Cardinal: stop this 'Frankenstein' evil

'This Bill represents a monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life. In some other European countries one could be jailed for doing what we intend to make legal. I can say that the government has no mandate for these changes:  they were not in any election manifesto, nor do they enjoy widespread public support. The opposite has indeed taken place – the time allowed for debate in Parliament and indeed in the country at large has been shockingly short. One might say that in our country we are about to have a public government endorsement of experiments of Frankenstein proportion – without many people really being aware of what is going on.'

Read on for the full Easter Day sermon at St Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh to be delivered by Cardinal Keith O'Brien. Our news report is here.

Just one week ago I began our Palm Sunday liturgy with the following words:

“For five weeks of Lent we have been preparing, by works of charity and self sacrifice, for the celebration of Our Lord’s Pascal Mystery”.

Today Easter Day we celebrate the culmination of that Easter mystery – that culmination in which we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.  Our celebrations continue during the fifty days of Easter time leading to the great feast of Pentecost, the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles – and this Easter time our fifty days includes all of the month of April.

At Easter and during these fifty days of Easter time we think with great joy of that glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; and we remember once more that during the first Easter time Christ clarified and confirmed for his followers an essential aspect of their Christian vocation. They were to be a missionary people: “Go out to the whole world and proclaim the Good News to all creation! “

I think with you today first of all on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ himself.

A particular poignancy was brought to our commemorations this Easter in our Cathedral. News was brought to us some two weeks before that Father David the father figure of this Cathedral Parish had died suddenly and tragically in Barcelona in Spain. It was on the weekend of Palm Sunday that his remains were brought here to our Cathedral and remained until noon on the Monday of Holy Week when our solemn liturgy for the dead was celebrated and followed by his burial in the cemetery in Culross near Oakley in Fife.

Obviously there was much grieving here in our Cathedral Parish and indeed throughout our diocese and all of Scotland as people remembered this gifted young man who seemed to have the ability to relate in a very easy and positive way with all with whom he came in contact.

However our liturgies of Holy Week reminded us of how natural everything had been in David’s life and death. Born as one of a large family with a devoted mother and father he answered the call of God to the Priesthood and lived out that call to the full until his death in Barcelona. The day following his funeral, on the Tuesday of Holy Week, the priests of our Archdiocese gathered to renew our own personal commitment to service – all having in mind, I am sure, that service rendered by Father David and our own ongoing commitment to serve until the Lord calls us to himself.

One might say that when thinking of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ we realise that is what our own Christianity is all about. Brought into the world by the love of two devoted parents, raised to adulthood in our own families, every action is indeed in someway or another a preparation for our new life in Christ.

I think that the words used in many European countries to describe a death, sum up very beautifully our basic Christian belief: “He has gone to the home of the Father!”

At this time as well as thinking of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ we are asked to consider again what I have described as the “essential aspect of a Christian vocation – namely to be a missionary people”.  I think that there is a greater need than ever before for each and every Christian to be aware of that call at this present time.

So many people are worried about the future – the possibility of banks failing; the increased cost of living with regard to food, petrol and many of those things which we find essential; our concerns about climate change and global warming; our increasing worries about the dangers of nuclear disaster.

But I think that a fundamental concern of all of our people at this present time and one which we ourselves as Christians must take very seriously is that concerning the future of human life itself.

The beliefs which we have previously held, and the standards by which we have lived throughout our lives and by which Christians have lived for the past 2000 years are being challenged at this present time in ways in which they have never been challenged before!

The norm has always been that children have been born as the result of the love of man and woman in the unity of a marriage. That belief has of course long been challenged. However I believe that a greater challenge than that even faces us – the possibility now facing our country is that animal – human embryos be produced with the excuse that perhaps certain diseases might find a cure from these resulting embryos.

What I am speaking of is the process whereby scientists create an embryo containing a mixture of animal and human genetic material. If I were preaching this homily in France, Germany, Italy, Canada or Australia I would be commending the government for rightly banning such grotesque procedures.

However here in Great Britain I am forced to condemn our government for not only permitting but encouraging such hideous practices.

Our Prime Minister, Gordon Brown has given the Government’s support to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. It is difficult to imagine a single piece of legislation which, more comprehensively, attacks the sanctity and dignity of human life than this particular Bill.

With full might of government endorsement, Gordon Brown is promoting a Bill that will allow the creation of animal – human hybrid embryos. He is promoting a Bill which will add to the 2.2 million human embryos already destroyed or experimented upon. He is promoting a Bill allowing scientists to create babies whose sole purpose will be to provide, without consent of anyone, parts of their organs or tissues. He is promoting a Bill which will sanction the raiding of dead peoples tissue to manufacture yet more embryos for experimentation. He is promoting a Bill which denies that a child has a biological father, allows tampering with birth certificates, removing biological parents, and inserting someone altogether different. And this Bill will indeed be used to further extend the abortion laws.

Further it seems that Labour MPs are not to be allowed a free vote on this Bill and consequently are denied the right to vote according to their conscience – a right which all other political parties have allowed.

This Bill represents a monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life. In some other European countries one could be jailed for doing what we intend to make legal. I can say that the government has no mandate for these changes:  they were not in any election manifesto, nor do they enjoy widespread public support. The opposite has indeed taken place – the time allowed for debate in Parliament and indeed in the country at large has been shockingly short. One might say that in our country we are about to have a public government endorsement of experiments of Frankenstein proportion – without many people really being aware of what is going on.

Many excuses are being made for this present legislation, particularly that cures will soon be found for various diseases which afflict mankind through this legislation. Rather the opposite seems to be the case when cells required for ongoing investigation into cures through medical science can take place through cells obtained in other ways from human bodies and certainly not through the creation of animal – human embryos.

I contend that matters of such concern to the peoples of our countries should not be left quite simply to a vote by members of Parliament. Along with my colleagues in England and Wales and my brother Bishops here in Scotland I would maintain that the establishment of a single permanent statutory national bioethics commission is something which would indeed bring considerable benefits. As I indicated recently in a letter to the Prime Minister: “This would appear to be the only way that the issues raised by the swiftly developing biotechnology industry can be adequately discussed and weighed up in a body which engages with public concerns and informs the government and parliament on matters which will continue to raise such unimagined and complex ethical questions”.

Our voice must be heard and that voice must be listened to especially by the members of Parliament who will soon vote on this issue in the House of Commons. Sadly many members of Parliament do not seem concerned – or rather are in a certain ignorance of what is going to happen. In January of this year our Catholic Parliamentary Office wrote to all of Scotland’s 59 members of Parliament asking them how they intended to vote. As of today only 9 have bothered to reply. Over three weeks ago Bishop Philip Tartaglia of Paisley wrote to Gordon Brown urging him to allow all his MPs a free vote – as of today he has not even had an acknowledgement!

Our Church, and I personally, have, I think, done all the ‘right things’.
We have responded to the consultation document; we have sent letters to all of Scotland’s Members of Parliament; we have written to the Prime Minister; we are speaking publicly about what is going on in our name and in our country.  Further, I recently signed a letter with other Church Leaders which concluded:  “This Bill goes against what most people, Christian or not, reckon is common sense.  The idea of mixing human and animal genes is not just evil.  It’s crazy!”.

Today as we celebrate in the resurrection the triumph of life over death I urge you to ensure that life continues to triumph over these deathly proposals. I know that many of you have already made your views known to your members of Parliament. I ask you to continue to do that.

