Faith Schools - or why Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist jihadi

Richard Dawkins, militant proselytising atheist, is worried about “faith schools”. And Channel 4 has given him a platform to articulate this worry

The number of faith schools in Britain is rising. Around 7,000 publicly-funded schools - one in three - now has a religious affiliation. As the coalition government paves the way for more faith-based education by promoting 'free schools', the renowned atheist and evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins says enough is enough. In this passionately argued film, Dawkins calls on us to reconsider the consequences of faith education, which, he argues, bamboozles parents and indoctrinates and divides children.

Now I look at the net effect of all this religious “indoctrination” and see that the fastest growing viewpoint on religion is…atheism! Or more precisely not professing any religion.

According to the 2001 UK Census, those of no religion are the second largest belief group, about 2 and a half times as many as all the other (non-Christian) religions altogether – at 15.5% of the population.

And more recently – seems those faith schools ain’t doing a great job! And yet thousands of essentially agnostic patents pretend to be good churchgoing folk so as to get their offspring into church schools. Perhaps those schools aren’t doing a bad job at delivering what parents want – a good education for their children.

I make no secret of my disagreement with Dawkins – his spiritless, dry, confrontational obsessions have created an atheism that is no longer fundamental but that requires a range of beliefs beyond the essence of atheism. That essence is, of course, very straightforward – that there is no god. What Dawkins has done has been to take upon himself a jihad directed at anyone who does not adhere to his obsessions – unreconstructed Darwinian evolution, a view that religion is a pathology and utter contempt for any promotion of a religious viewpoint.

If faith schools were bad schools – and some might be – then parents would reject them rather than queue up to get their sprogs in. If atheists wish to have secular schools then the case is simple – set them up and show how their soulless, sceptical, ethics-light ideology can produce a better education. Religious schools should not be the only choice but if parents want that choice they should have it.

And finally the “I don’t want my taxes to fund religious education” argument – if we believe in state-funded education and in parental choice we must respect that choice and fund it. Unless – as I suspect is the case with Dawkins and his acolytes – you don’t really believe in choice? Just like those other jihadi you want to impose your world view on those who - however stupidly - don't share it.

.....

Change, drunkeness and the threat of tutting

***

Since everyone’s* burbling about change in that usual frantic new year kind of way I thought I’d join in. Not in the personal development sort of change narrative – that always makes me reach for the axe – but looking at the things that need to change (other than West Ham’s league position) to make living in England slightly less annoying and irritating. Here’s a few (feel free to add your own!):

1. We need to give kids a little more space and a little more understanding. Let’s stop and remember what it was like to be a teenager – perhaps that will put an end to the description of mild annoyance as “anti-social behaviour”

2. The cartel that is the big PubCos needs sorting out – stopping them dictating drink suppliers and prices would be a good start. We should also take the alcohol license off supermarkets. And please god, we’ll stop this ridiculous blaming of licensed premises for the behaviour of a few drunks

3. A little less pious piffle from “faith communities” would be welcome – why on earth do we give them a privileged position in our society? If they want schools, TV programmes, newspapers and fancy buildings that’s fine. But not with my money, thanks

4. More trust – quite rightly I have never been asked for ID in a shop. In fact no-one should have to carry ID just to get served. That way we might get a little common sense from those serving. Shopkeepers you don’t have to serve anyone – why hide behind ID cards?

5. And a great deal more fun – more festival lights, bands playing in parks, farmers markets, street vendors, buskers, jugglers, open air theatre, pavement art and village galas. Put less into opera houses and fancy London theatres and more into accessible popular art that really makes places fun

6. Oh, and please, less tutting!

*by everyone I of course mean a couple of people on twitter
...

Can we stop funding religions from taxpayers money please...

It was that UK's first "Inter Faith Week" last week and we find (the occasionally sensible but not this time) Communities Minister, John Denham saying we need a:

“deeper and broader relationship between Government and faith communities”.

And some places (like Regeneration & Renewal magazine) have got all silly and excited saying crap like:

"Because faith is a fact of life, just as all differences are, and people of faith surely have a right to be represented by government in the same way other minorities are."

This is really wrong - both factually and in its implications. But worse they are supporting this:

"Denham confirmed that £2 million in funding would be made available for faith-based community groups and announced a new panel of religious experts has been set up to advise Whitehall."

Spending our money on religion - that is wrong....and letting these assorted (and mostly self-appointed) religious leaders have a role in "advising" Whitehall should be stopped.

...

Let's not give God - or his supposed agents - a special position in our policy-making

Since its Sunday I thought I’d write about God – or more precisely the idea of “faith groups” in politics and administration. After all, despite the falling numbers of people who practice a recognisable religious faith, more and more attention is now given to the involvement of “faith-based organisations” in our polity – up to and including the delivery of public services to vulnerable people and communities.

The Department for Communities and Local Government published “Communities in Control: Real People, Real Power” in 2008 in which the UK’s 23,000 “faith-based” charities are singled out for particular praise and attention:

“There are over 23,000 religious charities in the UK and many more faith-based organisations, involving tens of thousands of people motivated by their faith, working at a local and national level to provide support and services to communities. At times there has been reluctance on the part of local authorities and agencies to commission services from faith-based groups, in part because of some confusion about the propriety of doing so.”

The Conservative Party is no different seeing faith-based organisations as an important resource for supporting the delivery of wider social policies. And, for all the humanist grumpiness about the religious underpinning of these charities (and we should remember that most of our leading social charities have origins in religion including huge charitable institutions like Barnardos), it is surely right to make use of the commitment and enthusiasm of people with a religious commitment.

For me the problem comes when faith groups – as opposed to “faith-based organisations” – are given a privileged position in the development of policy and where (as is the case in Bradford) that position of influence is paid for with public money. For all the good work done by individuals and groups inspired by religious faith, I fail to see why there can be any justification for giving religions – collectively or individually – a special role in our polity.

If religions want to get together to argue their case (e.g. in promoting the value of denominational schools) that is fine. But they have to join all the rest of the special interests out there trying to influence the public agenda. The time has come to stop local authorities automatically added “faith groups” to the like of stakeholders to involve in the development of policy & strategy. Faith groups should not assume a right to be represented on local strategic partnerships, area forums and regeneration partnerships – they should take their place with the rest of the voluntary sector, with business and with the rest of the “community”.