A right-royal carve-up

An appearance on Desert Island Discs is a sure sign that a personality has indeed arrived at the forefront of public perception. Earlier this year, a former pupil of the Northampton School for Boys, Matt Smith, made such an appearance on the programme. During the programme Matt Smith informed the listening audience that he turned to acting after realizing that, because of suffering a physical injury, a career in professional football was not personally attainable.
I am uncertain as to what kind of football player Matt Smith would have developed into – perhaps an imposing central defender. However, there is no doubt that he has become an actor of real stature, as evidenced by his role as a reincarnate Dr Who and a stately performance as Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, in the television series of The Crown.
My daughter attended the same school and was in the same year/class as Matt Smith. Both studied drama as Sixth Form students. They acted together in several school productions (the play Murder in the Cathedral comes to mind) and, whilst I would admit to some personal bias, my daughter suffered little by comparison. However, even as a sixth form secondary school student, Matt Smith was an exceptional teenage performer and he has gone on to be an excellent adult actor.
But what is the nature of the world he now lives in – away from the publicity that actors such as he attracts? To what extent does acting become a substitute for real life? What world do actors (male and female) actually inhabit? Is there the danger that the world in which they act the role of someone else starts to become their actual world? Do changes of character precede changes in personality?
Is the world of an actor similar to the world of a “royal” personage – a world of seeming make believe and virtual reality, despite the vain-glorious attempts by some royals to appear to make their lives relevant to the population at large. It is reported that the present line of young royals, the offspring of Charles Windsor and Diane Spencer, along with their partners, wish to make the British royals more modern, more “ordinary” and down to earth.
This is hard to believe after watching the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, awkwardly curtsey when being presented recently to Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge. Both were representing the UK at a World War 1 commemoration ceremony in France. They were on the same side! The practice of offering this form of obeisance to royalty is surely one of the first things that should be crossed-off the younger royals’ modernizing wish-list.
It is probably advisable, however, to suggest that one should refrain from holding one’s breath whilst waiting for this change to take place.
After all, not everyone, or even the majority, has the audacity of the former Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating, to not only not bow when being introduced to Elizabeth Windsor, but also had the temerity to place his hand on her majesty’s back when he introduced her to others in a line-up of the good and the great down-under.
What is this strange aspect of democracy that tolerates a continuing monarchy that strives to maintain its existence alongside extremes of finance, privilege and social position?
I am convinced that the royals, from Elizabeth Windsor down to the least of their kind, see themselves as having a legitimate, even necessary, place in modern society, despite the reality that, rather than being the so-called “jewels in the crown of British society”, they are in fact an anachronistic throw-back to a previous age of deference, privilege and class inequality.
Perhaps the British royals, for whatever reasons, are seen in the same light as are actors of stage, screen, or whatever – as celebrities to which many common people wish to aspire? If this is the case, then we are responsible for our own fantasy worlds which lead to our eventual demise and humiliation, as individuals and as a nation.
Surely we are required to abjure “false consciousness”, to leave behind the confined cloisters of the “school” (be it preparatory or the Sixth Form) and join the adult – the mature – world, a world in which persons are afforded decency and respect not because of their juvenile attainments, historical background, societal standing, or self-professed importance, but because of their humanity, humility and integrity.
Further, the abdication of the British “royal line” is a necessary step towards the realization of a genuine British democracy and all that goes with it – a reclaiming of the real world and a more mature understanding of what and how society should be?
Insofar as the plethora of movies and TV series assist in making the British (and wider) audience aware of the need for a deeper and more meaningful understanding and realization of this reclamation, then they may have a legitimate role, as a practical persuader – a self-mirror, in the viewing habits of the masses. They can be seen as one stimulus amongst many effecting this realization.
The school, especially those educational institutions of the State that are void of private self-importance, class and financial influence and affluence, is a stage – of preparation, learning, social adjustment and human integration – that can enable young people to separate the real from the virtual, the role and function of the many and from the few, and the value of the wealth of the nation from that of a privileged minority.
However, the purpose of this multi-media insight into the lives of the monarchical menagerie (seen most appositely in the recent television series The Windsors) may be rather more otherwise, even sinister, in its intent.
It may be that the barrage of historical movies, television series and popular literature serve the purpose of inuring the public through a process of constantly thrusting the royals into their faces. They serve to promote both the traditional roles and contemporary disguises of the royals in order to maintain their privileged and un-earned status in society – the continuation of the Windsor’s false consciousness.
