Just astounding:
London, Feb 26, 2008 (CNA).- A committee in the British House of Commons will investigate Catholic schools following the Bishop of Lancaster’s instructions to schools to place crucifixes in every classroom and stop “safe sex” education, the Independent reports.
Patrick O’Donoghue, Bishop of Lancaster, had circulated a 66-page booklet instructing Catholic schools to stop “safe sex” education. Bishop O’Donoghue wrote, “The secular view on sex outside marriage, artificial contraception, sexually transmitted disease, including HIV and AIDS, and abortion, may not be presented as neutral information.”
Additionally, he told the schools not to support charities that support abortion. He singled out Amnesty International, which recently renounced its neutrality on abortion and now favors the abortion of children whose mothers were raped in war zones.
The government’s investigating committee is chaired by Labour Party member Barry Sheerman, who is reportedly concerned the Church is adopting a “fundamentalist” line.
“A lot of taxpayers’ money is going into church schools and I think we should tease out what is happening here,” he added. “We seem to have a shift in emphasis on the ground despite what the reasonable voices of the leadership are saying,” Sheerman said.
Why does Sheerman get to decide who is reasonable? This is the thing which is really bothersome about this – a politician is going to bring pressure on a religious body to toe the government line because the politician has arrogated to himself the right to decide what is reasonable, and what isn’t. Now, if Mr. Sheerman thinks the Church wrong; that is fine. If Mr. Sheerman thinks that the Church is so wrong that it should not receive any government funding in Britain, then he may move a bill in Parlaiment to do just that. But to use a government committee as an attempt to browbeat the Church into doing the secularists’ will, that is an abominable infringement upon the rights of the people.
Chesterton said a very long time ago that, in the end, there is the Church, and her enemies – and Mr. Sheerman is demonstrating this to us in very stark terms. It isn’t enough for the Sheermans of the world to have all sorts of taxpayer funded programs to promote the leftist agenda – arrogantly self assured about their moral superiority, lefists insist that no one be allowed to dissent from their worldview. Britain, like the rest of Europe, is far gone down the road to socialist slavery – but this is the sort of world that the left wants to bring to the United States; a government controlled world of enforced political correctness. You want it, you can have it – all you have to do is “hope for change” in 2008, rather than learn and think.
Blogs For Victory 
Gentleman let logic circumvent emotional convictions. True there is much controversy and debate on the Arabic translation into English concerning Article 11 of the Treaty. Some say Barlow’s Arabic was flawed and the English version is not consistent with the Arabic version. But you see although this argument may have historical merit it is illrelevant to the United states ratification of the treaty. Even if one suggest problems with article 11 look at all the great legal and political minds who read Article 11 of the Treaty yet still agreed to ratify it. These were the founding fathers of the country. We give them so much credit, respect, and honor their judgement about forming and preparing the great document, the Constitution and now we hundreds of years later dispute their reasons for ratifying a treaty with Article 11. Well, some facts about the Treaty today are still unknown and untold but for sure with this fact there is no dispute: Had these great men after reading the treaty decided that article 11 was not consistent with the basic structure of the Constitution could not they just removed it? There is no historical reasons or justifications they have ever been presented that shows that the US government had to include the Article in order for the Treat to be accepted by Morocco and passed by Congress. In fact many of the earlier Articles that Morocco wanted in the Treaty were deleted until the US government was satisfied. So again I ask the question if being a christian nation was of utmost importance to Congress would not they just removed Article 11 long before it came before Congress for ratification? I think Article 11 was placed there because it gave the founding fathers an opportunity to do what they should have done in the original constitution. I think Article 11 is a left behind sign and a message to the future children of American that this government was established as a safe haven for all men regardless of religion.