It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Secular Labour U-turn

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   


The government is facing a battle in the House of Lords after it abandoned plans to make new faith schools take more children from other religions.

Education Secretary Alan Johnson said he had dropped the idea after reaching a "voluntary agreement" with churches.

But his Tory predecessor Lord Baker told the BBC he would table an amendment to the Education Bill next week to reinstate the quotas plan.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


news.bbc.co.uk...

not only is Labour forcing us what to wear in public, who to talk to, what to watch, etc but is now telling us where to send our Children to school. This lastest attack is about forcing Faith schools to take on students who are not from that faith, which i really dont understand why a Muslim would send their child to a Catholic school (according to Labour, families want this)

All tend to have a "voluntary agreement", but its hard to force Faith Schools to take on students from a different background because surely the School will be alien to them if they are not from that Faith?. And then you will get the Atheist groups accusing Faith Schools of brainwashing students who are not apart of that faith (which is probably what Labour wants).

This is another great cock up by Labour.

( i would not be suprised if Labour suddenly ban religion, expect for a "Church of Labour"
)

(also, the Catholic schools are very against this plan (plus they were not orignally included) and one of the Catholic schools was the one where Blair's children went to)

....Funny that.




posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
not only is Labour forcing us what to wear in public, who to talk to, what to watch, etc but is now telling us where to send our Children to school.


- OK infinite, I'll bite.

When has this Gov "forced" any of the things you've mentioned on anyone (presumably you'll exclude people under legal restraint for crime)?

What laws did they pass forcing this upon people, hmmm?

Specifically, go for it, let's hear it -
Clothing
Conversation
Viewing habits
School.


This lastest attack is about forcing Faith schools to take on students who are not from that faith, which i really dont understand why a Muslim would send their child to a Catholic school (according to Labour, families want this)


- Maybe that's because you are looking at "faith schools" in the wrong way.
They are primarily schools as opposed to religious institutions.

They are invariably enormously over-subscribed; the issue is not about 'forcing' parents to send their child there but to give parents who wish to send their child to a good school (as many of the faith based schools are) the chance to do so.

No-one is being "forced" to go there, the schools themselves on the other hand are being asked (quite reasonably as many - like C of E and some RC school already do have a non-faith based intake) to take a minimum level of non-faith based numbers.

As we can now see, far from being "forced" the Gov & schools have reached a voluntary agreement on this; it is actually the tory party that are trying to force this with a law.

Where's you thread about the tory party trying to force things on people, hmmmm?


This is another great cock up by Labour.


- No it isn't.

It is a grown-up and sensible way of proceeding in these matters.

It is far preferable to reach a voluntary understanding and agreement than spend precious Parliamentary time over an issue settled this way and without recourse to law.


( i would not be suprised if Labour suddenly ban religion, expect for a "Church of Labour"
)


-
weak infinite, very weak.


(also, the Catholic schools are very against this plan (plus they were not orignally included) and one of the Catholic schools was the one where Blair's children went to)

....Funny that.


- Can you provide a link to the original plans showing RC schools not included?
Maybe it'll provide the reasoning.....
......like many of them (in England) already have significant numbers of non-faith children attending, hmmmm?

I take it you'll be making digs about Cameron & 'special needs Schools' seeing as Cameron has a child at one and has been making several public statements about their 'needs'......or is the 'self-interest' angle only ever applied when it's possible to spin a Labour angle?



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Hmm, interesting. I know protestants in big cities here in the U.S. often send their children to Catholic schools since they're the most affordable alternative to the mostly horrible public schools in the cities...but I'm not sure what would happen if Muslims wanted to enroll their children. I would think the schools would take them, but I doubt they'd be forced to by the government, that would seem to me to violate the 1st Amendment.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
The last press question session Blair had in which the NHS Chief was there...

Skynews reporter, Adam whats his face, mentioned the Roman Catholic schools have refused the Government ideas and Blair refused to force the issue on them.

This why the Government have done a huge U-turn cause the Catholic schools did not want to be forced (by the law) to allow a selection of non-Catholics attend their school.

