Of all the defects of modern government, one of the least commented upon is the religious illiteracy of our leaders. It is more than a generation since I was asked, by a student at one of the UK’s top thirty universities whether “Anglicanism was the same as Catholicism?” – and the situation has not improved. Why does it matter? Because, at least here in the UK, decisions which effect Church schools are being taken by people whose minds are so filled with contemporary preoccupations that they have no background against which to operate when taking decisions.
A Government which claims to be Conservative is determined to make all schools teach children from age 4 and up, “age-appropriate” content, that includes information about same-sex marriage and transgenderism. And, in case anyone should suppose that I am being biased in attributing the Government’s motives to a desire to be ‘up to date’ and ‘on trend,’ let me quote the former Minister, Justine Greening:
it is important that the church, in a way, keeps up and is part of a modern country. We have allowed same-sex marriage, that’s a massive step forward for the better. And for me, I think people do want to see our major faiths keep up with modern attitudes.
Let us pause there and deconstruct what is an Orwellian sentence.
‘Our major faiths’ will, whether they want it or not, be kept ‘up to date’ with ‘modern attitudes’ by the Government because she thinks people want it. Which ‘people’ are these?
One presumes they are not the more than fifty percent of the population who, in the recent British Elections Survey, thought that ‘gender equality’ had ‘gone far enough’. As The New Statesman commented:
It is also worth reconsidering, in the light of this data, the anger and resentment expressed in focus groups and on doorsteps about such prevalent socially conservative views being painted as bigoted, extreme or niche, when they are in fact held by majorities of British adults.
Mrs Greening was speaking for the ‘people’ she knows, the holders of liberal social attitudes which many, perhaps most, of the population do not hold. She has learnt nothing from Trump, or the Brexit fiasco, about the gap between Metropolitan social liberalism and a still prevalent social conservatism. That, of course, does not stop her, and others, claiming to be talking in the name of ‘the people’.
Dame Louise Casey, another senior government adviser, has singled out Catholics in particular. It is “not OK for Catholic schools to be homophobic and anti-gay marriage,” she testified in the House of Commons. “I have a problem with the expression of religious conservatism because I think often it can be anti-equalities.” Well, many, perhaps most ordinary people, have a problem with her social liberalism because they think it anti-democratic, and see it as running counter to common-sense; it is unclear why an unelected adviser’s views should take precedence, especially when they are, themselves, redolent of an ancient anti-Catholic bigotry.
Dame Louise, naturally, offers no evidence that Catholic schools are homophobic. If homophobia exists in them, it is not from Catholic but societal sources. The teaching of the Church on care of and respect for homosexuals is clear. As for being ‘anti-gay marriage,’ perhaps Dame Louise is ignorant of the Catholic, and traditional, definition of ‘marriage’?
This socially liberal agenda, an artefact of a minority of the electorate, is to be foisted upon the rest of us for precisely what reason? It is certainly not because people voted for it. The current, admittedly useless, Government, committed itself in its manifesto to lifting the cap on Church schools not being able to have more than 50% of their pupils from a faith background; it has not fulfilled that pledge.
Ministers and their apparatchiks have no understanding of the religious basis on which our schools proceed, or indeed, of religion at all. Catholic, Anglican, Jewish and Muslim Schools are all being presented with an agenda here to which they cannot, in good conscience, sign up. It is an agenda which is not supported by most people, but it will be imposed upon us for our own good. The ties that bind government and people continue to loosen.
