A Roman Catholic bishop will be forced to explain himself to MPs today over fears that he is imposing religious “fundamentalism” on children.
(Or… another way of putting it:teaching Catholicism to Catholic school kids).
Patrick O’Donoghue, the Bishop of Lancaster, will be questioned over his ban on what he calls “values-free” sex education in Catholic schools in his diocese and his order to put up crucifixes in every classroom.
Excuse me??? Hello? We’re talking about CATHOLIC SCHOOLS!
What business is it of the MPs if he puts crucifixes up in the classrooms, and doesn’t teach “Heather Has Two Mommies”? Seriously!
His summons to appear before the House of Commons select committee on children, schools and families follows a 66-page document he produced last year which angered some MPs because of its strict line on sexual morality.
Here’s the part that angered the nosy, perverted busybodies:
In the document, called Fit for Mission?, 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.”
He said “so-called” safe sex was based on the “deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against Aids”.
And he added: “Schools and colleges must not support charities or groups that promote or fund anti-life policies, such as Red Nose Day and Amnesty International, which now advocates abortion.”
Although sex education is mandatory in all secondary schools, Bishop O’Donoghue insisted that in every lesson – even science classes – it must be taught solely in the context of “the sacrament of marriage”.
Q: Aren’t Bishops supposed to say stuff like that?
A: Yes. Yes, they are.
The bishop has been criticised by Barry Sheerman, the chairman of the schools select committee.
“A lot of taxpayers’ money is going into church schools and I think we should tease out what is happening here,” said Mr Sheerman, the Labour MP for Huddersfield.
Barry Sheerman happens to be the guy who said in Aug, 2006, (and I quote): “giving parents more (school) choice would create schools which were ‘bloody awful'”.
“A group of bishops appear to be taking a much firmer line and I think it would be (helpful?) to call representatives in front of the committee to find out what is going on”. Sheerman said.
See, this is exactly why many conservatives in the US have opposed School Vouchers. It seems that many secularists will only tolerate a very watered down version of Christianity if public funds are involved:
“It seems to me that faith education works all right as long as people are not that serious about their faith.
“But as soon as there is a more doctrinaire attitude questions have to be asked.
“It does become worrying when you get a new push from more fundamentalist bishops. This is taxpayers’ money after all.”
Were the Catholic parents complaining? No:
The bishop said yesterday that his document had been in response to pressure from parents.
“Many parents go to great lengths to bring up their children properly and they feel that schools are not cooperating with them as well as they should,” he added.
He said Whitehall’s sex education policies had failed and 30 years of “throwing condoms at children” had simply resulted in increasing levels of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
The result of all this unapologetic Catholicism:
As part of their inquiry, the MPs will consider whether faith schools should be publicly funded and whether they should continue to control their own pupil admissions.
I wonder if they’re going to do anything about the` Islamic school that teaches that Jews are apes and Christians are pigs? The one in which students are heard to say, they want to “kill Americans”, praise 9/11 and idolize Osama bin Laden as their “hero”.
Oh hells no…there are bigger fish to fry: Crucifixes in Catholic classrooms!
Meanwhile in UK PUBLIC Schools, we see policies like this:
UK Students are told to write, “There is no God but Allah”, as part of a hand-writing exercise!
Are things a little jacked up in the UK, or what?
I did some additional research, to try to understand the mindset of the secularists objecting to the “fundamentalism” in the faith based schools.
Excerpts from The U.S. Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report on the faith based schools in the UK:
•The law provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respects this right in practice.
•The Government provides funding for a large number of so-called “faith schools.” As of January 2004, there were 6,903 state-funded schools with a religious character in England. All but 121 of these schools were Anglican, Catholic, or Methodist schools; there is also a well-established tradition of state support for Jewish schools. The Government has helped set up and fund a number of schools reflecting other religious traditions. These include four Muslim, two Sikh, one Greek Orthodox, and one Seventh-day Adventist school. In January 2005, Chief Inspector of Schools for England, David Bell, called on faith schools to be “intolerant of intolerance.” In February 2005, then-Schools Minister for England Stephen Twigg published a list of best practices of how faith schools can implement inclusiveness and collaboration.
•The law requires religious education in publicly maintained schools throughout the United Kingdom. According to the Education Reform Act of 1988, it forms part of the core curriculum for students in England and Wales. In Scotland, religious education of some sort is mandated by the Education Act of 1980. Throughout the United Kingdom, the shape and content of religious instruction is decided on a local basis. Locally agreed syllabi are required to reflect the predominant place of Christianity while taking into account the teachings and practices of other principal religions in the country. Syllabi must be nondenominational and refrain from attempting to convert pupils.
Hat tip: Lucianne