Being a Christian and acting as a Christian must be one and the same thing.
Gathered here on this Easter Day we realise that we are indeed followers of Jesus Christ and with that comes responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is as I have indicated to be “missionary”. May God indeed help us all to be missionary at this present time and to hand on the saving message of Jesus Christ in a world which does not seem prepared to receive it.

Comments

[Pat]

Apparently the Cardinal does not know that all the insulin on which all diabetics depend in produced by bacteria or yeast to which a human gene has been added.

[Kate]

'Saint' - Thank you. The 'unhinged' perception just makes me smile. The kids use 'loopy' and 'bonkers'!

To date, I have had an interesting and rewarding life; the VERY BEST of it has been the children.

[saint]

Kate,
There is absolutely nothing 'unhinged' about you. And for raising nine kids, well done! May there be many more like you.

[Kate]

Mike Homfray: 'unhinged'? Quite possibly. More like 'I'm a dreamer Montreal' (Stewart Parker: 1970s). There's nothing worse than a politically disillusioned idealist.

Yes. I have read a great deal on 'sustainability' but am not convinced that my children - all born in the 1970s and conservationists to the last man and woman, are to be regarded as responsible - in their being - for the destruction of the planet.

Today Mike, I am convinced that the prevailing insanity, which tells intelligent, educated people imbued with civic virtue to have fewer children, is a covert death wish - for the end of civilization as we know it.

Have you been to India? Have you travelled the road between Delhi and Agra? Chemical factories, dozens and dozens, miles and miles of blinding, smothering pollution, thick fog, so bad it is difficult to see in daylight. People "grateful for the work" which they know is killing them.

What about China? African dictators? Feudal Middle Eastern states? How do we control all these? Tell them to have fewer children? Yeah. Britain is a minor player in the gobbling of resources game. I have already clarified in my position on government responsibility in a post to JPearce.

Nightmare leaves fatigue, and experience brings sceptical vision. I dislike fanaticism intensely - health, environment, political or religious. The environment and climate change are fast becoming the new fundamentalisms.

If, as you claim, you are 'committed to western liberalism' one must assume a respect for maximum individual freedom? A supporter of civil liberties (within and) guaranteed by law?

Is there some dichotomy here? You feel free, whilst claiming liberal principles, to admonish and judge another for availing of a basic civil liberty? Should I, in your judgement, have left the additional four to the vagaries of the State? Methinks NOT!

You are correct, I do not 'know your view' because, as I have previously noted, you seldom communicate other than cryptic, or disparaging, asides which do not convince, of anything, except perhaps, dyspepsia.

I suspect you are a man of sincere principles but, a tiny bit 'inflated'. In 'teaching your granny to suck eggs' - an Irish saying - you risk pomposity - which I am sure is not your intention.

It is enough that we suffer the omnipotent D.Smith who, I see, now allies himself with you! Extraordinary! Kate's perceived 'enemies' must be Dee's 'friends' - even when those friends are of the 'possessed' variety! Good luck, he's hard to shake off.

[Kate]

JPearce!! Don't panic. Pay attention. NINE not eight! This needs a 'smiley' but I haven't mastered that. Anyway, certainly NOT one every year - twins in the middle - one birth every TWO years and only five lots of pooh. They are now 36, 34(2), 32, 30.

The other four were adopted, at the ages of three, five(2) and seven - all potty trained!! The idea was to 'double up', no huge age gaps. Hard work - but, great fun. We went on every protest (peace) march; we were so 'odd' we acquired a regiment of personal 'helpers'.

The results - wonderfully humorous, but responsible people with super partners. I actually think I have made a contribution to the planet.

Not sure I agree with your theory on population control. I am as deeply suspicion of 'health' or conservation/sustainability fascism' as I am of, any of the more overt historical forms.

It is a truism that all world governments have now bowed their heads to 'the market'. It is a truism that sustainability would be easily achieved if those same governments could exert control over international corporations. None will do so.

The destruction of the rain forests et al, will not stop, no matter how many people in America and Europe stop smoking; Europe pays farmers NOT to grow food in one of the best agricultural countries in the world (Ireland); the Middle East, India, Pakistan, Africans, and many more, will not stop having children no matter how many westerners or Chinese restrict themselves to one.

These insane contradictions are the price we pay for the global village. The global village benefits big business; population movements benefit big business. Those populations bring with them their cultural values, breeding habits and diseases.

Disease control is NOT becoming ever more effective. There are already new mutations manifesting in Britain. TB, Polio and measles to name a few. The strains presenting are all killers and, resistant to existing drug regimes.

The 'finite resources' problem - oil? Shocking short-termism. Had the focus been, [instead of closing the mines], to work on manufacturing 'clean' coal, utilising wind power, and conserving North Sea Oil revenues and sources; had not the floodgates been opened to millions of immigrants, Britain today could be close to self-sufficiency.

Prof Christopher Harvie of the University of Tübingen in Germany - a Scot whom I have met and who is not a woolly (Canterbury type) academic, wrote in 2005:

... "She (Margaret Thatcher) blew it [North Sea Oil revenues] on the dole," [funding the 4 million unemployed]. That was the verdict of Sir Alastair Morton, British National Oil Corporation chairman.

Not entirely. £2 billion was there to steam to the Falklands in 1983 and biff Johnny Argentino. Rejoice! Meanwhile, those daft Norwegians just stuffed all the cash in a piggy bank:

Accordingly, Norway has been saving its oil-boosted budget surpluses in a Government Petroleum Fund... at the end of the first quarter of 2005 it was valued at 170 billion US dollars."

Thatcher 'privatised' (SOLD) the national oil company in the 1980s to Britoil. Thereby handing over the profits from a national resource to a private firm. Britoil sold it on at a huge profit to BP in 1988.

Strangely, whilst prostrating themselves to the ME and claiming NS Oil is running out, the Labour Government (in 2005) received the highest number of applications for North Sea exploration blocks since the oil and gas industry began.

... "We estimate that the UK has up to 28 billion barrels in oil and gas reserves still to recover.

My point here is that nothing is as simple or as straightforward as some conservationists would have us believe.

There are ways back but they would not accommodate capitalism. SO, we the malleable public, are exhorted to 'do our duty', be responsible, and save the planet.

Fascism by stealth. We will experience more and more government invasion into private morality and practice. It is all P"""ing in the wind of course. Those with the power to act will not do so in any meaningful way other than exert their 'muscle' over a complaint populace. All government 'morality' is confined to profit.

I actually do feel quite strongly on the confidence trickery surrounding these things. The 'morality' bit is a connected but different debate. Briefly there is no longer a 'received morality' prevalent in Britain. Relativism rules okay but nobody knows what it means or what they are supposed to believe.

What there is, is a plethora of confused and uninformed pressure groups. Many of whom are constantly at each other's throats. Slowly we are being driven back in time. There is no such thing as society - only every man woman and child for themselves! In those situations, EVERY parent's FIRST duty is to the well-being of his/her child. No matter how it impinges on long-held principles.

All a bit 'unhinged' of course; women who feel strongly or speak with passionate concern are always 'unhinged', no matter how rational their perceptions. When men do it they are - charismatic, animated and zealous.

[J Pearce]

Kate, let me get this straight - 8 kids, ages 30 - 37, averages out 1 kid per year. Bloody hellfire. I mean, the logisitcs alone beggar belief! That’s a lot of pooey nappies. I hope you took out shares in Mothercare.

