Skip to main content

Guardian Unlimited
Sign in | Register 
Go to:  
Guardian UnlimitedColumnists
Home UK Business Audio World dispatch The Wrap Newsblog Talk Search
The Guardian World News guide Arts Special reports Columnists Technology Help Quiz

Polly Toynbee

 Archive

  Tools
Text-only version >
Send it to a friend
Save story >


  Search this site

 Recent articles


14 Apr 2006 
Polly Toynbee: This is a clash of civilisations - between reason and superstition

11 Apr 2006 
Polly Toynbee: The Blairite provisional wing are destructive wreckers

7 Apr 2006 
Polly Toynbee: Our children deserve the best, so we must be prepared to pay up

4 Apr 2006 
Polly Toynbee: How long can Labour wait?

31 Mar 2006 
Polly Toynbee: The next year is crucial if we are to make poverty history at home

28 Mar 2006 
Polly Toynbee: A perfect storm may make the NHS a lightning rod

24 Mar 2006 
Polly Toynbee: After Brown's masterstroke, wait for Blair's next Tiggerish moment

21 Mar 2006 
Polly Toynbee: Blair's party is crying out for Gordon the Viking

17 Mar 2006 
Polly Toynbee: Time for Blair to signal his departure

14 Mar 2006 
Polly Toynbee: Concessions on education won't calm Labour MPs' anger



Comment

This is a clash of civilisations - between reason and superstition

Religious schools are indoctrinating and divisive. The people don't want them. So why are MPs backing them?

Polly Toynbee
Friday April 14, 2006
The Guardian


The DJ wasn't joking when he burbled: "Happy Good Friday!" His audience probably didn't wince, since a recent poll showed that 43% of the population have no idea what Easter celebrates, with the young most clueless. Eggs, bunnies, lambs?

Even an old atheist like me sees no good in this ignorance of basic Christian myths. How do you make any sense of history, art or literature without knowing the stories and iconography of your own culture and all the world's main religions? Total ignorance of religion and its history could make people more susceptible to the next passing charlatan offering Kwik Save salvation from whatever it is people want to be saved from.

But how odd that in this heathen nation of empty pews, where churches' bare, ruined choirs are converted into luxury loft living, a Labour government - yes, a Labour government - is deliberately creating a huge expansion of faith schools. There is all the difference in the world between teaching children about religion and handing them over to be taught by the religious. Just when faith turns hot and dangerous, threatening life and limb again, the government responds by encouraging more of it and more religious segregation. If ever there was a time to set out the unequivocal value of a secular state, it must be now.

On Easter Day the National Union of Teachers votes on the same motion debated by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers to end the growth of religious state schools and ban the teaching of "intelligent design" as a valid alternative to evolution. How craftily the creationists have hijacked the word "intelligent" for something so dumb. The teachers are right to join the battle just as the Royal Society gathers up the might of its scientific authority this week to oppose the teaching of creationism: it was the wonderful Steve Jones who said it is like teaching genetics as a theory only as valid as the theory that storks deliver babies.

This is indeed a clash of civilisations, not between Islam and Christendom but between reason and superstition. The wake-up call came with a BBC/Mori poll showing that, even in this least churchgoing nation, science is on the run: 48% believe in evolution, against 39% who believe in creationism/"intelligent design". If even scientists aren't believed then here is fertile territory for any mad and dangerous theories to take hold.

But instead of standing up for reason, our government is handing education over to the world of faith. It's the same government that went to war in Iraq to install the likes of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani into positions of great power. The man George Bush and Tony Blair see as the best hope for promoting stability and "freedom" in Iraq has just issued a fatwa calling for the killing of all sodomites and lesbians. See www.sistani.org: "Q. What is the judgment for sodomy and lesbianism? A. Forbidden. Punished. The people involved should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing." The exiled Iraqi gay campaigner Ali Hili reports that these orders are now being obeyed, with an upsurge in beatings and slaughter of gays in Iraq by religious cadres who have declared all unmarried men over 35 "under surveillance".

The Pope may not call for murder, but the Vatican is directly responsible for millions of Aids deaths by refusing to sanction condoms even in parts of Africa where half the population is infected with HIV, putting out deliberate lies that condoms are useless against the virus anyway. Yet here is the Labour government encouraging religions to take over as many schools as they can, promoting the humbug that values and morality only come with the "ethos" of faith.

Remember this: over a third of all state schools are now run by religions. Most are Christian, with some Jewish, Sikh and of other faiths. Under Labour the Church of England is rolling out 100 new secondary schools; half are open already. In Labour's flagship academy programme, 42 of the first 100 belong to Christian sponsors - at least five of them to evangelical creationists. Since Labour came to power six new Muslim state schools have been created; there are another 150 in the pipeline, according to the National Secular Society.

The chief inspector of schools, David Bell, says Islamic schools pose a challenge to social cohesion. "Traditional Islamic education does not entirely fit pupils for their lives as Muslims in modern Britain." The Muslim Parliament itself has just expressed anxiety about sexual abuse and violence in the 700 unregulated madrasas where 100,000 Muslim children go after school. Catholic revelations are a reminder that all religions are at the same risk of abusing women and children wherever there is a secretive spiritual and cultural power over their lives.

Now the teachers' unions fear the faiths will make a grab for many more schools when the education bill puts them all up for potential takeover. Trust status will give sponsors power not just to run the governing body, but to devise their own curriculum. (So forget sex education). Every school that vanishes into the hands of the religions is gone for ever, exceedingly hard for a future government to get back. How can a Labour government be doing this?

It's because religious schools are so popular, the government says, and indeed they are. There may be few bums on seats in pews, but there are queues for the schools whose special "ethos" is called closet selection. God doesn't move in such very mysterious ways: research by the Institute for Research in Integrated Strategies is only the latest to find that C of E and Catholic schools take a lower proportion of free-school-meal children than the average for their catchment area. It means nearby schools have to take more, magnifying the imbalance as an unfair proportion of troubled children congregate in bog-standard schools without the magic "ethos".

Understandably, parents dash for schools where the better-off congregate, but few value religious schools for their own sake. In Northern Ireland, where most schools are breeding grounds for religious sectarianism, the few nondenominational schools are hugely oversubscribed - but sectarian politicians prevent more opening for fear of losing their tribes. The Young Foundation's study The New East End warns that in Tower Hamlets white parents fleeing Bangladeshis have taken over four church secondary schools in which Bangladeshis make up only 3% of the pupils, while they form 90% of pupils in the next-door secular schools. Religion usually means class, race or tribe segregation.

Ask most Labour MPs and they abhor the devious abuse of religious schools and the segregation they cause. It's not "choice", since most parents would never choose faith schools if they were not the flag for assembling the better pupils locally. Baroness Morgan, until last year a close Blair ally as No 10's director of government relations, spoke out boldly against religious schools in the Lords. (Note how everyone leaving No 10 suddenly speaks their mind - and it is rarely the mind of their leader.) ICM polling shows that 64% of voters think "the government should not be funding faith schools of any kind" - a surprisingly strong position. So what on earth is a Labour government up to - and why don't Labour MPs refuse to let this happen?

polly.toynbee@guardian.co.uk

Comments


Thank you so much for a clear commentary on the pernicious rise of faith based schools. Growing up, I was unlucky enough to attend Catholic schools and I'm still in recovery from the guilt and misinformation.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


At last somebody brave enough to speak out against faith schools in the media. I am surprised that from most quarters there has been a deafening silence against this dangerous bit of legislation. More poppycock from this totally discredited government.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


I must be missing something. “Most” people don’t want faith schools, but at the same time these schools are gaining in popularity. In my view, if faith schools are so popular, why not give people more of them? And if more are set up, increasing numbers of children from less well-off families will gain access. Polly Toynbee’s argument boils down to this: if I don’t approve of faith schools, neither should anyone else.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Education/schooling has nothing to do with religious belief. I am not a catholic but was sent to a catholic convent because it was the snob school in the town. I was expected to learn the cathecism until my parents intervened. Ever since I have hated Sundays because there was Sunday School to attend and I was made to wear a ridiculous 'beanie' hat. To this day and I am now nearly 71, I have those hats and find Sundays difficult to live through because that day of the week is and always has been connected to religion. Schools need to concentrate on business acumen and languages and leave religion to individuals. No children should have it pushed down their throats. As for schools of differing religions? wars are waged because of religious differences and bringing them into schools can only conjure up hatred and intense dislike such as children ought not to have to deal with in their young lives.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Ms. Toynbee is entitled to her opinions, but I'm not so sure she's entitled to tell parents how they should raise their children. Religious schools are popular simply because they provide the best education, the teachers are outstanding, the parents supportive and the children well-behaved. Fix that problem in the state schools and parents would switch to them in a heartbeat, but then Ms. Toynbee probably hasn't had the problem of taking her children to the local comp supporting a sink estate. As ever the Stalinist comes out in Ms. Toynbee, "I don't like them so they should be banned." Two more points, one on Ms. Toynbee's mendacity, the second on how she may have benefited from a religious education. Catholic schools, to my certain knowledge are not selective. All my children, except one, attended Catholic schools and the only qualification for a place was that the parents must be practising Catholics. So let's put that to bed. The one who didn't went to a local grammar school. Reach for the smelling salts Ms. Toynbee. The second point is about scientific ignorance. Scientists do indeed agree, or most of them do, on evolution, and I doubt if even the Pope takes the Genesis of the Old Testament seriously, although I think George Bush Jr. may. Having said that all scientists agree (or most of them anyway) that the Universe came into existence round 15 billion years ago when a piece of matter smaller than the smallest atom exploded. It's known as the Big Bang Theory. Nobody has an explanation as to why this occurred, so if Joe Public wants to believe that it occurred because of divine intervention and Ms. Toynbee, who apparently hasn't heard of it, says it didn't, but has no explanation, then by the laws of logic Joe's argument is as valid as Polly's. And by extension Polly depriving Joe's children of the education he wants to give them is oppression.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


You are missing something, Jonik. If you read the article carefully, you'll see that the point is that most parents don't want religious schools, but they do want selective schools if they feel their children will do better there. Since religious schools are selective, the better-off reluctantly send their children to them.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


This is the area of the current government's policy that I least agree with. Even ID cards have nothing on this. I'm proud to come from the most secular nation on earth, and often reflect on how lucky we are that religion doesn't impact on our lives in anything like the way it seems to in much of the US (unless we wish it to). It's painful to see any regression of this state of affairs, doubly painful as it's happening under a Labour government. I don't see a single positive that could come from this. Perhaps the government hopes that kids are going to discover god(s), stop wearing hoodies and start respecting each other and their elders. But will they have the same respect for the children at the school of a different faith down the road, or for the heathens at the local state school? Very worrying and a blindingly obvious backward step.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


I went to a Roman Catholic school for 5 years and was admitted as a practicsing c of e pupil. I was the most spiritual (for want of a better word) child in my class and the most educated on religion (and ALL religions, not just christianity) and this is only because of my parents actively sought to give me a broad education on different religions. However, the three hours of RE lessons every week that focused on the sinfulness of women and the merits of abstinance and fidelity have put me off religious schools for life. They breed racisim as in my experience they don't bother teaching about any other religion apart from their own and ignorance begets intolerance. And the lack of sex education just sends young adults out into the world vulnerable and ill prepared for life. Down with ALL faith schools, if they only built more comps so that there were smaller class sizes there wouldnt be this problem.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


I think you may be missing the point Spike. Ms. Toynbee's "proof" that religious schools are selective was that the C of E and Catholic schools surveyed had less children taking free school dinners than the average. The only conclusion to be drawn about "selection" from this statistic is that C of E and Catholic schools don't take the children of the poor. Unless Ms. Toynbee is subconsciously telling us she thinks the children of the poor are unintelligent this means that the intake of children is not selective in the accepted meaning of the word.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Polly Toynbee is precisely right in all she says about the pernicious effect of faith schools. The evidence is there for all but the most indoctrinated to see. What this latest government lunacy exemplifies is the complete breakdown in democracy within Labour policy making. How can such ideas with such a minority of support within the Labour movement and among Labour MPs be on the point of reaching the statue book? Ms Toynbee asks the pertinent question about the role of Labour MPs in this process. Can any of them answer her question? How can Labour Party members hold them to account?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


GerryM, it's not a question of poorer children being less intelligent but of middle class parents having more time and inclination to take an inmterest in their childrens' education than lower income parents, as well as being more concerned with final grades. I know I'm generalising a bit, but it is true that schools in which middle class children dominate do tend to manage beter grades than schools with a more economically mixed student population. No school would be able to get away with an overt "middle class only" policy, but it can be done covertly by saying "this is a C of E school".