In the process, the “royal family”, far from disparaging the multiplicity of programmes featuring their kind, no doubt find satisfaction, perhaps even mirth, in the fact that the combined talents of the British acting fraternity – from Matt Smith to Colin Firth, from Helen Mirren to Claire Foy – unwittingly or otherwise, aid and abet this right-royal carve-up.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

There is another way

Professor Stephen Haseler died in July, 2017 (see this blog’s tribute to him: The man defined his work, 18 August, 2017). Dr Haseler was a prolific author, writing on issues of law, politics and political parties, international relations, democracy, economics and inequality, powerful and wealthy elites, and, increasingly in his later years, the UK’s role in the European Community. A year on and he is still remembered and appreciated by many.
Prior to his death, Stephen Haseler was the Director of the Global Policy Institute at the London Metropolitan University. He was a social democrat and a republican. Professor Haseler’s literary output was impressive, as was the content of his lectures. The extent of his knowledge is clearly visible in the book under present review, Meltdown UK: There is Another Way (2010).
The contents of this book had their precedents in Stephen Haseler’s previous two publications, The Super-Rich (2001) and Meltdown (2008). In many ways, these two books were prescient warnings of what was to come. The central focus of the book under review, therefore, is the great financial crash of 2007-8, an event that had world-changing implications for the British nation – and others.
Professor Haseler tells the story of “how Britain’s leaders – from Thatcher to Blair – through arrogance and recklessness, turned Britain into an ‘island experiment’ for global finance and ‘market madness’. It all came crashing down in the great banking crisis (of 2007-08) – and we are now paying the price.” Stephen Haseler considers that the UK was the laboratory for the whole global neoliberal revolution.
Despite government action in 2008 following the Wall Street crash, emerging changes in the financial system – including bail-outs, part-nationalization, initial stimulus packages – though necessary at that time, have not worked. Banks remain largely unreformed and recovery is proving to be elusive, even to the extent that, at the time of the publication of the book (2010), the West stood on the brink of another, the ‘double-dip’, recession – a consequence of the fact that the 2008 measures did not break sufficiently with the thinking of the governing market consensus at the time.
Professor Haseler’s view, argued in the main body of the book, is that Britain’s contemporary economy is unbalanced, service-based, financialized and highly globalized. The UK is a low-tax-haven, servicing off-shore economies. Further, and precariously, Britain’s political and financial class is ill-prepared to deal with the new and oncoming crisis.
The argument of the book leads from the unbounded power of the City of London, through the route of free trade and global capital, to the attractions of these directions to the British political classes, especially the Conservative Margaret Thatcher and New Labour’s Tony Blair. As Professor Haseler views it, following the great financial crash of 2007-8, the British faced a crisis in jobs, disastrous financial debts, a broken British capitalism, and a ‘socially useless system’.
In a sobering conclusion to the book, “Can Britain make it? Little England in a dangerous world”, Stephen Haseler indicates that the end result of all of this is that “the UK would enter a self-defeating and self-lacerating downward spiral with higher and higher unemployment, threadbare welfare services, dashed expectations and low morale – possibly even social conflict”.
Generally speaking, Stephen Haseler’s predictions are quite accurate, even if a possible exception can be made for ‘higher and higher unemployment’. He suggests a bundle of remedies for the situation.
The British government should use public spending in order to eventually eradicate national debt, even if this presented a financial threat to British public life. The solution to this threat would be to re-engage, re-embrace, social democracy – rejecting the neo-liberal model of economic management – with the objectives of job priority, growth and the extension of wealth in the West. This will require a stronger state that grapples with inequality, as well as radical democratic reform and, as expected of a strongly pro-European, deeper European coordination.
It is also a reforming movement that will need to look at issues involving the continued existence of the British monarchy, the state financing of public (independent) schools, and the system of elections and methods of governance in the UK.
Indeed, Stephen Haseler was a convinced European and passionately believed that the UK leaving the European Union would be a huge mistake. Sadly, he did not live long enough to experience the current debate over Brexit – a debate he would have relished. It is my personal belief that Stephen Haseler was of the view that the UK would eventually hold another referendum on the Brexit question – a second referendum that would overturn the result of the first.
Furthermore, Professor Haseler was convinced that Wall Street and the City of London are no longer in the position where they can lecture on financial management. Both seem to be oblivious to the damage they have caused, and are still causing, to the world economy – the UK including. They should make way for a new course to be charted and followed.
A central contention of this book is that the UK’s economic crisis is the result of the obsession of Britain’s elites with a ‘global role’. Allied to market extremism this becomes a ‘pathology’. There are those within the institutions of the British establishment who still harbour imperialistic illusions. These illusions have not diminished during the thirty year period, under the successive leaderships of Thatcher, Major and Blair, a period of increasing British weakness and vulnerability.
This is a book that clears away the haze of those years. It is a book that shows there is, indeed, another away. It is a book that deserves to be read.