Plus, the Archbishop of Canterbury today has also gone public with his concerns that the Government is playing a dangerous game with religion in trying to create a secular society.



They are invariably enormously over-subscribed; the issue is not about 'forcing' parents to send their child there but to give parents who wish to send their child to a good school (as many of the faith based schools are) the chance to do so.


But then you get Atheist groups pointing the finger and accusing Faith schools of trying to brainwash students, who are not of that faith.



or is the 'self-interest' angle only ever applied when it's possible to spin a Labour angle?


even you know there has been many questions asked about Blair and Catholicism.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Skynews reporter, Adam whats his face, mentioned the Roman Catholic schools have refused the Government ideas and Blair refused to force the issue on them.


- That's not quite the same thing tho is it?

It's perfectly consistent for the Gov not to wish to force this issue upon the schools and to do what they have done.
They draw up plans but they preferred and hoped to reach mutual agreement and not use the legal power of legislation.....which as you yourself posted they have done.

That's clearly their preferred option in this.


Plus, the Archbishop of Canterbury today has also gone public with his concerns that the Government is playing a dangerous game with religion in trying to create a secular society.


- That's misrepresenting what he said, he did not actually even single out the Gov.

In any case.....and?
What do you expect?

It beats being what he is the rest of the time, a curious silent irrelevance.


But then you get Atheist groups pointing the finger and accusing Faith schools of trying to brainwash students, who are not of that faith.


- Well as I said, if you don't know much about them and see the word "Faith" instead of "School" you might.
The truth is (similarly to djohnsto77's comment) that they are usually very popular and heavily oversubscribed.

........and that is all just side-stepping backing up the point you made about 'forcing people' to go to particular school's


even you know there has been many questions asked about Blair and Catholicism.


- So?

Whatever he was to do questions would always be asked.....and what?

At least he used the state system, unlike the vast majority of your tory pals.

......and you again swerved the point about Cameron speaking up in his own self-interest, eh?



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Whatever he was to do questions would always be asked.....and what?


in theory, a Catholic cannot be Prime Minister (but thats if the rumour of him being a Catholic is true)



At least he used the state system, unlike the vast majority of your tory pals.


Wasn't Blair's Univeristy called the Eton of the North?



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
in theory, a Catholic cannot be Prime Minister (but thats if the rumour of him being a Catholic is true)


- I don't think he actually is but I know his wife is, his kids are baptised RC and he attends RC church services with them.

Frankly I think the whole thing is antiquated nonsense, a hang-over of the 17th century.

I'm all for the separation of state and Church (any Church) rendering this type of law obsolete and to the dustbin of history as IMO it should have been long long ago.


Wasn't Blair's Univeristy called the Eton of the North?


- Well if you're going to start on what university they went to (which, again is a dodge on the point) you better get ready to spend a long time knocking all of them (all parties) cos the over-representation of the UK's so-called 'best' universities is stark.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Church and State should never be seperate.

When its been tried, it gets messy. Take America, its in their Constitution, but when its enforced certain religious groups complain against it.

France is another example, plus, our Church is apart of our proud history and i cannot see it being taken away without an outcry.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Church and State should never be seperate.

When its been tried, it gets messy. Take America, its in their Constitution, but when its enforced certain religious groups complain against it.


The problem is it's not really there, this is what it says:



First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


If you asked anyone who was present when this was written, they'd say this just means we can't have an official "Church of the United States" and everyone has the right to worship as they please. Unfortunately in modern times it's been twisted into meaning far more than it was meant to.

The French law though I think does impose a total ban on religion in public life.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
they'd say this just means we can't have an official "Church of the United States" and everyone has the right to worship as they please. Unfortunately in modern times it's been twisted into meaning far more than it was meant to.


was that done to be seen as an anti-Church of England after the War of Independence?

thank you for explaining the First Amendment



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
was that done to be seen as an anti-Church of England after the War of Independence?


I guess basically yes, a lot of people came here from Europe to escape religious persecution....everyone from Puritans to Catholics.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
ah,

thank you again djohnsto77



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Church and State should never be seperate.