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Polly isn't denying the right of parents to bring their children up as they please. She is arguing that state schools should not be recruited for this. A very long time ago the chartists campaigned for schools to be secular places of learning with provision made for time off during the week for religious instruction by local clerics should the parents wish it. Atheist parents could presumably opt for studies like comparative religion and philosophy. I think its still a good idea. Many people I know choose religious schools and attend church to obtain a place for their children. I know they are not believers. They do so because the local (secular) school has a bad reoutation. I am sure that in the majority of cases it is the poor quality of some local comprehensives that causes the 'popularity' of religious schools, not a demand for a 'religious ethos'.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Catholic schools tend to have very large catchment areas. The school I attended had a much wider societal spectrum and was consequently more genuinely "Comprehensive" than the house-price-driven postcode lottery at the other local (secular) state schools.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Replying to SpikeParis: but nowhere does Polly Toynbee give any evidence that parents don’t want faith schools. That’s simply her personal opinion. The only “fact” given in that regard is that 60% of voters think the government should not be funding the schools. Some of those voters may be parents (we don’t know how many); some may also want to see the schools funded from other sources than the government.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


How much of this is simply attributable to our beloved elected dictator and his wife being devout Christians?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


I recited the Lord's prayer everyday for more than 12 years of my education in a Catholic school- and came home to my rigorous Hindu family practices. I'm fairly neutral to religion these days, but learnt in detail what Good Friday meant!! Even if we were celebrating like today, Tamil New Year's day. And my parents sent me there for precisely the same reason parents send their children now- for a decent education. The problem with secular comprehensive education is that in the name of embracing universal tolerance, it engenders a certain lack of focus in day to day school practices, and as a result discipline suffers. And that to me is quite necessary in the formative years- teaching children simple values like respect for teachers, and polite language.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Doesn't anyone think it's strange that though there are people for faith schools and against them, all of the arguments in favour are being made on the basis that 'their grades really are better', 'the pupils are better behaved' and so on, or on a freedom of choice basis, and NONE of them are being made on the basis that an explicitly religious education is in any way desirable, or that it provides skills not offered by state alternatives, or that it is necessary to inculcate young people with morals? (Incidentally, I went through a state education in a secular household and don't seem to have come out as Gordon Gekko, Patrick Bateman or Saddam Hussein...) To my mind, all of the justifications except those based on parents' freedom to choose the manner in which their children are educated only serve to highlight Ms. Toynbee's argument. One poster here defended faith schools by noting that if comps all had high teaching standards, good grades and well-behaved pupils, parents would come back to them in droves. In other words, then, they don't actually care about the 'faith' part of the school at all, except where it's a means to other ends. Focusing on the performance of these schools in terms of grades is to ignore the dangers inherent in other aspects of their teaching, which could end up being just as explosive as the dreaded spectre of low educational standards in state schools.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


The punters are obviously biting, and if, as ms Toynbee says, we don't want faith schools, we must want comprehensive schools even less. Having been to one, I'd suggest that's because the appalling levels of indiscipline make actually acquiring an education in one 'challenging' whereas even if faith schools do waste a bit of time plugging trash like ID, they do 'hold the ring' effectively, allowing at least some time to be devoted to eductation.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


It seems that as usual there is a personal experience divide at work in discussing this issue, as well as an element of religious intolerance. I was educated in a Catholic school from the age of 5 through to 18. In that time (the 60's & 70's) the religious aspect was confined to the reading of the Bible and attending mass once a week in school. Not very adventurous, and not very pernicious either. My own kids attend a catholic school, but now they are educated on ALL religions with significant time given over to finding the COMMONALITY between the different faiths, and not the differences. Not an unreasonable thing to do in this day and age. Their attendance at the school is based on two main factors - are they practicing Catholics, and do they live in the catchment area. As the standard of education is high, and the teachers dedicated (perhaps more do than in a non-faith school - I can not judge except through personal experience) and the involvement of parents, not only encouraged, but actively supported by the school, many others want to get their children into the school. No surprise there then. So what great crime do these schools practice? Yes they focus on the Catholic faith, that's what the parent want. I always thought that Polly was a supporter of parental choice - obviously not if it is something she doesn't believe in. When faith schools start to 'indoctrinate' children to usurp the state, then I can see a clear case for some form of intervention, otherwise - it's MY choice, stay out.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


"If even scientists aren't believed then here is fertile territory for any mad and dangerous theories to take hold." Quite. As economists are scientists when are you going to take note of what they say Polly? Like the fact that minimum wage laws do not raise the incomes of the working poor? "The Pope may not call for murder, but the Vatican is directly responsible for millions of Aids deaths by refusing to sanction condoms even in parts of Africa where half the population is infected with HIV," It doesn’t matter how often you repeat this lie Polly, it simply isn’t true. The first time I saw you say this I went off and looked at the science. Catholics and catholic areas in Africa do not have higher HIV infection rates than other Christian faiths which do permit their use. Indeed, Islam, which also prohibits condom usage, seems to produce a lower HIV infection rates than those Christian sects which allow their use. Full results here: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=042105D If you’re going to laud science, insist on it being taken into account, please be consistent. "It's because religious schools are so popular, the government says, and indeed they are. There may be few bums on seats in pews, but there are queues for the schools whose special "ethos" is called closet selection." So parents want selection. Why not let them have it? By your own very argument parents are doing something that you consider extremely dangerous, putting their children into religious schools so as to get that selection they want. Wouldn’t it be less damaging to simply allow selection in all schools? As you can see, parents will bend whatever rules and bans you put in place to stop such selection. Of these three the one I’d be most interested in seeing a response to is the one about condom usage. Do you actually have any scientific evidence (something you seem to be keen on) at all for your assertion? I’ll take silence as a no shall I?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


"GerryM, it's not a question of poorer children being less intelligent but of middle class parents having more time and inclination to take an inmterest in their childrens' education than lower income parents, as well as being more concerned with final grades. I know I'm generalising a bit," I think you are quite correct. It is my experience the children of teachers, lecturers, doctors, scientists, solicitors, and other professional-class people, read well because they read at home where reading is the norm and encouraged by example not instruction. In families where the parents don't read, or don't read frequently and in front of their children, the children tend not to read but engage other activities. It is not difficult to realise this causes the subsequent educational differences. On the topic of them, faith schools are a diabolical leftover from a superstitious past, they should be razed. Then again, the only good schools in the British educational system are (1) fee schools (2) grammar schools (3) faith schools (4) "bog" standard, where the "bog" doesn't mean "peat bog" but the vulgar term for "toilet". And with grammar schools closed (in order to broaden the gap between the "haves" and the "chavs"), closing faith schools can only help help the rich. So, the best advice I can give you is: be rich. (Better yet, "very rich", if you can afford it).

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


These faith schools are a form of segregation and are so devisive at a time when more integration is needed. Secular schools where faith is taught as a general subject, including Humanism etc, would mean generations growing up with a healthy respect for each other. What on earth is the Labour government doing to our education system?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


nimm2003 - when you wrote " I always thought that Polly was a supporter of parental choice", where on earth did you get that idea from? You were much close with "obviously not if it is something she doesn't believe in". Polly (bless her) ought to have a preservation order slapped on her as the finest surviving example of an unashamed "I know what's best for all of you" outlook on life. (Not, by the way, "The State knows best": she frequently has to take The State to task for getting it wrong). Tim Worstall is spot on - if this is about parents choosing faith schools as a proxy selection, then why not give them academic or selection? You get lots of social selection in the "neighbourhood comps" so beloved of troglodytic labourites, simply because neighbourhoods are inhabited by the people who can afford to live in them.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Of course faith school are popular they are the antitheis of every liberal aspiration that Polly Toynbee generally agrees with. I agree with her that we shouldn't have faith schools and so does everyone else probably. But because there is something about the rest of the system that parents seem not to be able to tolerate they will nod their head and do something entirely different. Of course it's selection by the back door and of coure the government is disingenuous in it's rhetoric about selection. But there are now whole lots of people who are nodding their heads and doing something else because whilst they buy into the rhetoric themselves they won't sacrifice their children to do it. And if you force people into the mainstream you just end up with the middle classes who can pay getting the superior education, which isn't fair either. That's Polly Toynbee's real dilemma.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Ms.Toynbee is right to highlight the clash between reason and superstition. But people of faith do not hold a monopoly on superstition, I believe that the rise of non-religious superstition is a consequence of the failure of the institutions of faith, the enlightenment and modernism. For many people rationality does not help them to make sense of themselves and the world, it does make them “feel good” or connected. I have recently had to play the game of finding my son a secondary in Lambeth. Most of my more well-off friends (all white and middle class) have gone for the private sector or have moved out of Lambeth to other boroughs. I visited 2 faith schools and 4 non-faith schools. What was I looking for? Well all these schools enabled pupils to achieve; they had a good sense of discipline and order and all had an effective leadership team. The most secular school was the most selective!! The school that showed the least care was the one with the highest academic achievement and the one that had a strong sense of community, care and spirit was an Anglican one. The catholic school was the one that was really selective on faith. (my son did not like that school). For me faith was not the issue, but the ethos of the school. This goes beyond rationality and results. I have to be faced with placing my much loved son in a school that will nurture him, care for him, educate him and protect him (I live in the inner city) and if a school fits the bill then it will do! I have been a governor of a church school. A school that comprised of over 85% of black pupils. That school had a strong Christian ethos, but was able to embrace those who were of other faiths and no faith. There is in Christianity a core belief, that all people are valued, regardless of their faith and position. What I saw in this school was a celebration and commitment of that core belief. I would also like to stress that this core belief is not unique to Christian schools I have seen this in other schools. Terrible things have been done in the name of God, things that make me despair and feel ashamed. But terrible things have also been done in the name of “reason”. The last century saw carnage at a horrendous level, done in the name of the atheist movements of Nazism and Stalinism. It is not faith that makes people do evil things, it is people!!