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

So much, to so few, for so little

The breaking news headline stated that, “A spokesperson for Kensington Palace says the christening of Prince Louis of Cambridge by the Archbishop of Canterbury will take place on Monday, July 9, at the Chapel Royal of St. James’s Palace in London”. The public might think that this is a quite straightforward news announcement. Yet, take a closer look at the text of the announcement.
A spokesperson for Kensington Palace says…” The announcement is by an anonymous spokesperson for a family that is expected to be known by its exclusive place of abode!
 “…the christening of Prince Louis of Cambridge…”  A religious ritual is to be performed on a ‘princely person’ who carries no political or citizenship rights for the city of Cambridge or its county, that person being the privileged offspring of a family that has self-inferred and inherited titles, property, wealth and religious significance!
 “…by the Archbishop of Canterbury…” The religious ritual is to be sanctified by the highest prelate of the Established (Christian) Church in the kingdom, an institution and a ritual that carries little significance for the majority of the constantly diminishing number of Christians in the UK and no significance for religious people of non-Christian persuasion! Moreover, it is the same archbishop who places the crown on the head of the monarch at a coronation ceremony – on behalf and with the assumed authority of the God of the Church of England and not with the formal consent of the people of the British nation state!!
“…will take place on Monday, July 9, at the Chapel Royal of St. James’s Palace in London”. Once again an exclusive place of abode, yet another palace, of the same family is mentioned in the despatch – this time focusing on a religious place of prayer given a royal name and significance. So too, the location of the City of London ensures that this whole (and one might say ‘holy’) announcement is situated most firmly in the centre of British privilege, power and possession.
So, well into the 21st century, the electronic media is doing the work of the ancient town crier, the royal scribes and scripts, in announcing to the world the affairs of the British monarchy. With this goes the assumption that the news will be listened to with the heightened expectation of a nationally important event and, perhaps most obviously and frighteningly, such a state of affairs will be accepted as the norm for and by the family in question.
The very means and method of this announcement are intended to be uncritically heard by the masses (after all, everyone loves to hear a celebrity ‘baby story’, don’t they?). So too, one of the unspoken assumptions behind such announcements is that the ‘masses’ are still regarded, by implication if not public pronouncement, as subjects of a monarch and not as citizens of a nation.
What is worrying about announcements of this kind, not to mention the increasing numbers and wide variety of media articles and programmes now being produced for public consumption, is the fact that little seems to be happening to counteract the royalist propaganda for which these announcements, articles and programmes effectively serve the purposes. Whether by design or opportunity, there is little by way of information, interviews, articles or actions that permit the counter-views to be presented.
Where is the republican voice? Where is the presentation of the non-Christian, or non-religious, perspective? Where is the challenge to a secretive and selective establishment? Where is the protest of ordinary people who continue to live under the subtle yolk of anachronistic cultural, religious, social and political perspectives and practices? Where is the realization that the continuing existence of a monarchy in the United Kingdom is part of the problem and not part of the answer?
What other nation on earth continues to parade its privileged class in the manner that is exercized by those who control and manipulate the strings of the British state? What other nations on earth, apart from those controlled by oil-rich, royalist dictatorships (most of which are usually void of the system of human rights we are meant by law to enjoy in the UK), permit their affairs of state to be carried out by unelected or unsanctioned officials? What other nation on earth gives so much, to so few, for so little?
It is hard to resist the notion that the manner of the recent announcement about the christening service for the latest member of the Windsor dynasty is just another example of how the controlling elite in the UK goes about its business.
The British monarchy is in dire need of democratization. This is also true of other aspects of the elite in British society. Examples of the foregoing would include the existence and functioning of the unelected House of Lords; the voting system for the House of Commons; the lack of a proper federally entrenched system of national, regional and local government; and the separation of Church and State.
The former Emeritus Professor and Director of the Global Policy Institute at London Metropolitan University, Stephen Haseler, seriously calls into question the existence and function of what he has called the ‘ancien regime’. This includes
(a)  the Monarchy;
(b)  the Established Church of England, of which the monarch is the head – along with being the head of the political state;
(c)  a secretive Privy Council – a formal body of advisers to the Sovereign of the United Kingdom (note: the reference is to the sovereignty of the monarch, not the sovereignty of the British people through Parliament!);
(d)  the Royal Prerogative – the undemocratic royal powers of the Crown within the executive process of British politics.
The foregoing are weighty matters and a reader might wonder at the link between them and an announcement of a christening service for the latest addition to the British ‘royal family’ – such as that with which this article commenced. A few moments of critical reflection, however, and the link may become less tenuous and more evident than at first thought.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

More myth-busting

The well-known English secular philosopher and educator, Professor A.C. Grayling, considers that religious education has a legitimate place in the curriculum of a state-sponsored education system. He further considers that religious education must not be taught with a sectarian, confessional or evangelistic approach, or in any way that favours one religious faith over another.