Anyway, although I personally wouldn't go as far as Mike in admonishing someone for their fecundity, I think he does have a point in regards to population control. I don't think there can really be any serious arguments against the fact that the continually expanding human population is going to put ever more intense pressure on our finite natural resources (under which I would include water, as well as oil and food). This might sound a bit doomsday scenario, but when it comes down to the crunch, wars are fought over access to natural resources.

I think that is going to be the only "natural mechanism" left of paring down the population to a manageable size (certainly, disease control is becoming ever more effective). Depressing, but inevitable, unless we have a revolution through which science manages to enable crops to be grown in areas previously considered inhospitable to plants (deserts and the like).

Which is why I cannot get my head round the Catholic exhortations against contraception. It would seem to me much more fitting to level accusations of irresponsibility towards the Catholic Church, who's stance only encourages population increase, rather than at the individual level.

[Mike Homfray]

Dear me, Kate, a little more calmness and less hyperbole might mean you don't come over as somewhat unhinged.

Lets see. You obviously haven't heard of sustainability and the need to reduce population. Clearly you appear to feel you have little contribution to make towards it, hence I regard you as irresponsible.

It does clearly depend on the faith we are referring to, mand as someone who was a Quaker for many years and still retains some connections with them, I fully accept that they take a different view on gay-related matters. However, having been aware of the difficulties which young gay people have faced at faith schools which refuse, for example, to tech anything other than an anti-gay line, or who simply ignore the topic altogether, it is naive to think that this is not a problem.

I wouldn't be a member of Gays for Palestine for exactly the reasons you give - and the thought of Hamas running the show is depressing indeed.

I think everyone should (and eventually, will) be restricted in their 'right' to have children , out of sheer necessity.

I wouldn't call myself a socialist. A somewhat maverick social democrat, broadly left-of-centre, but not fitting easily into party lines....and certainly not in favour of nation as the primary source of identity. You clearly don;t know my views or you would not make such inaccurate comments - for example, the view that I am opposed to things 'western and white'. Anything but. I'm still very much committed to western liberalism and that is the main argument I have with conservative religion and the so-called eulogising of the 'global south'. You seem to assume that I hold a set of views which I simply don't, simply because I don't agree with your outlook.

All of us are relativist to an extent, but I am far from relativist on one level.

[Kate]

"Faith schools are noted for their selectivity, their lack of respect for difference, in particular their homophobia ..."

What a "wild generalisation". Every faith school in the country? My school had NI Irish prods, Catholics, Nigerians and large numbers of Chinese. A day and boarding school. This is the school my children attended. My son, did not encounter 'homophobia' until, he entered the environs of an English university.

Homophobia! Yep! A bit like 'Gays for Palestine' perhaps? A self-hating group of idiots aligning with a country steeped in ideology that hangs gays from the nearest lamp post!

DO get your act together Mike.

Western women should be restricted in their right to have children? Huh ... but it's okay for them to work and pay taxes in order for other nationalities with multiple wives and huge dependent families to live on welfare. Yes?

Doubtless you parade your impeccable 'left' credentials Mike, but what you write is a gross corruption of the meaning of 'socialism' (now dead).

Socialism envisaged common ownership of the means of production, i.e. 'nationalisation' of all services. Liberty, equality and fraternity in the NATION.

In your all-encompassing 'love' for others, the traditional concept of 'nation' and/or community is derided. Derided ONLY if it is western and white. Bigoted descendants of a 'colonial past' with NO 'rights' - only that of eternal remorse.

What an ostrich. What intellectual avoidance - of historical and contemporary evidence which proves, politically and socially, that 'relativism' is a great big lie.

[Kate]

mike: Perchance to dream ... as you pontificate with grandiose, politically correct, ignorance.

My children - 5 biologically mine - 4 adopted. Ages 30-37 - NO drunks, louts, drug-addicts, or disaffected murderers. Thirty seven years of penury making sure they all had a decent, loving environment and a good education. Irresponsible?

Frankly my dear, your arguments are interesting only as an example of intellectual vacuity. My politics are as far away from a traditional Tory voter as you are from rational analytical ability.

PS: Thanks Ruth.

(Kate, if you ever have any spare kids going, let me know! I'ld love another eight or so....rg)

[andrew holden]

I don't know what evidence you are quoting, Mike, but the evidence of my own experience doesn't back you up - even on the homophobia charge!

And as mentioned elsewhere selection is an unfortunate necessity when these popular schools are oversubscribed. That's merely an argument for expansion of the faith school sector so that more parents can have the education of their choice for their children.

[Mike Homfray]

No, disagree. In Europe, there will need to be some restructuring as a result, but the birth rate needs to decline. China's one-child policy, though harsh, was absolutely necessary. I expect the same to be advocated in the future in many other places.

These things are not 'worked out naturally' unless you reintroduce the natural way of dealing with over-population - epidemic disease.

rg writes: you don't necessarily know that. lots of women in the West are consciously choosing to have no children and to live and enjoy a child free existence, and lots of men are being more cautious about having a family too. this has never happened before in our history, so could well provide the same 'natural' control over population that disease once did.

[Mike Homfray]

The evidence simply doesn't add up, Andrew. Faith schools are noted for their selectivity, their lack of respect for difference, in particular their homophobia, and this questions their view of citizenship.

[Mike Homfray]

Ruth: I disagree completely. Sustainability must include population reduction.

(Well I think these things have a natural way of working out. Overall the birth rate is in decline in the West and that is causing some serious demographic problems. It is not easy having so many children, it is an act of great love, selflessness and commitment. Families who do this should be honoured and rewarded. rg)

[George Parr]

John, yes, do you think I should change it for something less spherical?(!)

[andrew holden]

George said "put in place an overall world-class education system first; one which is open to all and based on excellence, equality and citizenship."

Well presently more faith schools are far nearer that ideal than many state counterparts BECAUSE of their ethos - and I suspect it's likely to stay that way!

[Mike Homfray]

No, Kate, I have a problem with people who spout right-wing conservative nonsense and then expect it to be taken seriously.

Generalisations such as those you make above are a classic example.

Having nine children is, however, thoroughly irresponsible.

(Mike: having nine children is a fortunate blessing. it is not irresponsible, in fact it is an act of ultimate responsibility. I know dozens of women like me with one or none, who would have loved lots more. well done to anyone with the sense to have nine while they are young enough to do so.)

[Dr Alan Marsh]

J Pearce, you can find the answers to most of your questions at:

http://www.natsoc.org.uk/parents/intro_to_church_schools.html

You might like to note (since you haven't yet done so) that many schools exist as a partnership between the Church and the state (a system devised in 1944, so it's hardly news) and many are termed Voluntary Aided or Voluntary Controlled. The Church, not the state, being the voluntary contributor.

If the Church withdrew, the cost to the taxpayer (including Christian taxpayers) would be even higher, and many children would lose the benefits of an education in a church school.

I have seen the decline of religious education over more than 40 years of involvement with the state sector. All the state's promises from 1944 onwards have been whittled away or ignored.

Entry criteria are required only where there are more children seeking a place than the school has available. In VC schools the LEA sets the admissions policy, as in state schools. If there are not enough places then someone loses out. The state should provide more places.

In VA schools the governors have the task of setting criteria. The policy varies from school to school, but only a proportion of places are reserved for members of the Church of England, who come from all classes and neighbourhoods.

