guidance has banned Biblically derived ideas that the Earth and species were created suddenly within the past 10,000 years from science lessons.

Yesterday Mr Balls told The Times that Conservative policies to remove “prescriptions” under the National Curriculum and create hundreds of new independently controlled state schools posed “a real threat to the integrity of science teaching”. He added: “Creationist dogma, whether home grown or from the extreme Religious Right in America, has no place in our science classrooms.”

Michael Gove, the Shadow Education Secretary, said: “No school which receives state money could teach creationism as if it was science.” He indicated that this would be enforced through funding agreements rather than the National Curriculum.

Read Entire Article