That being the case, faith schools of any kind have no place in Professor Grayling’s scenario for the teaching of religion. He suggests that the most appropriate way of including religious education in the secular curriculum of state schools is through its participation in a subject inclusive of “the history of ideas”. I would suggest that such an approach could be through the teaching of philosophy and ethics.
For that process to be realized, however, it requires the debunking of a number of myths that have grown-up around the idea of religious education and faith schools. In the previous article (121: Myth-Busting), I dealt with the first five of ten such myths. In what follows, I will debunk a further five myths associated with teaching religious education other than with an approach that firmly places the subject within a secular framework – such as that suggested in the above paragraph.
(As with the previous article, in what follows I acknowledge the use of material from the National Secular Society’s [NSS] No More Faith Schools campaign).
MYTH 6: “We are a Christian country, so therefore it is only right that we have Christian schools that teach our Christian values”.
It is hardly true to say that the UK in the 21st century is a “Christian country”. Meanwhile, many majority Christian countries don’t have state faith schools.
According to the 2017 British Social Attitudes Survey, only around 40% of people in the UK identify as Christian (that is not to say that, indeed, they are practising Christians, with all that this implies, for example, regular attendance at worship within a Christian church). In fact, over half of Britons have no religion whatsoever – including an astonishing 71% of people aged 18-24. Christians, and indeed people of any religion, are now a minority group in the UK.
Be that as it may, it is instructive to learn that many countries with much higher Christian populations, for example, the USA, don’t have state-funded faith schools. Moreover, on the basis of fairness and universal provision, it is hard to argue that the Christian religion should have state funded schools, but that Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jedi or Scientology, or any other sect, should not.
MYTH 7: “Children can just opt out of religious activities at faith schools”.
Opting children out and excluding them is not ideal, as well as being both actively and passively discouraged by many faith schools. It is far better to ensure all aspects of the school day are inclusive of all pupils. It should be noted that the children themselves do not have the right to opt out of collective worship before the age of 16.
Parents have the right to withdraw children from collective worship, but many parents regard this as an unreasonable imposition on both themselves and their children. And even though parents have withdrawal rights, this is often far more difficult to exercise than might be imagined. In fact, it is sometimes even difficult for children to opt out of religious activities in non-religious schools!
Within faith schools, the practical difficulties in exercising the right of withdrawal become insurmountable when worship encroaches into the classroom and religion permeates the whole school experience. The UK is the only Western democracy to legally impose worship in publicly funded schools. The law in England and Wales provides that children at all maintained schools “shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship”. Northern Ireland and Scotland have similar laws. Even in schools with no religious designation, the worship must be “wholly or mainly of a Christian character”.
MYTH 8: “Church schools are for everyone”.
Despite all of its talk of ‘inclusivity’ the Church of England appears increasingly keen to turn the schools it runs into places of worship. It fails to understand that there’s more to inclusivity than not having a discriminatory admissions policy.
Church schools are increasingly under pressure from the CofE to assert a robust Christian ethos – even in schools with a religiously diverse and largely religiously indifferent school community. Doing so is disrespectful to both pupils and parents. Many parents don’t want somebody else’s religion imposed on their children whilst at school.
In addition to Ofsted inspections, ‘church schools’ have religiousity inspections by their local dioceses to ensure that they are “distinctively and recognisably Christian institutions”. Pressure to receive a favourable diocesan inspection may well explain why we’re now seeing some church schools increasing their religiosity by worshipping at the beginning and end of each day and before and after lunch; introducing prayer corners in classrooms; having regular visits from priests, and even employing them as ‘school chaplains’.
This proselytism and evangelism in church schools undermines parental rights and children’s religious freedoms. It is presently quite usual that senior staff in church schools are practising Christians and that this is actually a job requirement for many head-teachers.
Many parents feel uncomfortable raising concerns about the way in which religion is being promoted in their child’s school, fearing their perfectly reasonable stance will be regarded as ‘anti-religious’ by the religious authorities running the school – and indeed they are often given a frosty and defensive response.
And as previously mentioned, many faith schools, including CofE schools, actively discriminate against those who are not of the faith.
MYTH 9: “Faith schools help to relieve the burden on the state system by funding our children’s education”.
The vast proportion of funding for faith schools of any description comes not from the religious body, but from the state. It comes from taxes – yours and mine!
In the case of Voluntary Aided schools, all of their running costs and 90% of their building costs are funded by their state. The remaining 10% of building costs are supposedly payed for by the religious body. This is typically met by fundraising among the parents, or by further government grants.
All other types of faith schools in England and Wales are funded 100% by the state.
MYTH 10: “We’re stuck with them”.
