Well done to Labour Humanist Paul Blanchard for appearing on the BBC's Big Questions.
Paul spoke to the questions Is there too much sex on TV? and Has religion any place in politics? He successfully took on the conservative (and Conservative) Christian contingent on their conflation of homosexuality with incest, and highlighted the need for politicians to be up-front about their religious beliefs.
Afterwards Paul said:
"I was proud to represent Labour Humanists and make our points heard on national TV. It was great to show on national television that there is a substantial body of members in the party that oppose issues like faith schools which are - in my view - a profoundly un-Labour policy, being for the few and not the many. I'm also really excited about the coming year ahead too - LH are really gearing up for a year of campaigning as never before on the issues that matter to us. I'm excited to be a part of it."
Faith schools, together with Bishops in the Lords, are both examples of religion institutionalised into politics and the State in the UK. Labour Humanist manifesto 2010 calls for the removal of both, and we will be holding events on these over the year ahead of the general election.
You can watch the programme on BBC iPlayer here.
Paul's contribution to the Big Questions was captured well by host Nicky Campbell when he said Paul's desperation to respond, interject and even mock the views of others was like "someone desperate for the toilet."
The forceful presentation of your views was too strong and too self-assured to be taken too seriously, as much as I wanted to.
As for faith schools, St Mary Redcliffe and Temple school in Bristol is proof of a faith school that defies your descriptions and a fantastic example of excellence.
Please don't allow arrogant youthful exuberance to exceed wisdom and maturity. There are many things I now regret saying when I was in my mid thirties.
Posted by: Richard DM | 16 September 2009 at 14:24
Faith schools may promote excellence academically. I'm sure there are many excellent public schools that perform likewise.
Religious fervour may propel many student to succeed but it is the divisive "Us and them" mentality that is surely not healthy.
I would have been just as eager as Paul to get my oar in with the load of rubbish that was beinbg spouted by some. Particularly the awful christian women.
Posted by: Rachel Beckett | 17 September 2009 at 10:57
The oppinions of someone in their mid 30's are hardly those of the wet-behind-the-ears, inexperienced and half-informed.
Richard DM is rather ageist. Please don't confuse passion and conviction with arrogance. Maybe Richard is too old for passion and has replaced it with pomposity.
Posted by: Rachel Beckett | 17 September 2009 at 11:05
So, it is not for their excellence that faith schools are to be castigated, but for the "them and us" attitude they are assumed to be inculcating in students. Heaven forbid that a group of humans should have some sort of identity! The mere fact that this is a labour humanist website excludes me and Richard DM; being human is always going to include a "them and us" attitude. to be a Christian is to not be an atheist, to be a Muslim is to not be a Buddhist, to be an MP is to not be a member of the public etc. To extract a "them and us" mentality from humanity is to destroy that which is Other to ourselves - a totalising puritanism of the severest kind!
The problem, surely, is when the "them and us" mentality is taken to the extreme, becoming a pathology. An academically successful faith school can hardly be accused of this sort of behaviour. In fact, by wishing to promote/impose your own brand of secularism on everyone else, it is you who are being intolerant of others and their otherness.
Posted by: David Matcham | 18 September 2009 at 16:15
Rachel, please! Rubbish, spouted, awful, pomposity! You prove my point in your language! Judgement without knowledge. Poor. Ageist? I'm 38, so hardly "old" and as for passion, you clearly have no idea about me, so don't be so quick to pass such humanistic, and dare I say, intolerant views (proven by your language).
Thank you David for highlighting the illogical inconsistencies of the humanists.
"Us and them" - you're as guilty as the rest! Why can't you see it?
Posted by: Richard DM | 18 September 2009 at 23:24
>highlighted the need for politicians to be up-front about their religious beliefs.
Given that your basic position is that religion should be kept purely, and strictly, to the private sphere, why are you demanding that politicians must declare it in public?
Posted by: Matt | 04 November 2009 at 22:46
Good point Matt, but I humbly observe that there is no response to your question, nor to the issues raised by David. I suspect the humanist agenda is as flawed as any other, and like those they oppose, are too infatuated with their own 'belief system' to see it.
As long as everyone agrees with the Secularist 'bunch' then all will be well in the world. That to me, sounds a little like a dictatorship.
Posted by: Richard DM | 14 February 2010 at 18:04
cialis soft generic cialis soft order cialis soft tab description cialis soft tab india cialis soft tablets cialis soft tabs 10 mg cialis soft tabs bestseller cialis soft tabs online cialis soft top cialis softabs cialis softabs generic cialis softtab how works cialis softtabs online
Posted by: RX-order | 21 November 2010 at 03:57
Hi Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, a cool site I like
Posted by: school_dubl | 30 December 2010 at 17:34
Interesting site, always a new topic .. good luck in the new 2011. Happy New Year!
Posted by: Realestate | 11 January 2011 at 20:04