If Parr is correct, when the state manages to set up a world-class education system of its own, then people will abandon Church schools, according to his theorem.

But with New Labour's achievement of class sizes rising, attainments falling, and examination standards becoming more and more debased in pursuit of Parr's desire for equality, I think it likely that for many years to come people will be wanting Church schools, and more of them.

[John]

Mr Parr, is your name really Ed Balls?

[Kate]

JPearce: Thank you for a thoughtful interrogation. Do I "really think that division of education by religion is a good thing"?

No, but there is a codicil; I do not think that ‘division of education’ by ANY sectional or sectarian interest ‘is a good thing’. I am reminded of the ideological brainwashing of children in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia. Even in NI, the only group ‘divided by religion’ were Roman Catholic children.

ALL others attended state primaries; there were NO denominational divisions. Protestantism has many, many sub-sections, too numerous to list! We also had quite a few agnostics and atheists.

At the time of partition (1922), the Catholic Hierarchy forged an agreement that: The RC Church would accept Partition if given the guarantee that education of Catholic children be entirely in the control of the Church. Catholic schools, i.e. 'maintained' or ‘voluntary’ schools, are 80% government funded, 20% congregation. At primary level, this meant segregated education. Even that is not clear-cut.

The media obsession with 'ghettos' during the ‘Troubles’ ignored the fact that in industrial centres, mill workers lived and worked side by side. Children were schooled separately, but played together on the streets. I know nothing about "separate bus stops"? I DO know that small pockets are still divided by fences.

My position on the ‘faith v. secular’ argument is that, whilst adherence to the principle of equality and fraternity is aspirational and admirable, it is extremely dangerous in the circumstances prevailing. English society is disenfranchised.

Last month I spent two weeks there. Kafka, ‘The Castle’; the ordinary person’s incomprehension of centralised bureaucracy – nobody knows WHY officialdom does what it does, nobody knows WHY they have to OBEY, nobody knows quite what the officials DO for none will ‘lower’ themselves to explain anything. The endless frustration of attempts to penetrate the ‘system’.

The parallels are overt and depressing. Not to worry. Few will ever again be encouraged to read anything of worth, never mind Kafka. I fear adults who choose to divide themselves into warring groups are deflecting attention from a country soon, within a generation, to be populated by ‘proles’ (‘1984’, ‘Brave New World’, ‘Fahrenheit 451’). The energy used in battling abstract principles abandons the present generation of children to their fate. It is 'skewed' and might be better used.

In English state schools, over half fail to gain five GCSEs including English and maths. Over 30,000 gain NO qualification. The education of those children began in the sardine tins this government calls primary schools.

Education is a series of building blocks. Its ultimate objective SHOULD BE to equip children for the world. Despite all the educational ‘experiments’, it has patently failed.

I suggest precisely BECAUSE of the experiments. Few teachers of my generation were bamboozled. Rote learning a basic building blocks – alphabet, spelling and tables. Faith schools ‘equip’ their children with basic skills. Such schools would not exist, or be highly prized, if they were not offering a clearly definable ‘difference’.

All except Muslim are monitored. Only a minuscule number of traditional faith schools would even contemplate ‘brainwashing’. I exclude from that generalisation, recent ‘Creationist’ aberrations.

The English problem will not be eradicated by the abolition of Church schools. The English State has abused the children of England (don't know anything about Wales) by reducing them to educational guinea pigs. It started with Thatcher's ego, a shopkeeper's daughter, with lower middle-class contempt for anybody not in business.

History tells us much. Power-mad leaders are always opposed to educating the majority. Philosophy departments were the first closed under Hitler and Franco. Ditto Margaret Thatcher. She it is who bears the ultimate responsibility for the fact that top universities are now accepting millions from Saudi.

“Eight universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, have accepted more than £233.5 million from Saudi and Muslim sources since 1995. Major donations include £20 million from the late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia towards the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, due to open next year.”

Bring on clone Blair and post-colonial guilt. Dear God, education is a mess. God (presumably) replied: let's elevate mediocrity, but NOT for the Blair children. Result. Comprehensive jungles and minor HE colleges elevated to university status.

The rich will educate their children - in Public Schools - protected from government interference. Church schools in England are the ONLY ones left with the power to put the needs of the ordinary child before political correctness. Every parent who cares – and there are many who do not – must concentrate on achieving the best for their own child.

If as you believe JPearce, "the primary component of selection is perceived religious piety" then I will certainly need to take out a mortgage, none of my adult children qualify.

On the other hand, congregations are falling dramatically so it is perfectly logical that the children of regular churchgoers be given first preference? I, of course, having no scruples in such matters, would be first into the pew under the pulpit every Sunday - waving at the rector!

Desperately seeking sanity, I have uncovered a Quaker prep in one of the relevant areas - ergo the mortgage. I have a deep suspicion that church schools with good reputations will all eventually be driven along that same fee-paying route.

There is no hierarchy in the Society of Friends. No 'indoctrination'. No clergy. Morning assembly is simple - contemplative silence, a little ‘moral tale’ and announcements. The ethos is one of tolerance and balance with an emphasis on self-discipline; small classes, encouragement of individual progress and a focus on basic skills.

Ironically, the ‘War’ in NI protected us from the worst excesses of post-colonial cringe. The 1944 Education Act destabilised the rigidity of division. The grammar schools of NI became cradles of social mobility. My generation of grammar school pupils has dispensed with the perception of a Catholic underclass. All the professions and top business now boast a Catholic majority. There is an almost total dedication to grammar schools in NI. Neither Thatcher nor Blair dared interfere in the one area which clearly united the whole of the province.

[George Parr]

Andrew, put in place an overall world-class education system first; one which is open to all and based on excellence, equality and citizenship.

Religious parents who urgently and specifically require a church-based education for their children; parents of all colours for whom the state system is still deemed not good enough; those who wish to preserve arcane modes of behaviour and dress, notions of class in an historic quasi-Fascist environment; those driven by snobbery or who wish to separate their children from others for various reasons - will all have rejected a mutual egalitarian system funded by the taxpayer. Theirs is then certainly a privately-funded option.

[andrew holden]

"By all means offer schooling based on a religious agenda. Do it in a marketplace rather than through the pluralistic taxpayer."

That might be a sensible solution so long as it applied to everyone - end state funded and controlled education, lower taxes and give education grants to families.

Level the playing field like that and I doubt the faith schools would do badly - except that the whole system would get even more selective than it is and the less able would get an ever worse deal.

The present partnership between parents and taxpayers may not be perfect but in a free society it's along the right lines.

[J Pearce]

Alan, I'm confused. No, really. Are you saying that Church/Faith schools (is their a difference? Answers welcome) exist outside of state provision? That by "supplementing" the established state education system, they are in fact - in a way - voluntary, in a similar sense to charities, which can supplement state services?

If that’s the case, then why the hell does the taxpayer fund them?! I see even less reason for them to be funded by the state! Do we fund charities? Not that I'm aware of.

Secondly, I'm not sure you're on solid ground in reference to your claim about lack of "meaningful religious education in schools". For a start, where's your evidence? Above and beyond it being an observation from someone who has a clearly defined vested interest in "more religious education"…

And anyway, my issues are more to do with entry criteria. I still haven't seen any cogent argument put forward justifying selection of children for schools, based on religious belief of the parents. Of course, I am assuming that faith schools maintain entry criteria which is, in a large part, based on the apparent faith of the children or their parents. I stand to be corrected on that - but have yet to be.