Not at all! A growing number of groups and individuals are campaigning for the end to faith schools. They believe the abolition of state-funded faith schools is not only an achievable goal, but an absolute must if the UK is to be a country where people of all backgrounds and all walks of life can coexist peacefully, and where individual liberty of belief and expression is respected.
Politicians often recognise the problems with faith schools, but feel that they and we are stuck with them or consistently overestimate their popularity. The National Secular Society’s campaign No More Faith Schools is designed to give a voice to the people of all faiths and none who oppose faith schools. Few other European nations fund faith schools, and where they do this is being questioned, e.g. in Sweden.
If we take action together, change is possible!
No More Faith Schools is a national campaign dedicated to bringing about an end to state funded faith schools. Faith schools have a negative impact on social cohesion, foster segregation of children on social, ethnic and religious lines, and undermine choice and equality. They also enable religious groups to use public money to evangelize children.
This campaign is a platform for everyone who wants to see an inclusive education system, free from religious control. If you think children from all faith and belief backgrounds should be educated together and allowed to develop their own beliefs independently, join the NSS in saying No More Faith Schools. Together we can build an inclusive education system today, to ensure an inclusive society tomorrow.
There are dangers if education and schools keep going down the road of creating more faith schools from different religions.
Are science and history subjects being taught in a less than honest manner with regards to such subject areas as, respectively, evolution or the establishment of the Anglican Church? It is also of major concern that some faiths and, therefore, faith schools, do not inculcate in their students the understanding and practice of such important contemporary issues as human rights, gender equality and equal opportunities for females in education, the home, the workplace and generally within society.
The young and vulnerable are being subjected to biased views that, if accepted, can only lead to isolation and a hostile view of others. This is particularly so when it comes to fundamentalist faith schools. Therefore, as with the National Secular Society’s campaign No More Faith Schools
(Sources related to the NSS Campaign No More Faith Schools, include: Populus; Opinium 2014; Opposition to Faith Schools 2013; You Gov; Westminster Faith Debates; Institute for Public Policy Research; Challenge, School Dash and the iCoCo Foundation; The Sutton Trust; Fair Admissions Campaign; Accord Coalition for Faith Admissions; The Belfast Telegraph; House of Commons Debates)


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


In my previous article (120: No More Faith Schools) I argued that, in a contemporary multi-cultural society, it is necessary to have a secular education system. There is no place for a state-supported system of faith schools. Such schools are discriminatory, divisive, controlling and a wrongful use of public money.
Religion has a definite role and function in public education, but not one based on a confessional and/or evangelical approach that cedes control of the system to religious institutions and sacerdotal influence.
Earlier this year the National Secular Society (NSS) launched its campaign called No More Faith Schools. The objective of this campaign is to petition for an inclusive education system – an education system that is free from religious discrimination and proselytization. The campaign recognizes that the influence of religious groups on state education urgently needs to be rolled back.
Part of the NSS campaign is to expose some of the myths surrounding faith schools and their operation in the UK.
In this article I wish to mention five of ten such myths and, as with all myths, religious or otherwise, to expose their lack of reality and basis in fact. In a subsequent article I will complete the list of ten myths with a further five
(In what follows, I acknowledge the use of material from the NSS’s campaign).
MYTH 1: “Faith schools give parents greater choice”. The reality is that faith schools actually restrict choice for many parents.
The proliferation of faith schools serves to restrict choice for parents who do not want a faith-based education for their children, or who do not share the religion of their local school. In some parts of the country, parents are left with little other option but to send their child to a school with a religious ethos.
Though religious organisations want more faith schools, most parents and the general public just want good local schools and acceptable academic standards – very few choose faith schools for their religious characteristic.
On the other hand, some families who may be desperate for their child to attend a religious school (usually Church of England), sometimes lie about their faith, attend church, or even have their child baptised into the faith of the school, in order to increase their chances of getting in. In this way, religious selection in faith schools unfairly limits parental choice.
Surveys have shown that the vast majority of voters, including those from every religion surveyed, disagree with religious selection in school admissions.
Therefore, a move towards an inclusive and secular education system would mean no child would be discriminated against on account of their parents’ religion or belief, and that all schools would be equally appropriate for parents of all faith backgrounds, or none.
MYTH 2: “Faith schools achieve better results”. The evidence does not support this contention.
There is nothing magical about a ‘faith ethos’ when it comes to academic success. Where church schools do achieve marginally better results it is usually down to faith-based selection – this also leads to social selection which unfairly benefits middle class and better-off parents.
Research published in 2016 by the Education Policy Institute found that after adjusting for “disadvantage, prior attainment and ethnicity,” pupils in primary schools with a faith ethos “seem to do little or no better than in non-faith schools”. Pupils in secondary schools with a faith ethos record only “small average gains” over non-faith schools or “just one-seventh of a grade higher” in GCSE results.
