Although I attended a Church of England primary school I have no axe to grind. It was a pleasant place staffed by well meaning and compassionate teachers- there were daily prayers but no real indoctrination and I enjoyed my time there. I also recognize that the argument over faith schools must take into account the results achieved for children rather than simply being an exercise in secular doctrine. These things being said there are fewer risks to our social cohesion- to the very existence of our civil society than this wicked abuse of the young. Like so many malaises that effect our society this one also infects our discourse.
In so much of the talk which issues forth on this subject
an argument is made that 'children of faith should have the right to attend a
school which shares their values'. It might be expected that on the question of
whether there is, or is not, an invisible man living in the sky who reads our
thoughts and decides which theme park we attend when we die, one nice one
nasty, even a child might be competent to pronounce; however religion has
become much more than this private question- it has become part of the politics
of identity. We are moving towards a
society where we are not citizens with equal rights for all regardless of
colour, creed or gender but are instead members of a community, where it is the
community that must be treated with equality not the individual.
The issue of
faith schools must be seen in this context. Take Blunkett's statement as
Education Secretary in 2001: 'We wish to welcome faith schools, with their
distinctive ethos and character, into the maintained (state) sector, where
there is clear local agreement.' This idea postulates two equally disturbing
alternatives; either faith schools should be established where a majority
favours them and uses their strength of numbers to crush objections from the
minority or faith schools should be established in ghettos where the population
is made up almost entirely of members of one faith. If the first then this is
an affront to the principles of a liberal democracy which allows majority rule
but balances it with protection for the minority. If the second then this
policy would further isolate a population from society at large, tearing the
nation apart at the seams.
If what I have said seems melodramatic then confront the
following set of alternatives. Either faith schools do have a 'distinctive
ethos and character', separating those that are taught that ethos from the rest
of society, or they do not in which case what is the purpose of faith schools.
They are at best the same as secular schools (like the one I attended) and at
worst a danger (like the Wahabbi academies pumping out antisemitism and
contempt for basic freedoms).
As to the idea that they produce better results- this is
largely because they have greater independence from government meddling and are
freed from some of the worst elements of bureaucracy that afflict their secular
alternatives. The solution is not religion it is greater autonomy for all
schools.
Finally faith schools benefit from the idea that they can
provide a sense of morality that is lacking in our modern, godless society:
drowning under a tide of booze, drugs, sex and sleaze. There is much to be
concerned about in the rise of moral relativism and the solutions to these ethical
questions can be found through religion- but only when it is a private affair.
Reasonable interpretations of religion only exist when it is separated from the
state. You may find Christians or Muslims saying in Britain that men won't be
condemned to hellfire because of who they want to go to bed with- but you won't
find them saying it in Iran or in Vatican City. Equally we cannot simply
dismiss religion and leave a gaping void in our society we must prove capable
of establishing what Machiavelli has called 'Virtu': a civic ethics that rely
on our common humanity, our shared and instinctive sense of right and wrong and
owes nothing to the desert based ramblings of our distant ancestors.
"We are moving towards a society where we are not citizens with equal rights for all regardless of colour, creed or gender but are instead members of a community, where it is the community that must be treated with equality not the individual."
Of course. What did we expect? This is called communalism, a development in politics that we were warned was about to take place. The real shame is that there is nothing we can do about it unless we accept the greater involvement of the state in our affairs, forcing us to ignore our natural and communal affiliations.
You then say that "The solution is not religion it is greater autonomy for all schools." I think you are missing the logical consequence of greater autonomy, which is more communalism. The only thing is that when we were largely of one community, the British cultural and political community, it did not matter. The real problem has risen since we invited foreign communities into our settle country in such vast numbers.
Also, your idea of the 'Virtu', civic ethics based on common humanity, is bogus. There has never been a sustainable civic identity based on wider humanity that has an instinctive sense of right and wrong separate from the "desert based ramblings of our distant ancestors." Civic ethics are always borne from the common inheritance of custom and tradition that we get from our ancestors. This identity is based on real and shared experience, not ephemeral ideology.
Greece
Whats the deal with this Tom Bumstead bloke?
He seems to of led a left wing insurrection on the CSC blog, this isn't what I come on here to read. Boo-urns.
Well written and I broadly agree. I fail to comprehend how the commenter directly above considers liberation from an overarching bureaucray in any way "left-wing." Surely we can leave labels asserted to denote the seating arrangements of the French legislature two centuries ago out of any arguments forthed. Institutions such as Jeff Peel's Conservative Humanist Association are evidence enough that a disdain for faith and an alignment to the semantic "centre-right" are not mutually exclusive ideas.