[George Parr]

Oh yes Mr Marsh, no doubt faith groups making their presence felt through Church schools would dearly like to bolster their numbers generally through offering a 'spiritual dimension' to one and all. This is a first class example of one problem being answered through introducing a different agenda. The issue is that faith schools are part of the state system but have different protocols surrounding entry criteria and selection from the remainder. They are an ill-defined barrier between a mediocre framework which, although staffed by many hard working teachers, needs to be improved and expanded to offer a first-class education for all.

As Kate says the system is a lottery, demonstrated by the extraordinary lengths to which parents are driven to secure value and quality.

It remains arguable whether parents are desperate to achieve a religious ethos for their children, or simply good schooling brought about by the selectivity faith schools are clearly seen to maintain. What is certain is that religious groups, in justifying their position through claims of a desire to re-introduce a spiritual dimension, are not speaking for all and should certainly no longer be an integral part of a flagging, anachronistic system achieved historically.

By all means offer schooling based on a religious agenda. Do it in a marketplace rather than through the pluralistic taxpayer.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

J Pearce, you really are not responding to the thread, just reiterating your unfounded assertions.

Church schools supplement the inadequate provision made by the state, although churchgoers are at least as likely as their neighbours to be taxpayers.

Ths state has failed to deliver its undertakings in the 1944 (and 1988) Education Acts to ensure the continuation of meaningful religious education in state schools.

You do not seem to have bothered to check out how admissions policies actually work.

[Kate]

Gosh Oh Mike!

What a pity. A waste of space even. Always the cryptic aside; the personal attack. Always the blithe assertions of extensive experience and knowledge "the Quakers I know"! Never ANY verifiable evidence for or against.

I do not write as a Quaker. I do not regard any human being as "dispensible". Only a reactive fool or one intensely influenced by personal antipathy could make such an accusation. As I have noted before, you appear to have a great problem with women who are willing to question pc orthodoxy.

The south of England is full to bursting point. The primary schools are full to bursting point. It is a fact, commonly understood - from available statistics, that unregulated immigration is the root cause. If, as you have indicated, you are involved in education, I would have hoped for a more constructive contribution to the debate.

[J Pearce]

I should apologise for mutating the topic of this thread, but anyway…

Kate, I do not disagree with opinions that voice concern about the state of our education system and the gradual erosion of standards in some sectors of state schooling.

However, is it not true that for the majority of faith school intake, the primary component of selection is perceived religious piety? I stand to be corrected, but is it not religious belief that "swings it" for the majority of faith school intake?

If so, this is exactly the kind of "them and us" system that you have decried above, but based on religious grounds rather than class. I fail to see why a school that is funded by the state, i.e. the taxpayer, should be allowed to impose entry criteria based on perceived religious piety. It utterly defeats any attempt to impose equality of access to education and creates exactly the kind of two tier education system that Christians are so peachy keen to defend on this threed.

I'm happy to concur with the belief aired on this thread that "faith" schools often get better educational results - what I would like to know is, why should a potentially high achieveing child from a non-religious background be denied access to a quality education, that could be provided by such a "faith" school, by dint of the fact that their parents do not wish to subject themselves, sheep-like, to the weekly waste of time that is Church attendence?

I would also note that where people like Mr Marsh and others are apparently all for more Church schools, one suspects that this is NOT down to a previously well-hidden altruistic streak on their part; more likely, it is entirely down to the fact that they see the education system as a means to inculcate children into religious belief. Get 'em while their young, right?

Given your experience in NI Kate - and its continuing festering sectarianism (separate bus stops! you couldn't make it up!) - do you really think that division of education by religion is a good thing?

[Mike Homfray]

Ao, Kate, the problem is actually intake. Your posts often have a 'wrong rats' feel about them, as if you regard those from other cultures as dispensible - and since when has anything you ever say been in the least connected to Quakerism? The Quakers I know would find your views abhorrent.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Mr Parr is quite wrong to claim that Church schools "exclude" anyone. They would like to include every child in this country and ensure that they are not denied a spiritual dimension to their experience of education, something which was promised in 1944 but not delivered by the state.

The answer is more Church schools, not fewer, as the parental demand amply demonstrates.

It is most unlikely that (with the exception of Mr Parr, J Pearce, Alistair McBay and other NSS representatives) parents will be seen to move house to avoid such schools. There always has been the option of withdrawing children from religious assemblies and RE classes, but it is a right which is very rarely exercised.

[Kate]

As one contemplating a mortgage on my mortgage-free property in order to assist in funding my grand children's education in England, I have been following the deflection from topic with some interest.

I conclude the government has 'struck lucky' yet again. Ball's announcement is a 'red herring'; typical 'divide and rule' - secularists v. believers. A meaningless squabble in the context of the REAL betrayal of the British/English by their own elected representatives, but convenient.

Traditional faith schools are NOT the problem - the only 'faith' school problem is Muslim madrases BUT the government is too intimidated by its Muslim constituents and, too in thrall to Saudi interests to deal honestly with those.

The question is not why traditional faith schools are funded by government but WHY parents and grandparents who value education are willing, not only to perjure themselves, but bankrupt themselves, as they verge on dementia contemplating the fate awaiting their children?

Primary state education in England is a lottery, few winners and too many failures.. Too many children, too few schools. In NI faith schools are 'voluntary' schools. Voluntary because they have undertaken the responsibility of filling a gap; parents pay capitation fees on top of normal income tax and national insurance. Parents in voluntary schools donate, according to their means, raise building maintenance funds and fill in other gaps like computers, books and teaching assistants.

This needs to be repeated. It is not FREE education supplemented by other taxpayers - the extras, such as they are, are funded by parents. This choice, how one spends one's own money, is called freedom. Freedom within a democratic society. As secularists are free to choose strictly secular education, people who value a faith ethos (whether believers or not) choose faith schools.

Unfortunately secular education in England is a shocking wasteland of failed policy. Political interference (instigated by Margaret Thatcher and made worse by NuLabour) in pc teacher training, primary syllabuses, methodology; discipline, has been successful ONLY in producing a huge number of illiterate, innumerate, undisciplined 11-year-olds unequipped for secondary level. Four out of 10 leave primary school without basic skills.

ALL MUST HAVE PRIZES is absolute Rot.

I have been an educator all my life. Children are not 'peas in a pod'; they have different abilities, different attention spans, different learning speeds. Children thrive where there are clear parameters and flexible rules. Children learn in an environment where order and interest is maintained. Parental interest is crucial to child development. Neglectful parenting produces disruptive children.

The English state education system, already dysfunctional from Tory political interference, has disintegrating under the NuLabour ideology of multiculturalism and unregulated immigration.

Add to that 'children's rights' legislation which forbids teachers to raise their voices, touch a child, or impose any form of punishment and you have mayhem.

The majority of state schools are swamped by political correctness. Teachers are 'at-a-distance' educators, strangled by meaningless targets and paper work, existing every day in fear of litigation, or pupil/parental aggression. YES. Even in primary schools.

The nearest state primary school to my son in Bristol is 70% black and Asian - 23 languages. The nearest to my daughter - in a village outside Uxbridge - is 80% new immigrants in kindergarten. Result - chaos, 'nice', well-meaning, permanently hassled staff, necessarily focused on the least advantaged. Children of high intelligence are doomed to boredom and mischief in such an environment.

