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 
Not well versed in British law, but the article says these Catholic schools get a lot of taxpayers’ money. In the U.S. they would simply turn down the taxpayers’ money and practice as they wish provided they did not for example advocate an attempt to over throw of the very Constitution that gave the right to a group of people to establish a religion. The President’s primary oath is to protect the Constitution.
• Thomas Jefferson – Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).
If only we could require the goverment funded European Madrassas to quit preaching death to infidels.
I guess it’s easier to start with the Catholics
Why does Sheerman get to decide who is reasonable?–Noonan
Barry Sheerman, MP Huddersfield, Labour, is the chair of the Education and Skills Select committee that is bound by its duty to investigate these sorts of things. Since these matters involve taxpayers funds his committee would be the place for a resolution to be found in the law.
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.
Great Britain unlike the US has an established church with Lords Spiritual sitting in Parliament. If the Crown so desired all other religions by Her Assent could be decreed illegal as they once were in the United Kingdom.
We, Ourselves, note that as far as the Law reads in England there is only one Church that can and does receive protection from the Crown and the respect of the Law and that is the Reformed Catholic Church of England.
Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!
If one were to remove tired old cliches from jane, she would be wordless.
Oh, if only….
Yes, she did drag out the one single letter in which any Founding Father ever said the slightest thing about a “wall of separation between church and state”—-evidently in the belief that Jefferson was such a delicate flower, so shy and retiring, that although HE personally believed that religion and the state should never share any territory at all, he was so intimidated by his peers that he not only never suggested that this belief be incorporated into the actual, ruling, document he was helping frame, he even kowtowed to the rest of them and voiced views about the role of a Creator in the development of this new nation.
As usual, the rabid Left has to rewrite history, and redefine the very characters of men, to try to shore up a feeble point. But it’s all in a days’ work for an antireligionist Socialist (sorry for the redundancy..)
But janie, janiejaniejanie, try to wrap your little head around THIS: Thomas Jefferson was writing about the colonies which were separating, or had already separated from England. So he could have written that the government should be run by fairies sprinkling pixie dust on everyone to bring them Hope, and Change (as seems to happening in our country now) and it would be totally irrelevant to the thread.
You see, janie, Thomas Jefferson’s opinion had nothing whatsoever to do WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY.
However, a big shout out to janie for remaining so steadfastly consistent. That is to say, clueless.
The in that vein Sheikh Almiranta why is this an issue for Americans at all what happens to Catholics in England? Where’s the true allegiance to the nation state or to religion uber alles?
Its none of our business what the United Kingdom does with-in its borders. They can outlaw the Catholic church all they want its their nation they can do whatever they want.
Mazeltov! MS
Game. Set. Match.
Hey wait didn’t my cohort in crime Pain say that up the thread?? But still very well done MS.
Noonan
That’s simple. Because it is taxpayer’s money. Catholic Schools in the UK are part of Public Education. The Public sets the standards for what constitutes Public Education. Sheerman does NOT question Catholic Doctrine: what nonsense they teach in their churches is not the issue here, what they teach in their schools to non-catholic pupils with non-catholic taxpayer’s money is the issue.
Hey, isn’t the guy who is trying to create suspicion of me by calling me a “Sheikh” the same guy who was whingeing about both “fear mongering” AND “xenophobia” in another post?
I called him on that there, too. Tsk tsk.
I’ll call him this, too: “Where’s the true allegiance to the nation state or to religion uber alles?”
Pure gibberish. It’s not even good radical Socialist cant. Hint: If you want to support your cause, you have to at least appear to make sense, at least every now and then. Diana can do this. Jane can’t. And you are slipping, very badly, from your original post on German Nazi fascism. Makes me think you cribbed it from someone who could spell and who could organize thoughts into some degree of coherence.
BTW, any intrusion into religious freedom by a nation which has a history of honoring that freedom is worth a comment. When that nation is as closely aligned to ours as is Great Britain, it is even more noteworthy. It’s just the quoting of a American Founding Father, regarding the American Constitution, in that context that was a little goofy.
Game, Set, Match?? It looks like your rules for tennis are as free-form and meaningless as your rules for debate and political discourse.
I didn’t even have to read the article to answer this question. Mark obviously doesn’t know how public schools are structured in Britain.
But I’ll just add to the couple comments on the schools’ funding, by saying that this is the inevitable end result of any kind of voucher program. Courts have already ruled that faith-based institutions can’t prostelyze on the public dime (ie, homeless shelters or meal programs). Eventually, if vouchers come to pass, catholic schools that accept public money would be forced to stop what little religious instruction they have.
Which, by the way is how it should be. But I’m not going to argue that point with someone who doesn’t “believe” in the separation of church and state.
weeniehead, whether or not I “believe” in the “separation of church and state” is immaterial.
I do not believe it is a Constitutional requirement.
As a conservative, and as a Constitutionalist, I don’t think that my personal beliefs can or should be allowed to influence the actual wording of the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN.
And the only support for the claims that there is a constitutional requirement for that “wall” is a letter written by one of the Founding Fathers, using terms and even ideas that were never incorporated into the actual document.
It’s hard, but important, to keep ones’ personal wants and wishes separate from what the actual law says.
Do i have to teach them everything??
Sheikh Al Mirantha [ bin Ebro] a play on words referring to the Umayyad Caliphate strong hold of Miranda Spain.
Under the law the C of E owes Rome nothing no even protection of their adherents. if british catholics don’t like living in anation where their is an established church where they are beholden to the scrutiny of those the taxpayers send to parliament then they should leave the UK and come to the US where Christians are merely annoyed and not openly “persecuted.”