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Purely and simply, it's not the State's business to be funding faith-based schools, with the possible exception of CofE as that's the state religion. Where will it all end? Scientology schools? Wicca schools? Satanist schools? And if not, why not? Much better to just scrap the whole idea. If religious faith is a learned school, we really ought to be *dis*couraging it.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Here's my experience trying to find a primary school for my son in London. I really liked a particular state primary with a string liberal secular ethos. Unfortunately its catchment area has the highest house prices in London. Even the most expensive private school would have put less financial burden on me than paying a mortgage in the catchment area. The nearest school to my home had a 79 percent Muslim intake. That's the inevitable byproduct of the local C of E and Catholic schools removing most non-Muslims from its intake. I'm happy for my son to have a multicultural education, but this felt like more like a mono-cultural Muslim education. So we went to church. My son, his Jewish best friend, Atheist me and his Jewish dad, in church on Sundays, chatting with the vicar. It worked. We got our kids in a C of E state primary school. I was a hypocrite. My guess is, most of the parents at the school were hypocrites too. I think English state primary schools mostly do a great job. The only reason I considered private primary education was to keep priests, mullahs and rabbis out of my son's childhood.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


I think Polly Toynbee's point is that parents reject so-called bog standard comprehensives in favour of so-called faith schools not because of the faith itself but because masquerading under the 'faith' label allows these schools to be selective. And the very fact that such schools can cream off the 'best' pupils from the 'best' families (many of whom get religion purely to secure a school place for their kids) contributes to the problems of schools that can't or choose not to operate selective admissions policies. Thus the allegedly poor standards of normal comprehensives that some short-sighted posters have bemoaned here are in many respects a consequence of the unfair, undemocratic and anti-social advantages handed out to religious and foundation schools. It's not only craven labour MPs who are responsible for this deepening of class and cultural segregation, it's the parents who scramble over the backs of others to get their kids into these 'better' schools. How sick I am of hearing otherwise liberal and left-leaning parents explain to me that while they're against selective education 'in principle' they're pulling every string available to get their kids into the selective schools because they 'want the best' for them. In my own area, there are several good people who make a tidy living out of filling in application forms for the selective grammar school and coaching the children of anxious middle-class parents through the application interview. The scramble for property in the right catchment areas and the sudden discovery of deep religious faith are just other dimensions of this desperate and repulsive competition for perceived educational advantage. When I sent my son to the nearest non-selctive comprehensive (despite the selective, gender-segregated foundation school and the selective C of E school being closer) I was told I must be 'devastated', 'heartbroken' and 'furious' by fellow parents anxious to console me for my misfortune (interesting that they saw it as my misfortune rather than my son's). They were shocked to discover that I hadn't scrapped tooth and nail to shoehorn my son into a selective school, the implication being that I simply didn't want 'the best' for him. The fact that his comprehensive has been in special measures for the last two years (not unrelated to the proximity of league table-topping selective institutions with additional foundation income) has elicited even more pitying looks and concerned enquiries about his welfare. In fact, he's doing fine and is perfectly happy there, benefitting in my view from a much better social, cultural and gender mix than he would in the frankly snooty and depressingly self-important 'better' schools in the area. The saddest thing of all, of course, is the message this whole ugly process has sent to the kids themselves. My son was made to feel like a failure because he hadn't 'got in' to a selective school despite not applying for one; while several of his friends were, staggeringly, rewarded with gifts by their parents for being 'successful' in a process that they had virtually nothing to do with. Faith-based or not, ALL selective schools contribute to social division and embody a hidden curriculum - that education is about social status and winning and losing, and that what matters is not a child's development in the classroom but a parent's ability to work the system to that child's perceived advantage at the expense of others.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Onyx1970 is obviously taken in by the romano/judaist spin doctoring, all religions are there to distort the focus of the masses and thus control them. Let them (purveyors of such nonsense) sink into their own morass and leave us in peace,an apt word as they ( the religions ) are the greatest cause of all wars.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Some Labour MPs have been speaking out against it, precious few but some... if that's any consolation? No, thought not. Morris, Kinnock et al made their vague rumblings about directions of travel and grimaced in a polite manner when mentioning that state education was being handed over to business and faith organisations. This was just before they crumbled in the face of the Lab-Con pact muttering about how the bill had been substantially improved and the direction of travel halted, remember? So parliament failed us. That's no great surprise. As ever it is left to the teachers to sort out the mess politicians have created in the education system. It now comes down to a fight for each and every school, for parents and teachers to say no when trust status is put forward. If the reports I've read on how the public consultation process is run are anything to go by, that resistance will need to be well organised to avoid being steamrollered by those determined to ram these reforms home. Keep an eye on your local schools. You can see if there's an Academy in development in your area here: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/academies/projects/?version=1 Oh, by the way, we've never had a secular state even though we've had a largely secular, or at least religiously ambivalent, population. The powers that be have always had a largely Christian slant which hasn't been appropriate or workable for quite some time. It's time we enshrined the principles of freedom of and freedom from religion in our society... and actually stick to it, unlike some I could mention.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


"If religious faith is a learned school, we really ought to be *dis*couraging it." Sorry, bit of mental shorthand slipped in there. Should be "If religious faith is a learned *skill*"

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


"All my children, except one, attended Catholic schools and the only qualification for a place was that the parents must be practising Catholics." Well, if that's the only qualification, then that's alright, then. Bollocks. Why is THIS even tolerated? Really? Can you imagine the anger that would be generated by a school who only accepted children whose parents were, say, Labour party supporters (not wishing to put any ideas into the heads of any senior Labour party officials reading this comment) or black? This is outright discrimination in itself. ALL religion should be torn out of school's curriculums, save for perhaps some broad overview of the world's major religions (including atheists' reasons for not believing). I despair for this country, I really do. I genuinely hope that the Tories get in come next election so that Labour might begin to regain some strength and, hopefully, some day, beat New Labour's head in with the nearest heavy, blunt object.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


A good effort Ms Toynbee. The UK is essentially secular in its culture and governance. All publically funded education, certainly mandated primary and secondary education, must be secular. There may well be a legal case to be fought for this under human and civil rights laws. As a citizen with no religious affiliation, commercial or spiritual, I resent my hard earned taxes being appropriated to support the activities of religious organisations and their clerical godfathers.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


As a life long reader of the Guardian and a Catholic priest, I always enjoy reading the wide range of writers and the breadth of opinion in the Guardian's "Comment & Debate" section. especially now that it is spead over 3 pages. I usually enoy reading Polly Toynbee, though more times than not I disagree with her especially when she rides her hobby horse of pernicious religion. She is entitled to her opinion, and I to mine. But is it not more than a little dishonest of her and the Guardian, not to declare an "interest" whenever she writes about religion. Polly Toynbee is an Honorary associate of the National Secular Society and they say of their Honorary associates: "These are our supporters who work and speak on our behalf in politics, human rights, science, philosophy, the arts, writing, journalism and broadcasting". fjdee

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


georgesdelatour, Shame on you and those like you who reinforce social segregation and undermine the democratic educational sector for the sake of your own status anxiety. You're not just a hypocrite and a closet racist, you're playing right into the hands of the faith zealots and elitists who want to undermine secular comprehensive education and everything it stands for in terms of equality and social cohesion. I'd have far more respect for you and your kind if you had the bottle to pay up and go private. At least that way you'd be doing less damage to the education of those children in your area whose parents can't or won't lie, deceive and connive to gain some perceived advantage. It's no good being in favour of equal and comprehensive education 'in principle' whilst contributing to its demise in practise. And it's not just up to cowed Labour MPs to stop this menace; parents have a duty to support equality in education too by ceasing to knife each others' kids in the back in this sickening competition to be selected by the 'good' schools. When will you grasp that this process not only disadvantages the 'losers', it instils a hideous sense of superiority in the 'winners'. The 'ethos' it instils is repellent. In the long run, and in general social terms, that's to nobody's advantage.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


"ALL religion should be torn out of school's curriculums, save for perhaps some broad overview of the world's major religions (including atheists' reasons for not believing)." Make education secular and philosophy (broadly speaking) core curriculum, you mean? But... but... that's far too sensible... we couldn't possibly do something that actually makes sense. Teach our children the love of wisdom rather than the necessity of obeying the dictats of our invisible friend who is, frankly, a bit flaky... Pah! Madness!

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


There is a fundamental problems underlying all this: Whilst there are public shools and free access to housing there is selection. Because people will inevitably either pay for education or move to a decent area. Whilst the above is true a comprehensive system which forces everyone apart from the above onto certain schools will inevitably mean that those of us who aren't as wealthy as Polly Toynbee have less chioce and our kids get arguably a worse eduation. So either the state ends private education and support for schools in socio economic areas which doesn't need it's support or Polly Toynbee shuts the feck up because it isn't beyond our comprehension to understand theat lefty liberal journo's , politicians and commentators generally seem to find way for their offspring to get into very good schools and that includes the current prime minister, many of his ministers and that pseudo Socialist Diane Abbot.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Trotsky, I'm inclined to agree with you, but, surely, you can empathise with parents wanting to get their children into, what they perceive to be, the "best" school? Indeed, it's all ultimately self-defeating this back-door selection, as I can only see the better schools getting better and the poorer schools getting worse.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


"So either the state ends private education ..." Damn fine idea! Someone give that man (assumed) a banana.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


The reason faith schools are selective really very simple, parents who are willing to put themselves through the inconvenience of sitting through Sunday morning church services despite their lack of belief inorder to secure places in a school(my brother-in-law for example, despite not attending church at all until he started considering schools, is now about to become a deacon purely for this reason) are going to take pains over their childrens education in other ways, they are more likely to read to their children, encourage them achedemically and support the school itself both financially and in terms of discipline while a non selective school will get a range of parents from the committed to the dissinterested. Thus good results become a self perpetuating cycle. The church meanwhile manages to artificially inflate it's 'bums on pews' and thus it's perceived importance in this country. How about we leave the mythology in the places of worship and concentrate on education in schools?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


I totally agree with Polly Toynbee that children need a knowledge of religions in order to understand their own (and other peoples' culture). However, when these faiths are promoted, quite often as we know, without giving a balanced argument, by people who claim the moral high ground, despite historically being responsible for some of the greatest human atrocities in history, then surely, its time to say enough is enough. If we stopped encouraging these people by our passive indifference, such as by not going to weddings and christenings, then we would be at least saying that the arrogance and mean spiritedness of religion was unacceptable to the vast majority. How about a car sticker with a lion on it to oppose those terrible Christian fish things?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


"How about we leave the mythology in the places of worship and concentrate on education in schools?" Because the whole of the system is against the Working classes basically. People would still move to better areas. In my area political gerrymandering largely by the left has meant that all the local councils but one are leftish, so what we have is one Tory superstate, which contributes nothing to the four local poorer boroughs and has managed to retain all their local grammar schools etc. It's just all bollox really but Polly Toynbee deciding that despite all that - the rest who can't afford to move or pay for an education should be packed like sardines and sent off to wherever she think is good for us is a non starter.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Polly asked (1) why is a Labour govt giving us faith schools when we don't want them and (2) why are MPs going along with it. Answer to question one can only be speculative, but I'd say that Blair gets some sort of quasi-sexual thrill out of defying as many people as possible and it's a happy coincidence for him that creating one contentious measue after another (anybody have a rough count?) drives sensible and thoughtful people to distraction (how much did you have to drink last week?). As for question two, we're pack animals and follow the leader. It's pretty hilarious that the rather girly Blair has managed to be an Alpha male. More seriously, why are most political commentators so loathe to connect what social scientists have discovered about human behaviour with the activities of politicians?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Powercat, Well, I've been through this whole thing myself as a parent, and frankly I cannot empathise with parents who lie, deceive and connive to push their kids in front of others, particularly when they claim to support the ideals of secular comprehensive education. What message does this send to their kids? That it's OK to say you believe something and then completely contradict it when your own perceived self-interest isn't served by it? That's teaching your kids 'values'? I can empathise with any parent that wants to do the best for their children, but not at the expense of other kids and not by communicating the values of hypocrisy, deceit and social snobbery. Too often, it seems, the parents obsessed with doing 'the best' for their kids by clawing to get them into selective schools are doing so largely for their own gratification and because they're riddled with middle-class assumptions and fears. It's my view that such parents could REALLY do their best for their kids and their communities by supporting local comprehensives and putting their energy and commitment into helping those disadvantaged schools prosper. Now, wouldn't THAT be a nice 'ethos' to transmit to your kids, rather than the competitive dogfight many such parents choose to put their poor kids through?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Powercat, Well, I've been through this whole thing myself as a parent, and frankly I cannot empathise with parents who lie, deceive and connive to push their kids in front of others, particularly when they claim to support the ideals of secular comprehensive education. What message does this send to their kids? That it's OK to say you believe something and then completely contradict it when your own perceived self-interest isn't served by it? That's teaching your kids 'values'? I can empathise with any parent that wants to do the best for their children, but not at the expense of other kids and not by communicating the values of hypocrisy, deceit and social snobbery. Too often, it seems, the parents obsessed with doing 'the best' for their kids by clawing to get them into selective schools are doing so largely for their own gratification and because they're riddled with middle-class assumptions and fears. It's my view that such parents could REALLY do their best for their kids and their communities by supporting local comprehensives and putting their energy and commitment into helping those disadvantaged schools prosper. Now, wouldn't THAT be a nice 'ethos' to transmit to your kids, rather than the competitive dogfight many such parents choose to put themselves and their poor kids through?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