I am the product of a traditional Quaker (Faith) grammar - so too all nine of my children. Guess what? All graduates, all hard-working, law-abiding citizens making a contribution through their professions.

Parents who pay attention to these things are, in the words of Frank Fields: "sick of the clap-trap peddled about comprehensive school success against all the evidence [to the contrary]."

The argument against faith schools which cites adverse 'indoctrination' is an absurdity. Even Catholic schools no longer insist on a Catholic version of the 3-Rs!

All schools receiving state funding are required to adhere to a national syllabus - a great deal of which is pc nonsense and will not further any child's basic skills but that is another debate. All are subject to regular inspection.

British schools, nearly all, have some form of traditional Morning Assembly - usually a prayer and exhortation from the Head that all should be good, hard-working children!!

The key to a good school is teachers. Teachers who are able to impose the discipline required to keep children interested in learning. Teachers, at primary level, dedicated to the basic skills - literacy and numeracy - on which all further education is grounded.

The cost to the nation of dismantling these last bastions of good old-fashioned teaching and the inculcation of community obligation will be horrendous. A return to 'them and us' - class divisions of the under- or uneducated versus the Public Schools.

It is no coincidence that the best results for academic achievement in GB are Scotland and Northern Ireland - Presbyterian Academies and Faith Grammar Schools.

[George Parr]

Why on earth we continue to fund this appalling system, which favours one of this country's faith groups excluding, effectively, all others, yet which forms a part of an outdated framework once designed for all, I cannot imagine.

The partial interests of the church are served by it. It is a way of indoctrinating children with dubious religious doctrines through a one-way glass. It excludes and separates, sorts and refines, not on an egalitarian basis, but through class elitism and exclusivity. Claims that some faith schools number among the high performers may be correct, but then faith schools, through their specific policies of admittance, are seen to serve themselves, in a continuum of regulatory self-interest.

And how many parents, instead of making the best of a fragmented system through artificial claims of piety, moving house or stretching a point over catchment areas, are actually interested in ensuring their children receive an education with a religious dimension? One test would be to remove faith schools from the public sector and, against continuing performance measurement, place them firmly on a privately funded basis. Then we could see just how keen the churches are to run them as businesses, or fund them, or how many parents are prepared to pay for their special needs. Perhaps our government might consider addressing this financially, spending money on our country's future, rather than funding futile wars based, arguably, on our imperial past.

Shamefully, no political party is currently prepared to overhaul the schools system, despite the incontrevertable evidence that it remains framed in the social values of 19th England. This ably serves the purposes of faith groups who, in clinging on to a golden past, are quite happy to endorse the duplicity involved, as parents simply try to choose a good school from the local list.

[John]

There is no need to "attribute" anything to you, J Pearce. You explicitly categorise "state" schools as being (in your wishes or your imagination) something which should exclude the Church.

It is an utterly simplistic notion both of what Church schools are, and what the state is and is for.

Roughly 1/3 of schools belong to the Church of England, which founded and endowed them. Since 1944 it has been in partnership with the state, which acknowledges the desire of many parents (taxpayers!) to send their children to a school with a particular religious ethos.

Church schools, because of that ethos, regularly provide a better education than neighbouring state schools, which have no such spiritual component to their mission statement.

Such Church schools exist throughout the country and are open to the poorest as well as to everyone else, to whom they provide benefits which the state chooses not to make available, at the expense of the Church.

You seem to want to make assumptions, however. But the reasons for the decline in state education lie firmly in the court of the aptly-named Mr Balls and his predecessors, who put their political ideology first, and the education of the nation's children some way down their list of priorities.

It seems you belong to the same reductionist camp as Balls and the NSS, in your desire to destroy any signs of educational excellence, in pursuit of some mythical "equality", which will only exist when you succeed in reducing every child to illiteracy.

Except of course for the children of party leaders, who like Balls get to attend expensive public schools.

Is this one of the items they can claim on their Commons expenses?

[andrew holden]

State money belongs to all of us. Why should parents who wish to educate their children in faith schools be denied their rightful share of the education spend from the taxes they pay?

On the other hand there is a fair argument that faith schools, if they are to be partly funded by the tax payer, should meet certain standards laid down by the state. One would certainly be that such schools should not be sectarian. Many of the faith schools I have known have not been (though undoubtedly some still are). They have been willing to take children from any background or faith so long as the parents support the religious ethos of the school. This has meant, for example, Anglican schools with Muslim children attending.

By the way one of the reasons why faith schools are often so well resourced and do so well is that in addition to using tax monies the faith communities themselves, as well as individual parents, put in lots of extra money. So they already do supply a great deal of the funding. What you seem to be suggesting is that they should be denied tax money.

It is not the primary job of faith schools to turn out religious children but to produce well educated young adults who not only understand the faith position of their school (which they may or may not share) but are tolerant and appreciative of people of other faiths and those of no faith. My experience, and of course yours may be different, is that faith schools encourage tolerance far better than schools where secularist teachers bang on about 'sky-pixies' and religious 'tooth fairies'.

Finally, you may be surprised to learn that there are many faith schools which actively serve the poorest in society taking great care to draw children from across the social spectrum. Not all Church Schools are exclusively middle class.

[J Pearce]

"Your only argument, J Pearce, is to demand that no such schools should exist."

And where exactly have I said that? I have not said that at all. The opposite, in fact. But hey, if you're just going to continue to invent spurious comments and attribute them to me, then who am I to stop you?

I am happy for the Church to offer an alternative education - as long as it funds it. If faith schools are as popular with the general public as you claim, I doubt they'll have any problem raising the requisite funding from parents, right? So why the need for state money?

As you appear to want to completely avoid the main thrust of the argument - that being, faith schools peddle de facto educational apartheid (and the corollary of that, i.e. that being, religious faith school advocates, such as yourself, implicitly condone educational segregation on ideological grounds) - I can only assume that you are indeed one of thse people who are happy to see the state education system decline, as long as it favours your own religious beliefs and the agenda of the Church.

I find it difficult to see how you can claim to be a Christian, though, when you happen to favour an educational system that disadvantages the poorest in society.

[John]

Church schools would not be able to provide for their own constituency (who pay taxes like everyone else) if they were unable to offer some places to families who want a particular religious ethos for their children. Your only argument, J Pearce, is to demand that no such schools should exist.

As it is, the Church (like other religions) continues to provide sponsorship and resources for a proportion of schools, most of which were built by the Church in the first place, which have formed part of the state system since 1944.

It enables the Church to offer an education which many parents seek out for their children as a religious education per se (whether or not they are active churchgoers) and because such schools frequently outperform those in their locality which take a rugged, J Pearce-type approach towards religion.

I am glad that the Church is able to contribute an alternative and better vision for education, one from which many children benefit, far beyond those who come from families who are members of the Church.

I would like to see such benefits extended to every school, as the 1944 Act envisaged, but which the Left has consistently undermined ever since, with the results which we see every time Ed Balls has the embarrassing task of publishing New Labour's "achievements" in education.

Not to worry, JP, it seems that before the next election New Labour will insist that every child receives at least a BA degree on their 16th birthday, so that everyone can feel absolutely equal, even if they can't spell the word Bachelor.

If not then, look out for the small print in their election manifesto. If they agree to hold an election, that is.

[John]

Church schools would not be able to provide for their own constituency (who pay taxes like everyone else) if they were unable to offer some places to families who want a particular religious ethos for their children. Your only argument, J Pearce, is to demand that no such schools should exist.

As it is, the Church (like other religions) continues to provide sponsorship and resources for a proportion of schools, most of which were built by the Church in the first place, which have formed part of the state system since 1944.

It enables the Church to offer an education which many parents seek out for their children as a religious education per se (whether or not they are active churchgoers) and because such schools frequently outperform those in their locality which take a rugged, J Pearce-type approach towards religion.

I am glad that the Church is able to contribute an alternative and better vision for education, one from which many children benefit, far beyond those who come from families who are members of the Church.

I would like to see such benefits extended to every school, as the 1944 Act envisaged, but which the Left has consistently undermined ever since, with the results which we see every time Ed Balls has the embarrassing task of publishing New Labour's "achievements" in education.

Not to worry, JP, it seems that before the next election New Labour will insist that every child receives at least a BA degree on their 16th birthday, so that everyone can feel absolutely equal, even if they can't spell the word Bachelor.

If not then, look out for the small print in their election manifesto. If they agree to hold an election, that is.

[J Pearce]

I didn't realise disingenuity and hypocrisy were traits to be valued and nurtured in Christianity, John. Plainly, I am wrong.

Don't give me this twaddle about "not having to be C of E in order to send your children there". We all know that the overriding criteria is attendence in Church. To pretend that faith schools are "open to all" is plainly ridiculous and an affront to common sense. Plus, as you say yourself "some Church schools have a majority from other faiths" - so that’s all right then, is it? It’s the religious in and everyone else out, eh? Good grief!

I will repeat - again, because it doesn't seem to have sunken in - that I am not apologising or attempting to mask the flaws in certain sections (not all) of our state system (and I notice that the only "reductionism" going on is that which exists inside your head, where you try to portray the entire state system as failed, whereas in reality, that is plainly not the case).

Non-faith schools that succeed can be used as exemplars to other schools in the country. I have argued against all forms of ideological manipulation of state schools, whether it be politically or religiously motivated. I have never said that I support the Governments interventionist policies in education (I actually have a lot of sympathy for Alan in that respect), although I suppose it suits your argument to accuse me of such. Life is so much simpler when you can negatively stereotype, eh John?

What I do see in faith schools is the exclusion of potentially excellent and gifted children, based solely on religious grounds (i.e. the parents don't go Church). This is educational apartheid, pure and simple. An inconvenient truth about faith schools which the religious are too cowardly to acknowledge. The implicit religious attitude appears to be "all believers get a better shot at life, the rest of the scum can rot". Make you proud, does it John? Accords with your impervious sense of righteousness, does it?

Yes, I do believe the state can provide a decent education system. Which co-exists alongside religious-sponsored, private faith schools. In the interim, faith schools should be forced to drop plainly divisive and elitist entry criteria. That would seem to be the most Christian thing to do.

[John]

State schools, J Pearce, are provided and funded by the state, so if anyone is (to use your words) "condemned to an inferior education" it is the state which is responsible for this situation - not the Church, which provides sponsorship and resources for its own schools which contribute to making them desirable places of education for parents of all faith and none. And no, you are not required to be CofE in order to send your children there. Some church schools have a majority from other faiths!

Presumably you think the state can provide a decent education without the help of the church - so please explain why it is failing to compete with church schools? Why does your reductionist, secularist ideology result in poor schools and incompetent teaching, overseen by the ideologues on the LEA?

After all, Blair promised us "Education, Education, Education" back in 1997. Where has that got us? Falling standards in the state sector in academic achievement and in ethos, despite the massive increase in state spending. Children leaving state schools illiterate and brutalised. Metal detectors installed at school gates and security guards in classrooms. What a secular paradise!

It seems to me that it is Balls and the like who have made an ideological balls-up of state education - of the kind which you argue for every day on this blog - at the taxpayers' expense!

[J Pearce]

John,

It must be pleasing to you to be able to sit in judgement like some religious ideologue and condemn the entire secular state education system, despite the fact that there are any number of excellent secular state comprehensives which defy your prejudices. I do wonder about your comprehension, though ("violent response"? Que?).

The argument isn't about standards, as such (actually, it was about religious leaders getting things spectacularly wrong in regards to the Embryology bill, but seeing as they've been comprehensively trounced on this thread, I'm assuming that’s done and dusted…); its about educational apartheid. Its about the fact that parents have to lie and manipulate to get their children a decent education.

I would have more sympathy for Church schools, if they didn't impose restrictions on entry. Why should an educational facility, which is state funded and therefore essentially a "state" school, be allowed to implement entry restrictions on ideological grounds? What benefit to society is it, that some children can be excluded from good schools (yes, I happily admit that some faith schools can provide good education, but I wasn't arguing against that anyway), simply because they or their parents don't happen to believe in some spurious, ancient cult leader?

All parents want schools with a "good ethos". I can't argue with the fact that for an alarming number of state schools, they are in dire straits. I blame the Government as much as you appear to. But you also appear to be arguing for a system where access is restricted; essentially, you are arguing for educational elitism, based on religious belief. This can only widen the social and cultural divide you appear to abhor so much in secular state schools.

I have yet to see you, or any other religious apologists, present a cogent argument as to why it is acceptable to condemn children to an inferior education, simply because they or their parents don't believe. One can only conclude that it must be down to the implicit "us and them" mindset of modern Christians - the assumption of moral superiority, the concomitant arrogance and belief that they deserve "better" than non-believers. In other words, same old, same old.

The ultimate irony, though, is that educational selection based on perceived religious piety appears utterly at odds with the core message of JC. Funny, that...

[John]

It ia hardly worth attempting to reply to such a prejudiced and violent response, Mr(?) Pearce.

But this is still officially a Christian country, a fact with which many citizens identify; church schools are not what you imagine them to be; and yes, many parents - of many faiths and none - do actively prefer a Church school for their children, in preference to a state school which operates on a purely secular basis.

By all means raise the standards in every school - but you will still see people choosing Church schools, as do many muslims in our neighbourhood who send their children to the local (CofE) School rather than to the moral wasteland at the local state comprehensives, where crime and bullying and drugs are rife and the quality of teaching abysmal, despite the herculean sums spent on them.

It's not about indoctrination, you see: it is about providing an ethos for children which is not driven by the (im)morality of the secular society which you espouse and which I reject, along with many other taxpayers and parents.

[J Pearce]

Dear John…
Is it a prejudice to ask that state education should be separated from religious influence?

Are Church schools "immensely popular among all sections of society", or is it, in fact, that good schools are popular among all sections of society? I won't deny that there are a number of faith schools that achieve high educational standards - but are you trying to tell me that non-faith schools that achieve the same high standards are somehow "less popular", simply because they do not promote one particular faith? Do me a favour!

You talk about choice. What sort of choice is involved when a parent is effectively blackmailed into pretending religious piety, just to get their child a decent education? Do you really think that if the state provided a decent, high achieveing non-faith school near to where a secular parent lived, they would refuse to send their child to it? Preferring instead to jump through ridiculous religious hoops to get their child into a faith school? I rather think not.

Faith schools (and their sponsors in the Church) are exploiting the current malaise in the education system, using parental desperation as a means of justifying their existence. Lets not fanny around, the bottom line is that the Church - all religions - see education as means of introducing (i.e. indoctrinating) children into their particular belief system.