That is sad enough. What is sadder is that it being done by people who have no idea of the harm they are wreaking, and no conception of the value systems which have underpinned the civilization they are so busy undermining. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
NEO said:
Personally, I might wonder about Catholic Islamophobia – wait, no I won’t, as far as I know, it has never existed anywhere, although Catholics, like all real Christians, do know the definition of marriage. But in any case, I want to see Mrs. Greening and her cohorts force that down the throats of the Madrassahs. After all, they too, are religious schools.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scoop said:
Hah. I think Islam has ‘earned’ the distrust and aversion of most people who are not Muslim. I doubt it started anyone’s aversion to their faith came from reading a book . . . it came because their friends, neighbors and family members were either forcibly converted, raped, beaten, enslaved or killed. Nothing irrational about that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
That will be an interesting encounter
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scoop said:
I find the “-phobic or -phobia” chant rather old and boring these days, not to mention unintelligent. Someone should tell them to get a dictionary and look up the definition of a phobia: “an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something” which, I suspect would show that the customary aversion to some of their perversions and psychoses which they aver to make commonplace and institutionalize, are rather foolish. I find nothing ‘irrational’ about having an aversion to what was commonly viewed in society as perverse or psychotic behavior. If they do, we should call them out on it and not let them shove their personal advocacy down the throats of the population willy-nilly; not to mention the ‘re-education’ of our children into these ‘pleasures’ they seem to think we should all advocate and be activists for.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nicholas said:
This is tyranny, pure and simple. A government that has no regard for Truth or righteousness, which sits on the “throne of the iniquity of the law”, will find itself humbled. The prayers of the saints cry out for a just government. This country belongs to God: may he chastise us and raise up righteous leaders.
LikeLiked by 3 people
thoughtfullydetached said:
Although it’s related to religious illiteracy I think a major issue here is the inability of the current generation of ‘opinion formers’ to differentiate between an issue of conscience and a mere personal opinion. We all have our opinions over ridden all the time and it’s annoying but no big deal. Conscience, however, is a much more profound thing and enters deeply into the sense of who we are as people, something which previous governments understood.
In one of my posts (https://thoughtfullydetached.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/conscientious-objection-a-liberal-principle/) I quoted from a New York Times response to a wartime broadcast of Pope Pius XII on the responsibilities of victorious allies “They must refuse that the state should make of individuals a herd of whom the state disposes as if they were a lifeless thing” Today’s liberals might perhaps spend some time reflecting upon the principles which so motivated their predecessors.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nicholas said:
This is a really good answer, and chimes well with the Lockean form of liberalism as well as St Paul’s comments about the duties Christians owe to other Christians re: conscience. Too few people in our civil service and Houses of Parliament understand the role that loyalty plays in the life of a religious person. This is why they underestimate Islam and why they do not realise they will provoke a wave of Christian martyrdom if they continue on this path.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Their religious illiteracy is matched only by their historical illiteracy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
ginnyfree said:
Nicely written Chalcedon. I’ve not got enough knowledge of the politics of those across the Pond to even begin to comment on specifics. I do know that persons in governments who exert pressures on individuals to conform to practices against their religion is nothing new. The mere suggestion that individuals should abandon their religious beliefs to conform to the newest morals of the latest governing classes, in some places brings real fear. Religious persecution in England is nothing new either. It could worsen. I also know that people are choosing which side of the issues they are on when the issues are raised. Some secretly decide for Christ in their hearts. Persecution always leads some to Christ this way. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Thanks, Ginny. Our politicians know so little about religion that they, literally, know not what they do.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Ooops…one other thing I wanted to say: there ARE individuals who take absolutely no real concern with their religious education and believe whatever they are told to. They crave being told what to think and how to pray in the latest ways. They are like the readings for Mass state, ” a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed about by the wind.” or worse. They bob from devotion to devotion in the Catholic version. In the Protestant version of the same problem, they jump from denomination to denomination, “church hoppers,” they are called. Fickle as pickles and loyal to none. I guess if they bothered to amend their religious illiteracy, they’d find real faith that works in season and out of season, thru all generations, even unto the end of time. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Heretic said:
Is not knowing what religions teach a bad thing? God has written into our minds and hearts his laws of goodness and niceness. We all know rite from wrong. Even our dog know this. One nite I came in with a Chinese dinner in a to go Styrofoam box. BBQ pork and teriyaki chicken and a big pile of noodles.I couldn’t wait to eat it. my friend asked me something , he was in the garage shop next to my room. I set the box down on the piano bench in my room, which is low to the ground, and then came back about 1 minute later and I didn’t see my box. I looked around and then went into the hall and down at the hall at the end was the dog and my box of food. It was empty. Then the dog ran down the stairs because he knew he has done wrong.
LikeLike