- Well we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

I think it's not only perfectly feasible but totally desirable.


When its been tried, it gets messy.


- IMO that is only because it is not done properly.


Take America, its in their Constitution, but when its enforced certain religious groups complain against it.


- I have no problem with people complaining or wanting to change this but the response is often weak and/or politically motivated & manipulated.

The issue ought to be made clearer but instead political points are sought and scored and that is where the problems arise in the US with this IMO.


France is another example


- Actually France has worked very well in this regard for many years.


plus, our Church is apart of our proud history and i cannot see it being taken away without an outcry.


- I think you over-rate the public's fondness of religion.

The fact that a single and particular denomination gets to formulate and concoct our laws seems to me to be not only an absurdity but wholly offensive to large parts of our people.

......and for large numbers of our people the British state and it's religion's role in that history is anything but "proud".



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Some Labour politicans have "apparently" said the U-turn came about because if the Catholic schools were forced to allow students from a non-Catholic to attend, the 2 million voting Catholics in the UK may use the vote to protest.

That interesting fact, was brought to us by the BBC.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Oh come on infinite, that's just pure politics and spin.

Anything you do might have a reaction amongst a large group of people and therefore influence the actions you choose to take......and?

That can (and often is) said about any and everything.

It still doesn't reduce the desirability of reaching agreed settlements over imposed ones though, does it?



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 05:22 AM
link   
An interesting set of article that was in The Independent today



Baker accuses Catholics of faith-school 'lies'

The battle over whether faith schools should be forced to admit pupils from different religious backgrounds is to be fought out next week in the House of Lords, despite a climbdown by the Education Secretary, Alan Johnson.

Under pressure from religious leaders and Labour MPs, Mr Johnson agreed to settle for a voluntary scheme that could see pupils of other faiths admitted to Catholic schools, so long as Catholic pupils did not lose out.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


education.independent.co.uk...



Powerful lobby that forced Johnson to think again

As political capitulations go it was about as humiliating as any politician can remember.

Lord Baker, the former Conservative education secretary, described the rethink on forcing faith schools to accept pupils from other religious or non-religious backgrounds "as the fastest U-turn in British political history". Lord Baker was in no doubt that it was the Catholic Church's campaign against the proposal which had persuaded the Cabinet to change its mind.

While other faith groups had played their part in raising the political temperature, final victory was only secured after a meeting between the Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, and the Education Secretary, Alan Johnson.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


education.independent.co.uk...

It's interesting to note the power of the Catholic lobby in the United Kingdom.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite


Baker accuses Catholics of faith-school 'lies'

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

education.independent.co.uk...


- You left out the interesting bit......what actual "lies" did Baker accuse them of?

......and Kenneth Baker?


Like he can talk.....when did he (when he was the tory Minister for Education and Schools) ever move on this issue and do anything about it?

If anyone is "humiliated" in this (or whatever ridiculously emotive media-speak you wish to use) it ought to be tories like Baker who did nothing in this area and are reduced to carping not over what has been done but pathetic little digs about how it was done.


It's interesting to note the power of the Catholic lobby in the United Kingdom.


- Do you think so?

I think it would be foolish of anyone to imagine religious groups have no power at all but I don't see the RC "lobby" as particularly powerful in Britain today.

This is an issue, you might say, on 'their patch' so it's natural they could create a fuss (just as Muslim schools have done, although to a lesser extent).

The truth is that the Gov has always preferred to reach mutually agreed settlements on this kind of issue, they, rightly, see no mileage in picking fights in these areas if they can help it.

They did reach agreement, credit to them, that IMO is good governance.



[edit on 28-10-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   


I think it would be foolish of anyone to imagine religious groups have no power at all but I don't see the RC "lobby" as particularly powerful in Britain today.


there are a large numbers of Catholics in the Cabinet and they have been seen to not vote on certain issues that go against the Catholic traditions.

i recall reading an article about the growing power of the RC in the UK, i see if i can find it for you



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join