Otherwise, what is the point of having a school that adheres to any particular religious ethos?! Their entire existence is predicated on the idea that children will be inculcated into the particular religious ideology of the school in question - to claim otherwise is to deny their singular raison d'etre.

Ideally, state education should provide quality education for all, without recourse to institutions that peddle an ideology often incompatible with wider societal mores. In practice, this isn't happening - hence the apparent demand for faith schools. The questions for me are:

* is it beneficial for society as a whole, to base access to educational faculties on perceived adherence to a divisive belief system?

* is it right that the state provide a multi-tier education system, essentially implementing educational apartheid on the basis of faith (or not)?

* should religions be allowed to socially engineer from within the state education system?

My answer to all three would be a resounding "No". Hence my belief that faith schools should remain outside of state education and in the realm of private schooling. Lets see how popular they are then.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

I too am a governor of a state school, and it has been a very difficult and frustrating ten years, after all the promises made by Blair concerning the education system. We still have huge class sizes, fewer teaching hours, and a bureaucratic mountain of paperwork and regulations to deal with, all of which seems to change with each new Secretary of State.

At least one state school in this area has decided to apply for sponsorship as a church school, and more are considering it.

[George Parr]

So Jim, Alan Marsh doesn't have a point then when from his school governor's perspective he says that the state needs to provide a first-class system, as an alternative to the current anomaly over faith schools and also to improve the state sector?

I fail to see how highlighting an issue reeking of inequality and privilege, with th express intention of improving the schools system can be read as prejudice.

The current situation, where concerned parents are reduced to moving house or claiming a faith they do not embrace, or as ratepayers and taxpayers going cap in hand, is hardly desirable.

[John]

Parr and Pearce, what a parade of your collective and rather tired prejudices!

As a governor of a state (not church) school I have seen for myself over a number of years just how far the state fails the children which it requires to attend its schools - in an area without a church school or any other option unless parents are wealthy enough to afford private education.

The fact is that Church schools are immensely popular among all sections of society and people do choose them in preference to the kind of secular institution which is so much beloved of the two of you.

A number of Church schools I know have significant numbers of children whose parents are not religious, but prefer the ethos of the school; and many have significant numbers from other faiths, who do not want their children to attend secular institutions.

We are all taxpayers, and some parents are fortunate enough to have the option of seeing their taxes support the church school which their children attend as a matter of choice.

The current nonsense about admission policies is no more than an attempt by Ed Balls to find eveidence for a witch-hunt against faith schools. Strangely enough he published his defamatory claims before checking them out with the head teachers concerned. It seems old habits die hard in New Labour.

[George Parr]

Alan Marsh, for 'people like you' read 'attitudes like yours' -Freudian slip.

[George Parr]

It must be wonderful Alan Marsh to live on a planet whose existence relies on generality and one in which its denizens believe that the Church is a conduit to the type of education everybody wants.

Moreover holding people, who question the morality of faith schools, responsible for a 'dreadful state system' is not only an appalling generalism but also wholly untrue and completely unfair to very performance-measured, hardworking teachers.

It really is difficult to imagine any mindset more mediocre than one in which standards of excellence are proposed through forcing divinity upon a state system paid for through taxation.

It is of course outrageous for 'people like you' (your phrase) to railroad education, promoting religion as an entry criterion. Since you claim you are a school governor, what is your remit, the proselytization of your own version of religion, through rigid selection, heaping regulation on parents who actually just want high standards for their children? Or do you display the neutrality expected of those who actually believe the elasticated point that faith schools genuinely welcome everyone?

You have ably demonstrated that religion and education should be separate, displaying a dismissive attitude to viable schools with no religious ethos. It is also fairly clear that the incremental policy that you describe, for maintaining divisive and exclusive faith schools is part of the problem, not the solution. It causes types of social stigmatisation, with poorly performing schools in some areas being thrown to the wolves.

Presumably your earlier acknowledgement that an increase in faith schools is not a 'proper solution' actually describes an attitude whereby you are content to sit and watch consecutive governments doing nothing about it.

In short you appear not to care about the first-class system you refer to, since all the while the present system struggles it appears to suit your religious agenda. Are you sure you are a school governor?

[John Ross Martyn]

The second chapter of the Book of Genesis tells us that God made Eve from Adam's rib. She was, in effect, cloned. I understand that this story was put into its present form by Jewish intellectuals at the time of the Exile, or shortly thereafter. These men were immensely ignorant of biology, and may have been male chauvinists. However, they cannot have thought that cloning was wrong in itself, nor that it was inherently wrong to create human beings otherwise than by sexual reproduction. God was doing these things, so they could not - and cannot - be wrong in themselves. Maybe men and women should not do what God has done, but the burden of arguing that is a heavy one. It is especially hard to argue it when the purpose is God's purpose of healing the sick.

[John Ross Martyn]

The second chapter of the Book of Genesis tells us that God made Eve from Adam's rib. She was, in effect, cloned. I understand that this story was put into its present form by Jewish intellectuals at the time of the Exile, or shortly thereafter. These men were immensely ignorant of biology, and may have been male chauvinists. However, they cannot have thought that cloning was wrong in itself, nor that it was inherently wrong to create human beings otherwise than by sexual reproduction. God was doing these things, so they could not - and cannot - be wrong in themselves. Maybe men and women should not do what God has done, but the burden of arguing that is a heavy one. It is especially hard to argue it when the purpose is God's purpose of healing the sick.

[J Pearce]

Furthermore, according to this report Alan:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article3671157.ece

It appears that it is faith schools which are not only implementing educational apartheid on religious grounds, but also bribery! And which sector of state education has been found to be not complying with the current admissions code? Why, that would be faith schools as well!

Is this the kind of education system you really want to see, Alan? It doesn't sound very Christian to me - it rather sounds like faith schools operate their own "admissions policy", independent of state regulation, where only the allegedly pious - or monied - are favoured and the rest of the potential intake is discarded, regardless of geography, achievement or IQ.

In other words, it is educational elitism biased towards the religious. Alan, I find it hard to reconcile your apparent dislike of the Government and its alleged attempts at social engineering through education, when that is exactly what you are advocating using faith schools!

Both are equally deplorable. You should be ashamed.

[J Pearce]

"The evidence is clear enough: faith schools provide a better education than the generality of state schools.."

But faith schools are de facto state schools, on the basis they are funded by the taxpayer!

So, Alan, I have to ask, do you believe in religious obedience as entry criteria for schooling?

Do you believe it is right to force people (parents) to pretend to beliefs that they otherwise would ignore, solely as a pretext for getting their children educated?

Because to me, it looks like you - the man in the education system, remember - are not advocating "good schooling" as such, but, in fact, backdoor indoctrination.

You think education based on religious apartheid is acceptable, do you? Because that is what faith schooling represents.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Dear Parr

The evidence is clear enough: faith schools provide a better education than the generality of state schools, and parents rightly want their children to attend them, irrespective of their own beliefs. Church of England schools welcome children of all faiths and none.

The Church of England is unable to open new faith schools quickly enough to keep up with the parental demand, but you would naturally seek to prevent this solution, and prefer to continue the desolate condition of state education as it is.

Attitudes like yours,in teachers, politicians, LEAs, etc., are responsible for the dreadful state system which is failing so many children - one which is designed to create "equality" but only results in mediocrity.