Various bodies have published research which shows that schools with a faith ethos, whilst showing minute academic gains, came with a risk “of increased social segregation”, “admit fewer pupils from poor backgrounds than the average non faith school”, and operate extremely convoluted admissions procedures that enable them “to select their pupils from more affluent backgrounds than non-faith schools.”
One body of research found that the influence of religion on education may even be detrimental to some results, that is, “excess time spent on religion in schools harmed progression in other subjects – including maths and science”.
MYTH 3: “Faith schools are better at teaching children morals”. Against this bland assumption it needs to be emphatically asserted that the teaching of basic morals is not solely the domain of faith schools.
All schools teach children such basic values as honesty; integrity; compassion; tolerance and many others. There is no evidence that faith schools do it better. All maintained schools in the UK have to promote basic human values in education (the spiritual, moral, social and cultural values and development of all pupils).
So too, all schools must actively promote the values of “democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs”. Such values are often mistaken as “Christian values”. This is a mistaken notion, as is the fact that “non-Christian” values – therefore persons – are inferior. Church school inspections are often guilty of promoting this dichotomy.
Education about ethics and morality in schools should be based around the universal principles of reason, empathy and the concept of fundamental human rights, rather than forced through the lenses of religious teachings.
MYTH 4: “Faith schools are necessary to protect parents’ religious freedom”. The state has a duty to provide schools and to respect parents’ religious freedom, but the case law is clear that this doesn’t create a duty for the state to provide faith schools.
Religious institutions cater for the variety of family religions. Schools cater for education, not sectarianism. All state schools should be open, inclusive and equally welcoming to all children whatever their religion and belief backgrounds. This is not to be anti-religious. Parents may wish for but do not have a right for the state to raise their child according to religious tradition – nor to cover the cost of doing so.
Religion and belief communities exist to promote their worldviews, schools don’t. Faith schools undermine many parents’ ability to raise their children in accordance with their religion/belief.
It’s also a mistake to assume that religious people necessarily want faith schools. Many people of faith are opposed to religious discrimination. They don’t see faith inculcation as the state’s role, or have other reasons for supporting inclusive schools.
People live out their religion or belief without the need for faith-hospitals, faith job-centres, faith-transport systems or other faith based/divided public services. Why faith schools? An inclusive school would be secular, that is, it would neither be specifically religious or atheist; it would fulfil the educational requirements of all children as individuals.
A secular education system is perfectly consistent with protecting individuals’ religious freedom.
MYTH 5: “Faith schools don’t do any harm – why not let them just be?” On the contrary, faith schools build division into society and undermine religious freedoms. The harms vary depending on how aggressively they push their religious ethos.
Research has shown that faith schools have a negative impact on social cohesion, foster the segregation of children on social, ethnic and religious lines, and are antithetical to freedom and equality.
Organising children and young people’s education around religious identities is the worst possible response to Britain’s growing religious diversity. Schools are our golden opportunity to foster understanding and tolerance amongst tomorrow’s generation. It is utterly misguided to squander this opportunity by continuing to fund and promote faith-based education.
Of course there is a range of faith schools and some are more harmful than others, especially those that push their religious ethos very aggressively, sinisterly seeking to shield children from secular knowledge and actively turning pupils against the society in which they will grow up.
Faith schools propagating the idea that religious identity/inculcation is a valid purpose of education, including the traditional CofE faith schools that are seen as more of a ‘light touch’, actually promote and validate intolerant attitudes elsewhere in society.
Legitimizing the idea of organising state education around religious identity/inculcation, opens the doors for the worst aspects of faith schools and are directly responsible for creating a ghettoised education system.
Myths 6-10: to be continued…
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

No more faith schools

Earlier this week I wrote to my Member of Parliament. The purpose for doing was to draw his attention to the National Secular Society’s No More Faith Schools campaign. (In what follows I acknowledge some use of the said campaign’s material).
As a member of the National Secular Society (NSS), I support the separation of religion and state, as well as equal respect for everyone’s human rights, so that no one is either advantaged or disadvantaged because of their beliefs. In recent years I have become more concerned that faith schools are fuelling segregation, discrimination and inequality, both in my local area but also nationwide.
So, in writing to my MP, I wanted to urge him to raise the issue of state-funded faith schools and to support an inclusive and religiously-neutral approach to education, in which children of all faiths and none are equally welcome in all schools and are able to develop their own beliefs.
Successive national surveys have shown conclusively that the UK is becoming increasingly irreligious, particularly with respect to formal religion and especially amongst the younger generation.
At the same time, the diversity within religions in the UK is growing. We need schools that reflect this and are equally welcoming to pupils from all faith backgrounds and none; an education system and schools that do not teach religion from one exclusive viewpoint.
Faith schools fail to do this.