Whatever the UK wants to do within its borders regarding religion and religious institutions is their business. But it is important for us to watch. The anti-religous groups in the US often look to European actions as the ideal we should follow. Only 11 comments into the thread Winnohead is citing this action as proof of why we shouldn’t have vouchers in the US. In reading the original post I didn’t get the idea Mark wanted readers to e-mail this MP with a demand the MP not do this. I read it simply as a warning to watch out for this craziness happening in the US.
Almiranta,
Precisely why I’m not arguing: it will devolve into an argument retread 500 times already, on this site alone. The fact is, though, you’re on the losing side of the argument. Even our conservative Supreme Court will not be breaking that wall down within their tenure. And despite differences between the UK and US on religious matters, the issue in this matter is the same – state funding of religion.
And by the way, the name-calling is very classy.
Patrick,
I did not make that point. I don’t support vouchers because I feel it will inevitably weaken public education.
My point was not about refuting vouchers, it was coming from the exact OPPOSITE direction. I was simply stating why Mark’s sentiment will not be served by vouchers. So many people seem to support vouchers purely because they want to see their religion promoted. The cold, hard fact, is that the case law in this country will not allow religious instruction on the public dime. The parochial schools will be forced to become secular educational institutions, or refuse public money.
Agree or disagree, it’s a fact. Sorry.
I see the libs bring up the letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists – and as usual take it out of context.
They do not include the purpose of the letter……The Danbury Baptists were worried that the STATE legislature was going to pass legislation making an “official religion” of their state.
The explanation of the letter shows that The LEGISLATURE shall be separate from the church – to protect the church from government and not the other way around. Religion can be a part of government – as far as the framework of new and existing laws AND NOT A THEOCRACY.
Another lie perpetuated by liberals is that if religion is considered in the creation of laws we would have a theocracy. Another bold-faced lie.
The second amendment is to give the people the freedom of religion and LIMIT the government in its RESTRICTION of religion.
What you libs fail to understand is that the Congress authorized THE BIBLE as a textbook in schools…..I believe they called it the Revolutionary Bible or something close to that – the name eludes me right now. Another thing Congress first did was to enact the positions of CHAPLIN for the House and Senate.
The so-called wall was for the protection of religion and not freedom FROM religion.
Instead of complaining you conservatives should sit back for a second and thank your lucky stars that the Founders had the wisdom to erect a wall of seperation between church and state. Otherwise you could find similar things happening to your beloved bastions of superstition here in the States.
Oh BTW TiredofYourBullshit-
Still trotting out that weak arguement that the wall is a oneway street favoring religion? Try to support that fantasy if you can. OH OH OH they used to teach children to read by using the bible. What you tend to quickly gloss over Tiredofyourbullshit is that it was a teaching tool for reading comprehension and a cheap one at that because everyone at the time could get their hands on a bible. If they ever used it to teach children to be “good christians” then i’d say you may be approaching something that looks like a point. Unfortunately for you they did not. But let’s for a second say ok you’re right, then let’s start taxing churches. If they want to play then they must pay. I think we could all use some of that tax free cash that Pat Robertson, Ted Haggert and the late Jerry Falwell are rolling in don’t you?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!
bullshit (it’s a guys handle, so don’t censor it)… that is the first amendment…
The first amendment’s wording regarding religion is … ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
The part we are arguing about is the “make no law respecting an establishment of religion” part. This is a bit vague in the wording, but there are two major ways that one can read it. The first is to take the word “establishment” as meaning “the act of establishing,” which leads us to the common conclusion of the government not being able to establish a state religion. The other way is to take the word “establishment” as meaning “something established: a constituted order or system” or “institution” (which would turn “establishment of religion” into “religious institution”). That reading would lead us to to the conclusion that government can pass no law regarding a religious system or a religious institution. Which brings into suspect things like tax exemption of churches.
Now… We aren’t talking about America in this Thread, we are talking about England. Essentially… in England, Catholic Schools are teaching with the government’s money. The government should have to fund education contrary to the stated beliefs of government. Therefore, if Catholic Schools want to teach things contrary to the stated position of government, they should have to either forgo those funds given to them by government or not teach those things… It’s really as simple as that…
Rana,
When read in its entirety your first observation is the only correct one—that government will not “establish” a state or federal religion because the “thereof” refers back to the first part of the sentence or at least that is the way I read it.
Otherwise, I guess it could be understood as no taxes on churches (establishment of religion) and I would have to guess gym (free exercise) memberships? Hey, where can I get a good attorney and recover all of them fees I have paid over the years…
Just a thought.
Almiranta,
This is interesting:
“As a conservative, and as a Constitutionalist, I don’t think that my personal beliefs can or should be allowed to influence the actual wording of the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN.”
Does that extend to everything? Because you make an awful lot of arguments on this site in regards to a certain topic that indicate otherwise. You can’t have it both ways.
NIPpie,
Obviously, you have never read the Jefferson letter in its entirety and known its true purpose.
I never said the wall favors religion, just protects religion from government – big difference moron.
Everyone could get a hold of the bible? Oh yeah, that’s why Congress authorized the printing of the Revolutionary Bible for specific use in school and supply it to students. If everyone had access to it, why was it necessary to print it. If the wall so existed to completely protect government from religion, why not print other books of the time?
If it was a teaching tool for reading comprehension, why not use it now in those school districts that would readily accept it?
You libs would never allow it. Freedom from religion and not freedom of religion. Why don’t you read the letter in its entirety and read the reason for the letter to begin with.
I know you won’t like what you find.
Tideofbullshit-
I absolutely love, love, LUV what I find…..
“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”
— Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808)
Clear , concise, and straight to the point. But please, you keep trying to stroke that Danbury letter into something it clearly isn’t. I get such a kick out of watching you sweat.
David-
I’m just going on the Constitution on one side and dictionary.com on the other… if you don’t like it… there are some dead people you can complain to…