As usual, Polly Toynbee has hit the nail on the head in many ways. The issue of school choice is bound to be a devisive subject for all those parents with children moving schools. Mr Blair seems to have lost the plot in so many ways, not least in suggesting that faith schools are "popular". Winning the lottery is "popular", but it doesn't mean that it would be the best thing for everybody to have their "heart's desire". He talks about improving standards, a vague and woolly expression.True education comes from understanding the real world we live in, and deliberately segregating via ethnic and religeous selection will score very low in any school league tables! He also urges us to be aware of the threat from both internal and external terrorists, and yet his blind "faith" in everything he says leads inexorably to a nation heading for meltdown.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


""All my children, except one, attended Catholic schools and the only qualification for a place was that the parents must be practising Catholics." Well, if that's the only qualification, then that's alright, then. Bollocks. Why is THIS even tolerated? Really? Can you imagine the anger that would be generated by a school who only accepted children whose parents were, say, Labour party supporters (not wishing to put any ideas into the heads of any senior Labour party officials reading this comment) or black? This is outright discrimination in itself." The point I was making is that there was no selection for my children on the basis of potential educational achievement, something Ms. Polly intimated in her article. I can see you are one of those perpetual "victims" who feel discriminated against when not being allowed to join a club they don't want to join. You don't agree with faith schools, which is fine, but as they exist to provide education in the faith of their choice it takes a peculiar kind of Dave Spart logic to tell them they are discriminating against people who don't want to be educated in the faith. The plain fact is they are better than local state schools, or, if they aren't better, they are perceived as being better by the customers. Banning them won't improve state education. If state education is brought to their level then concerned parents would use the state schools.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


All religion is absolute nonsense.I am not sorry if you are offended.However,as a parent I have to do my best for my child.If that means a faith school is the best choice I will send my child to a faith school. I will discuss the religious teachings of the school with my child and because I have the child's respect there will be no indoctrination.Not until we have atheist political leaders will it be worth fighting against the system.Vote for an atheist!!

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Labour MP's are cowards for not challenging Blair on this divisive and disastrous policy. I believe we are entering a historical period where religious wars are more likely than ever before and Blair's support for religious education is leading the UK into becoming part of the problem rather than a solution. I voted Labour all my life until I saw how the Party rolled over to Blair's religious self-righteousness. We must win this battle democaratically and my vote is now available to other parties who can lead with clear secular vision on on this issue and who might be able gain the power to do something about it. Recommendations anyone?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us



Let's be honest though, secularists are some of the most rude, pretentious and condescending people I've ever met. Unfortnately they are unable to see that the vast majority of people in the world will never agree with them. I mean, these are people who just think that the Pope should "get with it." How much insight then, is really to be expected of them? Anyone who knows anything about their own religion realizes that it's not like a job; you don't clock in and clock out at will. Religion is something that you would never make a point of ever keeping out of your life if you we're truely religious. Why would we expect a secular supremascist to understand this? The only thing that they are unable to keep separate from every aspect of their lives is the will to keep everything separate. That's their number one priority. That's their church, and they want to push the secular movement's ideas onto everyone as surely as the most sweaty southern Christian evangelist wants new converts for the Lord. We're talking about an extremely paranoid group of people who feel that an encore of Auschwitz or something is on it's way if we dont act like religious beliefs have to be left out of our public lives. Their fears are completely exaggerated. Maybe its time to demand that they leave their paranoic atheism at home and stop trying to cram it down our throats!

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Tim Worstall, out of curiosity, are you saying that there is no evidence to suggest that condom use reduces HIV infection rates, or simply that there is none suggesting this is the case in Africa? I read your article "Papal Condom-nation" on TCS Daily and it isn't really that clear there either.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Oh, fiddle dee dee, fjdee. We all have our axes to grind. The distressing difference between our secular axes and those of the religious organisation that employs you and its self-serving godfathers is that its axes are stained historically with the blood of many lives, born and unborn. This alone denies any justification for the use of secular taxation to support your participation in the education of the children of a secular state.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


thedacs: Sorry, vote Labour? Why when they've rolled over to the forces of darkness and cultism. Not likely, ever again. therealstan: Your comments show just why your type of thinking is the problem. Judgmental, full of pain and unreason. Fanatics get born from your type of mentality. Grow up and get a life.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


The reason faith schools are so popular is because parents don't want their kids growing up to be like Polly Toynbee! True! Why does this miserable woman have such a downer on people having different beliefs to herself? Whatever happened to telerance, freedom of belief? I wouldn't want my kids to grow up like her.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Just a few quick points. I am a 26 years old male with plenty of experience in sex before marriage, drinking, drug taking, clubbing, going out, generally enjoying myself and doing things that you might think would make a catholic feel guilty. Well I've got news for you.... I don't feel guilty and I will be attending stations of the cross this afternoon (Save me God, save me I don't want to burn in hell........hahahaha) As part of my catholic education I was not taught creationism, I was given sex education. I went to school with protestants, children who couldn't give two shits about the thought of god, Tamils from destroyed areas of Sri Lanka, Down Syndrome children, children confined to wheel chairs and many others of different races, colour, creeds, ethnicity you name it they went there. The school didn't come out on top of local league tables and indeed it is the only relgious secondary school in Milton Keynes (pop approx 175,000) It was funded 80% by the government and 20% by the local diocese, not a lot you might think but 20% of a secondary schools budget is a large figure. Could you imagine if all the schools in the country were only funded to the tune of 80% of their current budgets???? What Polly Toynbee has laid out is in short old fashioned bullshit. Get with the times, young people who do and do not consider themselves religious get on with one another and don't consider personal beliefs to be barricades to enjoying one anothers company and education. Well thats it, see you at the stations this afternoon (but of course people like me aren't supposed to be educated about things like easter)

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Sometimes there are none so intolerant as those who claim to be the champions of tolerance!

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


At this rate, the world will probably just explode because everyone on it is so offended about everything. People will be offended by everything and anything so it doesn't really matter anymore. I mean, they cultivate people to be offended in Uni now, so we should'nt expect anything less from the legions graduating from liberal arts universities. Some of these people become our journalists and cultural intermediaries. They become more and more offended and outraged over everything. I mean, one has to ask whether some of these people are EVER not offended and outraged? Maybe they watch too much news. Let's be clear, people make their living off of preaching victimhood. After a while, when you hear that the same people are offended over and over and over again, you have to wonder whether they just have to feel that way, and whether they can even imagine not feeling offended. These people are like zombies.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Yes, it is interesting to note that both Bush and Blair are professed Christians. Amazing how these 'Bible bashers' have risen to such prominence, given that they seem to ignore many of the tenets of that particular faith - love thine enemy, thou shalt not kill, a liar is regarded as worse than a thief, etc. Practice what you preach, Tony and George, and we might then listen to such proposals. In the meantime, let 'free will' flourish for all it's worth.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


"The reason faith schools are so popular is because parents don't want their kids growing up to be like Polly Toynbee! True! Why does this miserable woman have such a downer on people having different beliefs to herself? Whatever happened to telerance, freedom of belief? I wouldn't want my kids to grow up like her." So faith schools are all about religious tolerance?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


My grandson loves maths and science. In his excellent secular primary school he is being given work appropriate to his ability, this means he is doing work that is three years ahead of the work work set for his year. Another strand of government policy on education is to allow schools to specialise in specific subjects as centres of excellence. There is a secondary school in our area that specialises in maths and science and achieves a very high standard in its results. The obvious choice of scholl for my grandson right. Wrong! The school in question is a faith school and we are a family of comitted atheists. He would probably not get into the school as it selects on the basis of attendance at church and we don't wanthim indoctinated by religious zealots. The opportunity to go to a school that plays to our grandson's academic interests and outstanding ability is denied. Academic excellence and nurturing the natural talents of our children thus plays second fiddle to myth and superstition. A final word on values, politeness and caring. As an atheist family we have a very strong humanistic value base and have promoted tolerance, empathy for others, the values of democracy and a sense of duty toward the welfare of our fellow humans in our childrearing. My wife attended a catholic boarding school as a child. The school controlled the children through fear of damnation. She still recalls being told by a nun that her mother would be punished by god for her daughters misbehaviour. She still recalls how she felt as a nine year old going to sleep crying, gnawed by guilt and fearing for her mother's soul. The government promotes a sanitised and rosy eyed view of religion and its impact on society, history tells us different stories. Do you think the thousands of children whose horrific sexual and physical abuse in faith based institutions in England, Scotland, Ireland, America and many other countries would agree aboutt he value of a faith based education? And what does it say of theses institutions when their hierarchy preferred to move abusers around, to continue their abuse with fresh victims rahter than face up to the crimes committed in its name?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


For the first time ever I find myself agreeing with Polly. However I think the solution would be to allow academic selection. This would prevent the current school selection policy based around class or religion.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


RoyDancer: I was taking the piss.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


For the first time ever I find myself agreeing with Polly. However I think the solution would be to allow academic selection. This would prevent the current school selection policy based around class or religion. Good schools have to select one way or another and academic ability seems to me to be a fairer and more meritocratic method than the cureent systme of class and religion. If only the teacher's unions understood this!

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


If it's wrong to segregate children on grounds of colour/race, it's wrong to segregate them by parental mythological preference when they have neither the learning nor the confidence to question them. The expansion of faith schools is creating de facto racial segregation, something we need to be fighting. Here in Scotland, the Executive makes all sorts of noises about opposing sectarianism (which is only an issue in some deprived parts of the Central Belt), but is afraid to tackle one of the roots of this, which is segregated education. The Labour Party across central Scotland is dominated by people from culturally (if not necessarily religiously) Catholic backgrounds, who, even if no longer practising themselves, are wary of challenging the Church. When a shared campus was set up in N Lanarkshire for a non-denominational and Catholic school, the local Bishop made a noise to ensure the *staff* had separate staff-rooms - attempting to dictate the *adults*' interaction. This confirms my belief that organised religions of all kinds seek to infantilise adults, and place them in a position of submission to authority. They should not be in charge of children. As to the belief that private=good, denominational=good, comprehensive=bad - I grew up on council estates, attended a non-denominational comprehensive school in the late '70s-early '80s, went to an old university, and have a PhD. Government policies have run down state schools because of ideological prejudice.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Certainly agree with Polly on this one. In the current climate we need to get the correct balance between unity and diversity- faith schools are by nature a divise force, and give us neither. Logos-"Get with the times, young people who do and do not consider themselves religious get on with one another and don't consider personal beliefs to be barricades to enjoying one anothers company and education." - your probably right about that by and large, but if we keep funding religion schools and promoting them in every community, then I don't see this trend of tolerance continuing, especially if we seperate those of different belifes in the education system, therefore decreasing the time they spend with each other. Parents who have to lie about their religious beliefs to get their child into the only decent school in the area? So much for choice.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Keep in mind the American bumper sticker, "Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church".

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Learning about religions is fine but being educated in a religious environment is what worries me. I want my children, given the facts, to be able to decide for themselves what to believe in and not to be indoctrinated, however subtly this is done. If you're brought up in a religious environment you're more likely to be influenced by religion yourself, and to bring your own children up in a religious way, and maybe send them to a faith school which reinforces the indoctrination. As Spike Milligan said about Catholicism: "if you're brought up as a Catholic, it's about as easy to change as it is to change your blood group" (or words to that effect).

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


"The point I was making is that there was no selection for my children on the basis of potential educational achievement, something Ms. Polly intimated in her article. I can see you are one of those perpetual "victims" who feel discriminated against when not being allowed to join a club they don't want to join." Yes, but many people do want to join: not because they'er faith-based (indeed, that would seen as a negative factor, I'm sure, for many) but because they're decent schools. Put yourself in the position of an atheist (or someone who practices a different faith to that of the school) who has a decent Catholic school just down the road from him/her, but because they are Catholic can't send their children there and have to schlep them perhaps significantly further afield. And, perhaps even more insidiously, as has been noted several times above, faith-based schools do hinder integration and encourage separatation.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Another excellent article by Polly Toynbee. Gosh, how scary are supporters of faith schools (believers?)and how rude? Obviously a religious education hasn't provided an edge when it comes to manners, respect and tolerance

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


"Tim Worstall, out of curiosity, are you saying that there is no evidence to suggest that condom use reduces HIV infection rates, or simply that there is none suggesting this is the case in Africa?" Not quite either assertion. Polly’s oft repeated one is that the Catholic Church’s injunction not to use condoms kills people by spreading AIDs in Africa. There is no evidence for this as we do not see higher AIDs infection rates amongst Catholics in Africa nor amongst adherents of other religions (such as Islam) which also preach against their use. It would also be interesting to see Polly answering Boris Johnson’s question: were her children educated at the bog standard comprehensive, a selective school or privately? I know that she herself was at Holland Park Comprehensive and that at least one of her step-children (perhaps partner’s children would be more accurate?) was privately. Enquiring minds want to know, is this do as I do or do as I say?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Very nice article. I don't live in The UK anymore and hearing about these faith schools is another reason for me to stay away. I wouldn't want my children going any where near one. It's interesting to note that agin, in a so called democracy such as England's, the goverment is doing exactly what the majority of the peolpe don't want. Just at it did with Iraq. Does not there not seem to be a pattern here; of the goverment having an agenda, then going ahead with it regardless. I think we waste too much time talking about why is the goverment doing this and that when the population wants the opposite: instead we should look at what is the real agenda behind such actions and what are the long term plans of those in power. There is aobviiously a plan behind these schools that isn't what we're being told. Are those in power trying to turn back time and have us revert to a religous orld view?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


PowerCat. Religious schools will be forced to take children of other denominations and frequently do, at least the Catholic ones do, I have no experience of the others. The problem is that they are better than the local authority schools by every measurable standard. The Prime Minister, casting about for something for us to remember him by, other than taking us into an unnecessary war, has come up with the idea of encouraging the growth of these schools to improve education. What he has failed to notice is that ALL religious schools are successful for one simple reason they have all been selected by all the parents for their children's education, not because they are the nearest school. The fact that the parents have chosen the school gives tacit support to the staff and the children do better. In days gone by, when I went to school in Liverpool there were as many Catholic schools as state schools and people just sent their child to the nearest Catholic School. When it came to secondary education catholic schools in those days were no better than the local state schools. It is the parents choosing the religious schools that makes them a success in this day and age. I have said all along in this thread we should be looking at bringing the state schools to the standard of the religious schools. Ms. Polly wants to ban religious schools because they teach things she doesn't like, not because they are bad educational establishments. That's my point. UK to Force State-Funded Faith-Based Schools to Admit Students of Other Religions By Gudrun Schultz UNITED KINGDOM, London, January 17, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Faith-based schools in the UK will no longer be able to limit their students to those of a particular religion. The British government is introducing an amendment to the proposed Equality Bill today that will remove the power to determine school access based on religious affiliation from religious schools that receive state funding. Faith-based schools have been receiving increasing government support over the last five years. According to an article in the Guardian in 2001, faith schools consistently achieve better classroom results. Although surveys indicate over 45% of England’s population claims no religious belief, there are 160 applications for every available place in a Christian classroom. Despite this, opponents of religious schools say they contribute to divisions in society and lead to discrimination. The vast majority of faith schools are Christian. Out of 7,000 schools, 6,955 are Christian. 36 are Jewish, five Muslim and two Sikh. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, has said in the past he would not want large numbers of Catholic children attending Muslim schools, although he welcomed the presence of Jewish and Muslim children in Catholic schools. Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor said that while he welcomed dialogue between the faiths, “fundamentally the creed of Islam is totally diverse from the creed of Christianity.” Speaking on the state of the Church in the UK, Cardinal O’Connor said Christianity has been "all but eliminated" as a source of moral guidance in people's lives, and people are largely “indifferent” to Christian values and the Church. "In our countries in Britain today, especially in England and Wales, Christianity, as [sic] a backdrop to people's lives and moral decisions - and to the government, the social life of the country - has now almost been vanquished," the Archbishop said.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


My parents were Roman Catholics. My entire childhood was spent being indoctrinated with the Roman Catholic faith. It blighted my life. Spike Milligan was right. I have struggled long and hard to transfuse my body with a secular sense of life. At last I am free. Fortunately I raised my children without an element of faith: they are among some of the most honest, caring and hard-working individuals I know.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


I agree with Polly that the proliferation of faith schools is a recipe for more division. I was alarmed by the fatwa she reported from Al Sistani "See www.sistani.org: "Q. What is the judgment for sodomy and lesbianism? A. Forbidden. Punished. The people involved should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing." but i couldn't find it there. Could it have been removed on advice that the publication of such theologically inspired wickedness is counter-productive to the advance of Islam in the west? However I did find this fatwa on anal sex which was instructive, to say the least: Question : When a woman is in her period, can she have anal intercourse? § Answer : If wife is consenting to it, it is permissible but it would be extremely abominable. § Question : What is the ruling on anal sex? Is a Moslem allowed to have anal sex? § Answer : Based on the widely held opinion of Shiite scholars this act (anal sex) is strongly Makrooh (undesirable, what is not Haram to do, but it is better to avoid). There is no objection to the couple getting pleasure from the entire body of one another. But it should be taken into consideration that some actions are beneath human dignity. § Question : Is anal intercourse permissible.? § Answer : Permission is bound to wife’s agreement, but it is strongly undesirable. Curious, eh?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Civics should replace RE in the cirriculum; state religous schools should be closed, and compulsory group worship should be scrapped. There are wider questions here that need addressing too. Disestablishment, stricter controls over what is taught at private schools, and a shift towards 'cultural' studies,placing religion in its proper, marginal,context.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Stujam"Gosh, how scary are supporters of faith schools (believers?)and how rude?" Might say the same thing about people who write things like "All religion is absolute nonsense.I am not sorry if you are offended." or petercurtis "axes are stained historically with the blood of many lives, born and unborn". Think you'll find that it was militantly aetheistic dogmas that caused most of the problems in the last century, but it's nice to hear a (presumably) secularist standing up for the rights of the unborn. Can I assume that you would agree that it'd take a lot of religious wars to catch up with the 5m or so unborn lives that the 1967 Abortion Act has taken in the UK?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


If people didn't want faith schools they wouldn't send their children to them. I know many parents who are not religious, but who are desperate to get their kids into Church of England schools because the standards are generally high. If you truly want to render faith schools irrelevant you have an obligation to sort out or replace the comprehensive system, a system which many parents consider a dismal and unacceptable failure.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


So come on, Onyx, tell us how militantly atheist dogmas caused "most of the problems" of the last century.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


On the issue of condom use and the prevalence of AIDs. Just forgetting the statistics for a moment. I'm sure everyone would agree that a condom in the vast majority of cases stops the transmission of HIV/AIDs. Everyone also acknowledges that the Pope and also Islamic leaders strongly discourage the use of condoms. Therefore if any Catholics or indeed Muslims listen to their religious authorities on such pronouncements, and don't wear condoms due to this. Then presumably many cases (or at least some)of the transmission of AIDs must have taken place due to these pronouncements. Assuming the validity of the statistics you cite TimWorstall it's obvious then that other factors must be at play to explain the fact the infection rates are broadly similar across religious groupings in Africa. Perhaps Catholics and Muslims don't listen to their religious leaders quite as much as the Pope and the Mullahs think. Or perhaps Catholics and Muslims have less sex than other people. This would explain the statistics. This doesn't however absolve these religious leaders from moral culpability however. Perhaps if these leaders hadn't denounced the use of condoms then infection rates would be even lower than the average. Either way it is still morally wrong (not to mention idiotic) for them to discourage the use of something that saves lives.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Faith schools have long been available in this country for those who want them. Most parents (catholic and non-catholic) that I know who choose catholic schools do so because they want an educational environment with a catholic ethos. My children travelled to rougher areas of town than if than had attended other more local schools and they mixed with children from a wide range of social background. I am quite satisfied that they learned religious tolerance and the proper distinction between faith and science. Rome learned that lesson long ago after the persecution of Galileo. Sadly, tolerance is not part of Polly Toynbee's make-up. Her tiresome litanies of selective religious negatives only serve to betray her own secular bigotry. However, a serious question has been obscured by her intolerant rant. Faith schools are run by faith groups for those parents who desire that faith-based ethos. The new academies that are controlled by independent trusts are set up to serve a local catchment area. Some of these independent trusts are run by narrow faith groups whether or not the local parents share or desire that faith-based ethos. Surely they should be called 'mission schools', not 'faith schools'. Just why is New Labour running down state education in favour of 'mission schools'?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Dear RogerSkitts Concerning your question "So come on, Onyx, tell us how militantly atheist dogmas caused "most of the problems" of the last century." Wasn't communism a militantly atheist dogma?, a dogma which killed millions of ordinary working people. I think that was a big problem.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Oh please Onyx. You're deliberatly conflating Atheism with the 1967 Abortion Act(thats a whole different can of worms), as if Atheism was responsible for that. If Atheism can't even stop the expansion of faith schools in the UK in 2006, then it certainly couldn't be responsible for something as controversial as an Abortion Act from the late sixties when Atheism was far weaker and less established. By trying to equate Atheism with abortion you're are sadly descending into the simple ad hominem level of debate.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Davy, you're right, I think that could quite safely be called "a problem". But that isn't what Onyx said.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


I find it rather distresing that this whole debate over religious schools has intensified only since muslims have begun to call for Islam faith based schools to receive similar treatment to those of the christian (CofE and Catholic) and jewish faiths. The latter have educated children in this country with no adverse effects on the secular tolerant nature of English society and I have no doubt that muslim schools will simply add to the wondeful diversity of our nation. What is increasingly interesting is the current batch of complaints we are hearing from teachers about the behaviour of today's children in many areas of the country. For example, children are becoming obese at alarming early ages. Well who was it in the 1980s who shouted loudly that team games and exercise were wrong because they discriminated against shy and less physcially abled children? Now we have sold off hundreds of playing fields we lack resources for school children to gain in sports. Who was it in the 1980s who said that 2+2=5 was, in some circumstances, a correct expression of a child's own interpretation of counting systems? Now we have ill disciplined children for whom the words "no" and "wrong" have little meaning. This was brought about by "trendy" educationalist supported by the Labour Party and people such as Ms Toynbee. This is why parents then and now run away from state comprehensive schooling wherever they can and are turning to religious schools for decent balanced eduction.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


BigCat, about the 2+2=5 thing being a correct interpretation of counting systems. What on earth are you talking about?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Davy1983, it's certainly true that Communism caused the death of millions. However in many ways Communist ideology with its' symbolism and creed and dogma (and indeed its special books) is very similar to religion. The clash that Toynbee talks about however is between "reason and superstition" not religion and atheism. I would say that Communism was equally as bad as religion in that it ignored reason in favour of doctrine and faith, in some so called "socialist paradise" (which is similar to the concept of heaven if i may say so). I firmly think that their is and should be a clash and that the clash should be between people of reason (Atheists and Believers alike) against superstitious people (Believers and even Atheists). Communism was a mere superstition, it benefited no one and killed many, many people. Just as religon in its wrong form can kill (and indeed has throughout history) many, many people. Now can we please stop talking about Atheism and Religion it really isnt that interesting a topic. I would much rather discuss the education system of the Uk and how it could be improved.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


RogerSkitts i think BigCat is referring to half baked relativism. I.e the idea that their is no truth only competing interpretations that are all equally valid.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Dear Cardenio, Quite right,I too would much rather discuss the education system of the Uk and how it could be improved. It seems to me that the latest Labour education policy is a tacit admission that the monolithic, "one-size fits all" mentality of the comprehensive system is unhelpful. It is a superstition (sorry, conviction) of the left that the state can judge what is best for each individual child, by prescribing en masse how schools should be organized. It was this Gosplan-esque approach which is the root cause of the education problems in this country. I have no problem saying that the state should pay for our children's education (does that make me a socialist), but the state has no business whatsoever attempting to supply that education itself (does that make me a Tory?).

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Bearing in mind that by "problems" I was referring, as the context made clear, to petercurtis's comment that [the axes of ]"the religious organisation that employs you" "are stained historically with the blood of many lives"; I was making the point that his comment was somewhat one-sided, that aetheist regimes (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) have quite enough blood on their hands to give the lie to the oft-repeated nonsense about religion being the cause of most bloodshed. I suppose you'll tell me that the Nazis were religious: that's a long and complicated subject, but religion (as opposed to race) was hardly part of Nazism in the way that aetheism and the condemnation of 'the opium of the masses' was and is part of socialism/communism.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Cardenio is quite correct and anyone who lived in London in the 1980s would appreciate the comment. I had a neighbour who was a retired headteacher. He would tell me that he would never overly mark wrong a child's work that contained what, to a normal person, was a arithmetical error or mistakes of spelling or grammar in written pieces, since to do so might harm the child's self-belief and understanding. In essence children were never taught that something thay did, wrote or said was wrong less it caused hurt feelings. This man once seriously chastised me for taking my sons into the park to play football in case we were observed by another child in a wheelchair who would feel hurt because she/he couldn't run around kicking a ball. These "loony lefties" did so much damage to mainstream state education that today's parents have no option but to look elsewhere. You only have to look at the actions of my nearby MP, Dianne Abbott to see this. As a vocal leftie she chose the private St Paul's school for her own son rather than give him the type of education for which she voted for others as a Labour MP. This is why muslims and increasingly secular parents want none of it.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Cardenio"Oh please Onyx. You're deliberatly conflating Atheism with the 1967 Abortion Act". No I wasn't. I was making the point that, since opposition to the latter has largely (though not exclusively) been grounded in a religion-derived view of the unborn as a person with rights, it's unusual and pleasant (from my point of view) to see a secularist accept that deaths of the unborn are a matter of regret. Not a common view on the Guardian website.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Davy1983 I don't believe that the state should "prescrib(e) en masse how schools should be organized" but i do think that the state should prescribe how schools should not be organized and their is a valid arguement that schools should not be organized along religious lines. As for you being a Tory Davy i dont know about that. It certainly means that your not Labour however;).

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Dear Cardenio, Regarding your judgment that I am not true Labour you may well be right, but there again, who is these days?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


I would hope Onyx that both secularist and religious people alike (these views not being mutually exclusive of course)would regret all abortions. That however is not to say that all abortions are wrong or that indeed all abortions are right.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


John Prescott does Davy ;).

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


it's politicalcorrectnessgonemad Bigcat

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


I seriously think alot of people don't care about the religon. They just want their kids to go to good schools. Faith schools offer a much cheaper alternative to Private schools. I went to a catholic state school that took mixed abilities - entrance test was on catholism. The sate schools around it were/are crap - a fast track to unemployment. Even if you were bright these schools weren't the place to show it you would have been bullied. So its ok arguing on the moral high ground when you live in an area with good normal state schools. But in some parts of London your choice is Private or do the religious thing. Thats if you want your kid to have a good education. Taking a bus in London at school time is interesting - you can immediately tell what type of school the kids come from within seconds.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Forgot to say my catholic school - was mixture of incomes my father was a bus driver. Alot of my mates parents were immigrants and were cleaners etc etc. The one or 2 "rich" kids were sons of Irish who had big construction firms. Like I say its rich for people who live in nice areas with good state schools to critisce. I didn't like the relgious stuff but its allowed me to go to University and get a good job. When I compare this to my mates who went to the state schools - I have done so much better/more opportunities.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Thank God (if that is the right expression) for Polly who so often expresses so ably what I believe. We pay taxes for education. Why should self-interested ideological groups use those taxes as leverage to gain the power to influence the views of the next generation. It is hardly surprising that those who pay for City Acadamies are looking for some reward either by way of such influence or peerages. mickb

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Okay Onyx, fair enough. But it seems to me your remark was just as unhelpful as the "lies" about religion you complain about. And you've just pretty well admitted as much. You were just trying to "even up the balance". Bu what's the point of that?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Thank you for this excellent piece, Ms Toynbee. You highlight an assault on reason which all people who value the freedoms of a secular society must regret. Combine this support for faith schools with the seriously compromised city acadmies programme, which hands future generations over to businessmen with highly dubious values, and once again Bliar is exposed as an enemy of the very party and its traditions which he dictates to. When will New Labour learn that *how* a thing is done is just as, if not more, important than *what* is done. Our acts portray us far more faithfully than our words, and an education system delivered through superstitiion and capitalism will seed superstition and capitalism in those it teaches. But please, please don't use the word "believe" in conjuction with, say, the theory of evolution. One does not believe in such things - one *thinks* them the most convincing explanation of scientifically observable fact. Belief is quite a different thing, and teaching children the difference is precisely what faith schools are incapable of.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Religion is the Worlds cancer..... Northern Ireland,Palestine,anywhere the muslims are, The white house.....

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Hi Polly I too am terrified by the onward march of unreason. I agree wholeheartedly with your indictment of faith schools. I have always opposed them as being socially divisive and, quite simply unfair. Twenty five years ago when choosing secondary schools for my own children, I was disgusted to find that almost half the schools within reasonable travelling distance were faith based and therefore closed to my children, this despite the fact that I as a taxpayer, was helping to fund them. I don’t know if it is the same now, but at that time it was necessary to get a vicar’s letter confirming that you were a regular churchgoer before your children would even be considered for admission. As a life long free thinker and, at that time, militant atheist, no way was I going to compromise my principles to get my children into schools that valued superstition above reason. Also, from the point of view of the churches in question, I always considered that insisting on such letters from the vicar, was one way of ensuring that the congregation would consist largely of hypocrites. From what I recall of my Sunday school and RE lessons, one thing Jesus himself had a hard time forgiving was hypocrisy. I also agree that some knowledge of the history and nature of religions is necessary if we are to understand the cultural heritage of humanity. I have personal experience to suggest that children with no religious background at home are very vulnerable when subjected to the influence of even mildly religious fanatics. My five year old grandson attends an ordinary, non-denominational state school. The school has a very good academic record and, for the most part, we are all satisfied with the education he receives. But when it comes to religion, he is completely out of his depth, because it seems to be generally assumed that he is aware of (a) the basic Christian story and (be) what religion actually is. To give three examples: On one occasion these 5 year olds, most of whom find handwriting a fairly laborious chore at the best of times, were asked to copy the following sentence from the board. “The menorah is a symbol of the Jewish religion”. I asked my grandson if he knew what religion was, and he did not have the least idea. As far as he and most of his classmates were concerned, they may as well have been parroting a foreign language for all they learned. Although this school is not religious, his teacher is very fervent in her belief and practice and she does not succeed in keeping her devotion to herself. On one occasion, they were learning about baptism, once more largely in a religious vacuum. Instead of emphasising the kind of infant christening ceremony which many of the children would have been familiar with, the teacher chose to show a film of her own total-immersion adult baptism. My grandson’s interpretation of this ceremony was along the following lines: “Miss X got pushed under the water because she believed in God. I don’t want that to happen to me”. One more example of how confusing all this sort of thing is to young children. My grandson told me one day, that God made it rain. I told him it wasn’t God, but a natural process which I tried to explain as simply as I could. His response was as follows: “Well Miss X said God made rain. God can do magic and I believe in magic.” Hopefully he will survive all this claptrap unscathed. I did not come from a particularly religious home, but I did go to Sunday school regularly and attended services occasionally. Despite that, I was beginning to question religion by the age of eight and thoroughly disenchanted by the age of fourteen. Nevertheless I am disturbed by the peddling of this sort of nonsense in a non-religious state school.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


While I agree with the general tenor of the article (there is an assault on reason and what business do religious organisations have running state schools), the comments about the north of Ireland are woefully simplistic. Any problems in the school system surrounding sectarianism are not institutional problems, but rather reflections of problems in wider society. I would be very surprised if any school in Northern Ireland promoted sectarianism. None of which is to say that the reorganising of the NI education system isn't long overdue.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Having recently graduated from a highly racially divided, comprehensive secondary school, I think there are some important nuances in this debate which are frequently overlooked by both sides, nuances to which any responsible government must pay close attention. State education is an incredibly complex issue. The state must reconcile the long-term, priniciple-orientated (a cynic might say hypothetical) aims of its agenda to create an education system for the future with the imperative need to do the very best it can for the kids NOW in its schools, even, perhaps especially, if they are sitting their last exams next month. In theory, I share completely the view that a segregated system does little to unite the disparate, mutually loathing limbs of a multi-cultural society. However, in a society such as our own, in which race and religion are *the* divisive issues among people young and old, does it not strike one as irresponsible in the highest for the government to expect, no, enforce, children and adolescents to attend a school in which they will be routinely exposed to abuse, whether it be a 'fucking paki' muttered under the breath of a peer or, in the more extreme but nonetheless occuring cases, stabbings and lynchings. Perhaps before we look our noses down on those parents who choose (there's that new labour anathema to socialism again!) to send their child to a faith school in contradiction to what are in the long term interests of the education system we should examine a little more closely the real choice we are asking them to make. My point is this: it is unfair to ask those children who are now in school to "ride out the storm" of abuse caused by their skin colour, ethnic origin or religion. The most critical thing any government of any country in the world has to do at this moment in history is try desperately through any means available is to begin to diffuse the "clash of civilisations". If that means a muslim school in Bradford or Glasgow rather than a multi-ethnic school more difficult to survive than prison then perhaps, although it may stick in our throats, this is the best option available if we are to help the kids who right now find themselves on the receiving end of racist abuse or dishing it out without realising, as teenagers seldom do, the consequences and meanings of what they are saying and doing. This generation must not grow up divided, with blacks, asian and white communities mutually resentful of each other. Take catholic schools in Scotland (being a Scot, I'm not completely familiar with the english system and so don't wish to make a flawed parallel). Yes, sectarianism still exists, but giving catholic schools to the poorest, most maligned children in the fifties and sixties allowed them to flourish leaving neither catholic nor non-denominational (de facto protestant) children so set in the prejudices of their ancestors as adults, not having been continually exposed to it, day in day out, as schoolchildren. Sectarianism is still there, but with the sting of a wasp rather than a scorpion. Today, moves are being made for shared campuses between catholic and non-catholic schools; we can see now the beginning of the end of what was fifty years ago irresolvable. The children in schools today are making up their minds as to what kind of adults they will be. If we make them hate each other now then the problems will pervade generation upon generation, getting worse rather than getting better. Faith schools do not resolve the issue, and Polly Toynbee is completely correct in asserting that they seem to represent a step away from our long term goal of a culturally diverse yet harmonious society. They do, however, calm the tensions wreaking havoc in so many schools across the country, however superficially. The match is not extinguished, but it is further away from the dynamite than it was before. It is simply unfair for any government to ask parents to send their children into the line of fire, just as it is tantamount to negligence to allow racism to gain a foothold in the succeeding generation. We must be careful not to espouse the same traits we deplore when dogmatically dismissing the religous who insist that we are misguided atheists who do not know what is best for ourselves; religion looks like it's here for the long-haul, so why does the left simply lament this fact rather than try to create a structure in which religion can but may not play a role? Faith schools will be no miracle cure, but has anyone found a better one yet?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Great article Polly.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


The title of this article says it all: "This is a clash of civilisations". When are we going to learn to live in peace and respect our differing belief systems? You leftie Guardian atheists are just as bad as any religious fanatic - so convinced in the correctness of your belief system, so lacking in understanding and tolerance for anyone who does not agree with you. We've got to share this planet and stop fighting. Polly Toynbee's intolerance is just as bad as that of Abu Hamza.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


If anyone thinks that creationism and its proponents are honest, look what they are doing behind your back. I am researching into the teaching of creationism in a Lancashire state school by the Australian religious fundamentalist John Mackay. It appears that Mackay has a team of four who will be teaching creationism there for three full days. The parents of the children have not been told, nor has Lancashire County Council, responsible for education in the region. The name of the school has also been withheld from the public who are paying, through taxation, for it. Mackay’s organisation, Creation Ministries, has refused to give details to the press on the grounds that the press is incapable of reporting the facts accurately. This scam looks to be little more that power without responsibility – the privilege of the whore through the ages.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Oh dear! The usual broadside against Muslims, as usual. But, to be fair to Polly, its religion in general that's the problem, isn't it? In her view, religious people are irrational, indoctrinous and rarely as ethical as they claim. What nonsense! I come from a faith that embraces the Chisti Sufi who entombs himself for a month to prepare for the grave, as well as intellectuals long admired in Europe such as Averoes, to the deeply compassionate and humble Barelwi road sleeper. There are surely issues regarding Muslim faith schools in the UK - but they pertain to the fact that, for example, British Muslims include diverse and contesting sectarian groups, with working class Muslim groups often poorly represented in positions of power. Sadly, these Toynbee broadsides do nothing to contribute to the good of these poorer Muslim communities, with whom one would think socialist Polly would sympathise, but alas, like Dawkins et al, her contempt for religions prevents her from bothering to become properly informed about them, except from the most slanted of perspectives. The are demonised, 'othered', and henceforth no longer in need of consideration except as contributors to polemical argument. Of course, we've heard it all before, but substitute one of the following words for Muslim/Catholic: black, savage, colonial subject, etc (Ps. perhaps more Muslims would be sympathetic to Darwin, had his arguments not been used to define non-Europeans as 'primitive' and in need of 'development')

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


What a terrific piece, hitting several nails right on the head with clarity and cogency. One wonders just how the peddlers of superstition have got their claws into our goverment. And, on 'ingelligent design', 'How craftily the creationists have hijacked the word "intelligent" for something so dumb,' says Toynbee. How indeed! But the superstitious have also hijacked the word 'faith'. To me it's a useful word that means more than irrational belief in a sky fairy, and we should claim it back. When I write to my MP or others about religious schools I call them just that: 'religous schools' or 'sect schools'. The word 'faith' gives these idiots a cuddly word, something that's nice and touchy-feely. To criticise anything with the word 'faith' in it is akin to strangling a Teletubby: it's just not done. So here's my plea: say 'religious' and 'sect' schools. You can campaign with what you _don't_ say, too. And thanks, Polly, for saying it all.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Would you all please keep your comments short and concise. Who in the world has the time to plough through all of the above? I agree whole heartedly with Ms.Toynbees excellent article.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Thank you Polly - spot on. All of the people who have suggested that just because Polly Toynbee doesn't approve of religious schools, no-one else should, seem to be ignoring the opinions of a great many atheists, Secularists, Humanists and rational agnostics in this country who feel exactly the same way.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Polly seems to have confused two conflicts. One, reason versus superstition and the other, faith versus secularism. I'm with her in what she writes on the first. We must protect civilisation from the dangerous appeal of the simple clarities of superstition. However she then mixes this up with the debate of faith versus secularism without seeming to understand that the two are subtly different. It is possible to have 'faith' without being superstitous. I was educated at Roman Catholic Primary and Secondary schools and grew up believing in rational scientific thought.. I don't believe my faith has a monopoly of wisdom, I recognise it has done and is doing great harm in the world. However I also recognise that it has done and is doing great works of good. All of this is possible because I am trained to think in the rational & empirical tradition; yet I still have faith. There is no conflict. My son has just started to attend a Roman Catholic school and I look forward to discussing and guiding him in matters of faith and science. We discuss the Easter message and the exciting images sent back by ESA Mars Express Orbiter. If Polly is to continue to contribute to this important debate she needs to be aware that this is a complex and subtle issue and not just “faith/superstition” versus “reason/secularism”. O yes and one final thing "The Pope may not call for murder..." What a grudging compliment! The Pope DOES not call for murder. Come on, Polly surely can do better than this?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


"...reading the article you can't help but feel that, for Toynbee, Islam poses a particular threat – even though there are only a handful of state-subsidised Muslim schools in the whole of Britain. It is notable that she omits to mount a similar attack on Judaism and Jewish schools. But that might be construed as racist, mightn't it?" http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2006/4/14/polly-toynbee-and-the-clash-of-civilisations.html

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


With all the recent negative coverage of France in the press over the CPE it would seem an appropriate time to recall that perhaps the French "social model" - with its insistence on secular education - is not as normatively bankrupt as so many people suggest.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


The revival of religion be it Islam, Christanity, Judaism, Hinduism and other dogmas against rationality is a potential threat to our evolved civilization. The progress made during the last few centuries against irrational creeds and credo towards emancipation of mankind will be wiped out by superstitions and our civilization will go back to medieval wars and warfare’s just to please the high priests who will control all the educations of the world to manage our civilization with their whims. Let all the governments understand this truth for our survival that is only with enlighten education system to cater the needs of our modern day civilization.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Polly T is absolutely right, as usual. What is rather alarming is how few other mainstream commentators are making any effort to emphasise this crucial point -- Matthew Parris the only other one who springs to mind -- about how essential it is for our civilisation that we hang on to the values of the Enlightenment.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Thank you for your intelligent comments on current trends in education and general thinking on matters of "faith". And we all thought the age of reason began a long time ago! I find it all very scary and depressing.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Expanding faith schools - religious Prime Minister - Bishops still in the House of Lords. Am I the only one feeling a sense of profound national embarrassment?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


My youngest son went to a Church of England school, not because we are Christians but because it offered the best education in our area. It was beneficial to him but despite being a CofE school it was plagued by children being racist, drugs being sold at the gate, kids indulging in sexual activities almost anywhere and some parents (fortunatly a monority) who were willing to scream abuse at the headteacher down the phone. I think the school tried to teach tolerance but if there was a lack of it amongst the children it was surely from their parents. In a lesson on the Holocaust a child shouted out "Kill them all" i.e. the Jews! My son left a fairly confirmed atheist and is a moral and intelligent well balanced person not in the sway of beliefs which others want to foist onto him.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Polly is right. At a time when religion continues to cause mayhem and murder across the world, the last thing we need is state-sponsored religious education. Faith groups care about themselves and their religion first, children second. Anyone who doubts this should take a look at the scandal of Holy Cross Convent School in Chalfont St Peter, Buckinghamshire - just 25 miles from Downing Street. The religious order that runs the school has announced that it is to close this summer, throwing the education of over 200 children into turmoil. It has rejected a series of well-founded rescue plans drawn up by parents, who wanted to buy the school. In short, it has put its own interests first. It's little short of evil. It is extraordinary that an organisation running a school can close it at their own whim, with barely a term's notice, regardless of the pupil's interests. But even more extraordinary that a 21st century government could consider increasing the influence of such groups in the education system - at taxpayer's expense.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


"Polly T is absolutely right, as usual!" As usual most miss the point of the article, which is not about faith schools nor religion nor her fear of religion. What it is about is using faith schools as a back door method of selection. The irony is that she (possibly) and her peers (most definately) would use either public schools or moving to a smarter area as the other two favoured method of selection for years so she can hardly complain.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


BobLord is wrong. A good deal of Polly's article wasn't about 'selection'. It was about the tension between faith and science....at least that's what she started out writing about. Bob's misunderstanding is partly due to the fact that it was a poor piece of journalism

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Brompton's comments are foolish. He/she equates the mayhem caused by religious fundamentalists [Christian, Muslim, Hindi, etc] with the existence of faith schools in the UK ?! What nonsense. The two are not connected. The world is more complex than that. Brompton is guilty of the same urge to reduce everything to safe, easy to understand simplicities that the fundamentalist are. For goodness, sake if Brompton went to Mass or sent his/her kids to a faith school they'd know that priests and teachers are ordinary people trying to teach goodness and wisdom...and not hate!

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Pat perhaps you are right I just re-read it. She doesn't really believe that anyone goes to church school for religion and neither do I. I must have skim read the rest. The reality is that church schools are a means of selection by the back door and their popularity have nothing to do with religion nor are they responsible for the belief in growing belief in creationism. The government pursues them as a back door means of selection. So in my view it's about selection because that's the governments rationale - religion is just a side issue.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Part of the selection problem is that resources are often not allocated fairly. This doesn't just mean staff/pupil ratios, equipment levels and buildings (though these are important). It also refers to the match between the needs of the pupils and the abilities of the staff/school to meet those needs. In Sheffield some of the catchment areas are wedge shaped, so that afluent and less afluent pupils attend the same schools. Unfortunaterly that isn't the only difference. You can get schools where the local children are largely white, middle class and irreligious (or C-of-E in the worst sense) and the bussed-in children are from ethnic minorities, have english as a second language, are less afluent, have stronger faith..... That the two groups should mix is probably a good thing, but the school system can pitch them against each other. For example, in English lessions there may be "reading aloud", this puts those for whom English is not their first language at a disadvantage, and can be a degrading experience. It may also give the fluent speakers an inflated sense of their own ability and superiority. Under such circumstances you could see how parents might want "segregated" schools - to get the most appropriate teaching for their children. Faith schools may be seen as a way round the social engineering of "artificial" catchment areas. An "integrated" society my be a laudable aim, but it isn't going to be achieved quickly, if ever. My own persuasion is against faith schools - and for better resourced and designed comprehensives that can be flexible enough to meet all needs. I doubt this is possible without more resourcing, and a break from simplistic "faith" solutions.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


"My own persuasion is against faith schools - and for better resourced and designed comprehensives that can be flexible enough to meet all needs. I doubt this is possible without more resourcing, and a break from simplistic "faith" solutions." You would also have to end private education and deal with schools in more affluent areas. Or you would simply have people less less affluent areas chasing schools which get better grades or simply end up delivering a poor education to those who can't afford to do one of the two above. Which is why New Labour is doing it because it can't tackle the two above and as a consequence it can't offer an equitable education to all.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


I don't understand why Polly is disgusted at a 'Labour government' debating faith schools? Is she saying that a Labour government should be anti-religion, and that Christians shouldn't be Socialists? Does that mean I'll have to vote Tory from now on?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Basuald April 14, 2006 07:28 PM Expanding faith schools - religious Prime Minister - Bishops still in the House of Lords. Am I the only one feeling a sense of profound national embarrassment? Not just embarrassment - deep apprehension (verging on terror) is more like it. We struggled for centuries to free ourselves from religious oppression - why on earth are we letting the intolerant bigots gain more and more power over our lives again? The Education Minister a member of Opus Dei! Born again Christian fanatics setting up academies! Have we gone mad? Religion should be a private matter - schools should teach about all the major religions - but religious indoctrination has no place in the classroom. I object to the money I pay in taxes being used to promote ideas which I find deeply offensive and an insult to my intelligence. People are entitled to believe whatever they find credible - but schools should not be promoting any particular creed.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


If people want their children to be given a religious education, they should either send them to church or pay for faith schools themselves. The only thing these schools achieve is the perpetuating of religious bigotry. Polly Toynbee cited Northern Ireland as having segregated schools. Here in Scotland we suffer from the same system of Catholic and State schools and, from that experience, I can state quite categorically that it fosters religious intolerance. At the age of five I was sent to a State school, normally refered to here as a "Protestant" school and children who lived in the same street were sent to a Catholic school. All this did was to emphasise the differences between myself and my Catholic neighbours and foster suspicion and, in many cases, hatred. where I lived, the two schools were on opposite sides of the same street and we used to throw stones at each other while chanting sectarian insults. Happily I am now an atheist and have no religious or any other kind of bigotry but this is not due to being taught in a segregated system.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


"I don't understand why Polly is disgusted at a 'Labour government' debating faith schools" Because Labour is _supposed_ to equal socialism (new Labour~=Thatcherism, but that's for another blog), and socialism and religion are two different things. Compatible, sometimes, possibly, and incompatible at other times. There are certain things the state should do, and certain things it should not. Proselytising is one of the things it should _not_ do. That's what churches are for. As someone said earlier in this thread, or another today, I forget, "you don't teach faith in my school, I won't teach thinking in your church".

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


I am appalled by the fact that I have send my daughter to any school at all. I would much rather teach her myself. However this is of course not possible since being the product of the indoctrination system myself I am forced to perpetuate the "sausage machine" because that was why it was invented. Is there no way out of this madness? Surely we must have learn't something worthwhile to pass on to our kids other than; "Tough shit, think yourself lucky, when I were a lad.............!"

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Polly Toynbee admits that religious schools are very popular, then goes on to say that "the people" do not want them. Surely there must be some contradiction here?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Religion by its very nature takes a one sided look at life. In an increasingly multicultural society surely this can only lead to conflicts and confusions; how can all religions be true? Schools should offer a curriculum with a bias towards, but not exclusively, British culture as the vast majority of pupils are British. Religion should be taught, if it is to be taught, with a neutral approach. Parents who then want their children to follow a religion should make their own arrangements, however, I imagine that few will do so. This is the real reason faith schools are being pushed, without them we will move towards a rational future and the business leaders, sorry priests, who gain so much from this form of superstition will become redundant.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


If you have a secular society, it is wise to defend it. I don't like the idea of evangelical nutters teaching their version of "morality" and "science" to young ones. The UK is lucky in the respect that you actually get to DECIDE what is moral and what isin't.....

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


A few years ago, I read 'The Handmaid's Tale' by Margaret Atwood. I thought it an interesting, but unlikely scenario - a story about what might happen if religious fundementalists were ever to seize power in the USA. The outlook for women was, necessarily dire, for I have yet to encounter a religion that does not seek to oppress the female of the species. Even the relatively innocuous C OF E tears itself to pieces over the ordination of women priests. Since the election of George W Bush and his born again crazies, the idea hasn't seemed quite so far-fetched. But I never imagined it might happen in a sane secular society like ours. We are a long way from it, but if the Rev'd Blair and his pious supporters ever get their way - well who knows what might happen...

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Excellent article, Polly. Of all the misconceived New Labour policies I think this is the most long-term dangerous one. I think the answer is clear - integration of all pupils into secular schools. The trouble is the evidence from abroad sometimes seems to contradict this view, unless you look at it very carefully. For example I sighed when I saw the 'racial' riots in France a few months back, because it seemed to supply the proponents of faith schools with an example of the failure of the integrationist approach. But actually those riots were relatively minor, more dramatic than actually harmful (with hardly any deaths, for example) and rooted more in the geography of French public housing, and specific employment policies, than anything else. When the time eventually comes to judge Tony Blair's domestic record, this will be as much his epitaph as Iraq, I suspect. A policy of giving as many groups in society what they say they want is not statesmanship, it is just vote-getting and election-winning - but to no purpose. The events of 7/7 should have been a wake up call, but psychologically they were not for Blair and New Labour because having made such a terrible error in going into Iraq their predominant personal need is to avoid the accusation that the war increased terrorism at home and around the world. Their solution therefore is not to take another look at faith schools and integration but to introduce another raft of oppressive laws which hurry us towards a police state. Actually, the groups which thrive in a police state are not ordinary decent people but desperadoes and terrorists, who have little to lose but their lives and little to gain except martyrdom.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


At the school i went to we were taught comparative religion and religion, ethics and philosphy. I thought this was great and at no point were we taught from the point of view of the existence of God being fact. My view is that religious schools have no place in the education system, all schools should be secular without exception and all children shoudl be fgorced to attend school. If you want to learn about God go to church, mosque, synagogue. As an aethisist (almost religious in my denial of the possibility of the existence of God, any god)I object strongly to any of my money as a tax payer being spent filling childrens heads with superstitious mumbo jumbo nonsense. Really we will be saying that the earth is at the centre of the universe next!)

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


The discussion is absurd, "It's religion stupid" Address the root cause There is one sect that runs schools that has taken its direction for centuries primarily from an bunch of aged Italian cross dressers. There is another that runs schools that believes that an alien promised them some Arab land and therefore it's permisable to kill and steal with impunity. There is another thatruns schools revels in the idea that blowing themselves up {and others} is laudable. They take their instruction from bearded pajama wearing nutbars. How any sane being can subscribe to utterances and directives that in any other section of society would be cause for incarceration in a mental ward is frightning.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


On the whole (and obviously there are exceptions) church schools provide a better education and inculcate the notion of "respect" which seems woefully lacking in so much of society. This is why they are so popular, despite polls supposedly claiming that most people oppose them (I suspect that these polls use loaded terms like "sectarian schools" or even "faith schools" which has developed a particular connotation. I also object to the assumption that church schools are somehow "biassed" while secular ones are somehow "objective". For example, secular (or Protestant)English schooling has popularised the notion of "Bloody Mary" as opposed to "Good Queen Bess", a notion very different from what Catholic schools would teach. A trivial example perhaps, but when will the secularists like Polly come to realise that their views are anything but "objective" on these matters?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


As an evangelical Christian and socialist I am opposed to the creation of so-called 'faith-based' etc. schools. The experience of Ulster is that educational Apartheid merely perpetuates sectarianism throughout the generations. Tony Blair is entitled to his religious views (messianic?) but to attempt to divide society in this way is extremely dangerous. Many British Muslims are already barely integrated into UK culture so why are we are encouraging them, and other religious people, to exclude themselves even further? As a Christian I believe that all people were created equal by God and that for this reason it is dangerous to see oneself as somehow 'separate' or 'better' than others. This criticism could equally be applied to adults who send their children to any kind of fee-paying school whatsoever (except for the obvious medical reasons). What are these believing parents afraid of - that their children might be exposed to the diversity of opinions that exists in the adult world? By succumbing to their fear of rational debate about fundamental issues of existence and morality I believe that such parents are succumbing to their own fears about the integrity of their own particular faith. Maybe these schools should be renamed 'Lack of Faith' schools, reflecting the fear of parents who want to protect their children from the world as it is. It is the age old fear of 'contamination' by others, and it must be countered.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


"So why are MPs backing them?" - probably because they are trying to represent and honour the religious feelings of large numbers of people. ------------------------------------------ "This is indeed a clash of civilisations, not between Islam and Christendom but between reason and superstition" - this "clash" actually concerns Islam and the West, which is another formulation of reason vs, superstition. The real problem is Islam. All religion is bullshit, but Christians at least integrate into society and respect British values. Islam is notoriously oppressive towards women, and has a notoriously violent and non-intgratonist history. ------------------------------------------ "The chief inspector of schools, David Bell, says Islamic schools pose a challenge to social cohesion. "Traditional Islamic education does not entirely fit pupils for their lives as Muslims in modern Britain." The Muslim Parliament itself has just expressed anxiety about sexual abuse and violence in the 700 unregulated madrasas where 100,000 Muslim children go after school." - well, I'm glad for this little piece of honesty. Although it goes further than this; the moslem schools are only part of moslem culture, where you see the same issues in non-school contexts. Islam is a disturbingly backward culture, inconmpatible with the modern and liberal West. There is no percentage of Christians who support or practice terrorism - unlike with Islam, where there is a widespread grey-area of dividded loyalty between their Middle East tribal nonsense and the secular country where they live. The recent cartoon protests were a disturbing and disgusting example of the problem Islam presents whenever and wherever it is located in the West.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


Polly,I love you! Lord Kinnock ,Charles Clarke and Mayor Livingston are atheists in your country .Here we just do not elect atheists except , I just recently learned , Rep. Bernard Sanders. I was hoping you were one of us.The far out judge you wrongly.They bask in their ignorance and want it taught in schools. Here Cheney-Bush are anti-science . I hope Blair-Prescott are not. No to government funding of faith-based schools. Polly, thanks for good articles!

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


I wonder how a school that wished to teach children, instead of a religion, say, communism would be greeted? (Unfavourably, I would guess.) Why should religious belief be given special treatment?

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


"research by the Institute for Research in Integrated Strategies is only the latest to find that C of E and Catholic schools take a lower proportion of free-school-meal children than the average for their catchment area" Maybe you're getting cause and effect mixed up here. If religious people are mor3e likely to have children raised by both biological parents (which they are) then we shouldn't be suprised if religious people are on average wealthier than non-religious ones. Single parenthood is a key indicator of poverty in the UK, as you have pointed out so often - so very often. So you really would expect less free school dinners among the children of churchgoers. (and exactly which private school did YOUR kids attend, by the way ?)

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


No western government should fund any religious schools, if we are being even. My feeling is that Christian schools should be funded, because Christianity was the historic religion of western states and ought to be recognized as such. Government funding of a Sikh school in Canada financed the Air India bombing of 1985, hence no other religion should be funded by western governments. Re: intelligent design. Orthodox creationist do not recognize intelligent design. It does not fit into the Genesis story neither, hence it is not God's idea. Unfortunately, for evolutionists, there is no evidence that humans evolved from apes, only speculative guesses. Most sensible scientists do agree that there was a 'Great Leap Forward' that led to the human animal. It is inexplicable in any other way. Likewise, there is no good scientific argument against adaptation is nature, which intelligent design upholds but orthodox creationism rejects.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


"The Pope may not call for murder, but the Vatican is directly responsible for millions of Aids deaths by refusing to sanction condoms even in parts of Africa where half the population is infected with HIV, putting out deliberate lies that condoms are useless against the virus anyway." Just like to clear up a common misconception about this issue, while I disagree with the Vatican's stance on condoms in Africa to make statements such as the above helps no-one. The reasons behind people in Africa not using condoms go to the very root of a culture which extends far beyond the influence of Catholocism. If the words of the Pope were listened to as closely as Ms Toynbee claims then the AIDS crisis would evaporate overnight because the major spreader of AIDS is people having multiple partners, something expressly forbidden by Catholic teaching.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


klarston You are right. Likewise, if atheists did half the good works Christians do the world round, we might actually eliminate poverty. This whole 'Live Aid' thing, novel as it was, does nothing compared to the comparatively silent work of thousands of Christian organizations in the third world today. I never hear a self-proclaimed 'atheist' laud a devoted Christian organization while bitching and groaning about the plight of the poor in the world. Atheists are good talkers, but self-absorbed actors. They may donate money here and there, but as a tax deduction, not an altruistic gesture. By the way, a personal acquaintance was dying of leukemia and after mass prayer, a miracle happened and the doctor said it was as if the cancer was never there. The atheist media (which Ms. Toynbee represents) never allows for the fact that there are things in this life which reason alone cannot account for. Some call it 'superstition', but reason alone does not explain everything, and it never will.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us


The whole sniping between theists and atheists is ridiculous and pointless, you don't need to have faith in God to be a good person but by the same standard you don't need to be an atheist to be a rational person. I'm sure that millions of atheists do give generously to charity out of altruism the same as millions of religious people do. The problem arises when you get the evangelicals on both sides shaping the debate. Faith has helped some of the greatest people in history, Martin Luther King and Ghandi to name but two were motivated by a strong faith and to dismiss this driving force as irrational with no place in the modern world is as ignorant as it is offensive. Many atheists would rightly be angered by constant efforts to convert them and attacking their belief and yet the reverse is deemed acceptable - i thought secular humanism sought to remove the hypocracy evident in many established moral codes? By looking at some of the above comments it seems that we need more religious education in our schools than less.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us




Special report
Religion in the UK

Related articles
Guide to British religions
Full coverage - Muslim Britain

Useful links
Archbishop of Canterbury
Archbishop of Westminster
Board of Deputies of British Jews
British Humanist Association
National Secular Society
Islamic Human Rights Commission
Muslim Council of Britain
The Vatican
Hindu Forum of Britain
The RE directory





UP


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006