Too often faith schools separate children according to the religion of their families, resulting in religious segregation and, very often, ethnic segregation. This does not adequately prepare children for adult life in a pluralist and multi-cultural UK.
Faith schools also teach their particular religious persuasion in a “confessional” manner, which not only implies that their religion is more “correct” than other worldviews, but also means children are given limited opportunity to form their own opinions or to adequately engage in dialogue across the various religious faiths.
This is a pathway to bigotry and prejudice.
It is unfair that many faith schools are allowed to prioritize children from a particular faith. We all pay for state faith schools regardless of our beliefs – religious or otherwise. I firmly believe that such schools should not then be given the right to discriminate against children on the basis of religion.
A further and significant consideration is the fact that, as faith schools are funded by public money, the British public should have some control over these schools and what religious philosophy and ethics they teach.
National polling consistently indicates that voters are opposed to faith schools. Parents want to send their children to schools that offer a high standard of education. The vast majority of parents don’t consider religion to be an important factor when making this choice. This situation is understandable, but indicates a misunderstanding of the value of religious studies in the educational spectrum.
I want to see the UK work towards making our state education system more inclusive and fair for families of all religions and none. The state has a duty to provide high quality, inclusive education for all children.
The foregoing is, in essence, what I wished to draw to the attention of my MP – urging him and the government he represents to take action to encourage the growth of inclusive schools with no religious ethos. The ultimate aim is to phase out faith schools. That is why the NSS has recently launched a national campaign dedicated to bringing an end to state-funded faith schools.
No More Faith Schools will urge the creation of an inclusive education system free from religious proselytization and discrimination.
The campaign is timely for faith schools account for around a third of publicly-funded schools in England and Wales, while many Scottish and Northern Irish schools are divided along sectarian lines.
No more indoctrination; no more segregation; no more discrimination. No more faith schools!
Of course, the above is not an argument for not teaching the subject of religion in a state system of secular education. On the contrary, as a former teacher of Religious Studies (Religious Philosophy and Ethics) in the state secondary sector, I am of the view that there is a strong argument for teaching religion in state-funded schools.
The question is how? With what specific pedagogical approaches and methods is the subject to be taught? Are we to move religious studies into a subject syllabus which the philosopher and educator A.C. Grayling has called the “history of ideas”?
But these are questions for another article!
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In which camp?

The religious festival of Easter is concluding. For the Jewish faith it is the remembrance of Passover; for Christians the remembrance of the death and resurrection of Jesus. The Easter event is often accompanied by celebrity people, of all faiths or none, conveying their Easter greetings to the multitudes, irrespective of whether the ears of the people are eager or otherwise to hear what is being delivered.
Charles Windsor, the so-called Prince of Wales, was no exception. Mr Windsor dedicated his 2018 Easter greeting to persons worldwide who have suffered religious persecution, that is, persons who have undergone suffering of any kind as a consequence of their faith. Charles Windsor was non-specific about which faiths he had in mind, but there is little doubt that his mind would likely have had a Jewish and Christian focus.
Now, Charles Windsor was also non-specific about the nature and form of this persecution. Notwithstanding, as seems typical of this character, he appeared publicly in a nationally televised photo-shoot with both leaders of the various Christian faith denominations and non-Christian faiths. Such appearances and the accompanying sentiments no doubt seek to justify his royal function.
Noticeably absent from the faith leaders’ line-up was a female representative of any of the gathered faiths. this being the case, it might have been appropriate that it was Charles Windsor, rather than Elizabeth Windsor, who gave the Easter greeting to the religious leaders…..a matter of gender protocol?
So too, there was nothing of the Maundy Thursday “foot-washing of the poor” ceremony that sometimes and in some places accompanies this occasion – as with the example of the Roman Catholic Pope. Nothing particularly new there, then, especially in view of Mr Windsor’s personal life-style! However, he was – as is usual with this celebrity – all smiles, handshakes and sleeve-tugging, with the occasional and characteristic brief moment of conversation, as the opportunity afforded.
Who would know what the snippets of conversation were all about – perhaps he was actually being informed for the first time about the form and severity of the persecution being experienced by the adherents of a particular leader’s religious faith. He gives every appearance that he actually cares what the faith leaders have to say about the possible persecution of any persons belonging to the religious movements that they represent.
To a large extent, however, the substance of that concern remains a matter of conjecture, as does the genuineness of the various world religions to the nature and extent of the persecution faced by each of them. The conflict in and between the different major worldwide religions is in itself a cause of the persecution each experiences!
What Charles Windsor seemingly fails to realize is that, from the perspective of history, his status and office stands closer to the camp of the persecutors than it does to the persecuted. He is the heir to a royal heritage that may one day give him not only the title of King of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth, but will also enthrone (an interesting word) him as the Head of the Church of England and place him at the pinnacle of the worldwide Anglican Church.
These titles will be his by reason of a monarchical line that has historical and constitutional sanctions. The actual formation of the Church of England took place in consequence of a despotic late-medieval English king’s desire, for entirely self-centred reasons, to break with the Roman Catholic Church and establish a dual hegemony over the English state and church. The rest is, as they say, history.
Apart from the dubious historicity of the sanctions Charles Windsor will inherit when he becomes the reigning British monarch and the Head of the Church of England, the only people, give or take a select handful of politicians, who will have any role or function in the official conferring of this office/inheritance will be those attached to official and hierarchical positions in the Church of England. So much, then, for the United Kingdom as a genuine and practising multi-faith nation!
All things being equal, therefore, as the king-in-waiting and the next Head of the Church of England and worldwide Anglican churches, Charles Windsor stands to inherit, as of right, the highest office of the established church in the supposedly democratic nation of the United Kingdom. This is the British establishment in its most public and privileged manifestation.
Institutional religion, of course, has never been something that has epitomized the democratic ideal. In itself, the fact that the United Kingdom has an established Church of England, means that all other Christian denominations, as well as other religious faiths, suffer by comparison and in practice – in terms of reputation, political patronage and position, financial provision, property acquisition and ownership, as well as any other advantages accruing to a religious title which carries national political and constitutional importance.
Of course, the position occupied by the Head of the Church of England carries with it certain demands of the person who occupies or aspires to the position. These demands are religious, moral, philosophical and, of course, constitutional. These demands suggest the necessary proclivities of any candidate for the office.
With this perspective, it is of some importance to note that it was not that long ago when a former Attorney General of the present Conservative Government considered that Charles Windsor was not a suitable candidate to be the Head of State for the British nation and, therefore, not suitable to be the Head of the Church of England, never mind the worldwide Anglican communion.
It is quite apparent that, based on moral as well as theological grounds, many of the constituent churches of global Anglicanism have a much higher regard for the nature and character of the office than does their British counterpart. A search of the British Constitution, as well as the statutes and rules of the Church of England, would probably verify such an opinion.
History has shown, however, that any establishment – be it legal, military, sporting, business or religious – has a way of overcoming obstacles, no matter how severe these hindrances may be. In recent times it has been noticeable that those duties which Elizabeth Windsor, as the Head of the British State and by extension the Church of England, has been unable, or unwilling, to fulfil, have been performed in the main by her grandsons, William and Harry, rather than her son and heir, Charles Windsor. This may, or may not be, significant.
This was not the case, however, when it came to the serious matter of royal Easter greetings and the photo-shoot with the national religious leaders. This was a duty that required to be fulfilled by someone who possessed present or future stature as a representative of British institutional religion. As the likely next-to-be Head of the Church of England, Charles Windsor was such a person.
Interestingly, it was a task to be performed not by the actual and functioning religious leader of the Church, that is, the Archbishop of Canterbury, but by the titular Head of the Church of England – in this case the Prince of Wales acting in the place and on behalf of Queen Elizabeth. Is the enthronement process already in motion – psychologically if not practically?
The reigning British monarch is the Head of the Church of England in title only, that is he or she is the holder of an office without any of the correspondingly specific functions or obligations. That person has been described somewhere as a “titular saint”! There is some argument that this could apply to Elizabeth Windsor, but Charles Windsor…?
Easter is recognisably a season when the traditional Easter greetings are conveyed by accepted celebrities to the masses – or by national leaders to selected and significant others. This practice is generally considered to be appropriate, especially when it is seen to be an ongoing and relatively harmless aspect of the function of royal personages.
After all, much is made of the monarch dutifully attending the appropriate Easter church service (always in a state church, never in a Roman Catholic or a non-state Protestant church, and certainly never in one of the expanding number of non-denominational churches in the UK) – another photo-shoot opportunity, perhaps, to underline the fact that the monarch takes with utmost seriousness her role as the head of the established Christian church in the land.
In offering his commiserations for the present suffering and best wishes for future resolutions and reconciliations to the gathered British leaders of national and international faith movements, Charles Windsor was carrying out a royal function. How personally meaningful it was, never mind a faithful part of his sacred duty, is something we may never know.
Whether or not Charles Windsor thinks that his greetings will make any difference to the situation of religious persecution worldwide is a moot point. Better minds and more extensive physical and spiritual efforts than his have tried and failed.
Whatever else it may be, religious persecution is not simply a consequence of what a person believes. It has just as much to do with social class and caste, lack of personal and political power, national and regional identity, as well as the pervasive and persuasive influence of ideology and myth.
The above being the case, Charles Windsor and, probably, those faith leaders to whom he conveyed his Easter greetings, rather than being with the persecuted may well be closer to the camp of the persecutors than they themselves realize.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment