The Times today reports the latest in manufactured secularist outrage. Apparently John Austin, MP for Erith and Thamesmead, is going to have a private meeting with Ed Balls to push him to "re-examine" the future of faith schools. This is on the back of some statistics showing that people are having their children baptised later. (Times Online: Backlash as more claim religion to get place in top schools)The article speaks of a "year 5 Epiphany" which is a bit of a slide from the figures quoted later in the article which concern baptisms of a year old or later. For those outside the UK, children in "Year 5" are 9-10 years old. At the beginning of the subsequent year, they need to apply for secondary school. The implication is that there are loads of baptisms purely to facilitate this.
Actually, the Dioceses could refute this by looking up the annual pastoral returns which report on baptisms of children up to 1 year, 1-7 years and over 7. The latter category is minuscule and it would be quite a rare case if someone had a child baptised purely for the purposes of applying to secondary school - even if they hoodwinked the priest into going along with it. In truth, this is all a secularist scare story, part of the developing modern "black legend" designed to undermine Christianity in general and "faith schools" in particular. (In our case, "Church schools", actually.)
John Austin speaks of the trend for later baptisms as "quite alarming" and decries parents "inflicting their religion on their children". This is insulting to parents who devoutly nurture their children's faith and bring them up in a religious family environment. There are also parents who, after experiencing the life of the Church in a Catholic school and parish, decide that this is something that they have missed out on and want for their family. Every year I have one or two converts of this kind. They are typically good, honest people, pillars of the community whom we are very glad to have in the parish where they and their families make an active contribution to the spiritual, social and charitable life of the community. It is outrageous of a local MP to call the sincerity of these upright and law-abiding people into question and speak as though they are somehow damaging their children into the bargain.
At the next election, perhaps in addition to questions about the voting intentions of candidates on pro-life matters, we might want to put one in asking them whether they think it is harmful to bring a child up in a religious faith. Richard Dawkins is certainly of this view. I think voters of all religious faiths need to know whether the person asking for their vote agrees with him.
15 comments:
It will be one of the questions I shall be asking... unfortunately for me, Erith seems to be a relatively safe seat...
Looks a cheerful chap, Mr Austin, doesn't he?
I will pray to St John, St Austin & St Thomas Aquinas for him. Poor man.
"Manufactured outrage" is very apt.
Fr. Tim,
I am now convinced that the ultimate turn of the secularist screw will be to make it illegal to pass on the faith to one's children. This is the inevitable conclusion of all the human rights/ anti-discrimation legislation that is being put in place. We are only part way down this road.
In 10-15 years' time (or sooner if Islamic terrorism gets out of control), there will be a new legal right to "freedom from religious indoctrination." Imposing religion on the young -- as it will be called -- will be bracketed with child abuse, and punished in similar ways. The authorities will be after any parents whose kids are caught mentioning "God" or "Jesus" at school.
This will be the final piece of the secularist jigsaw -- after the closure of our Catholic schools, the removal of the Church's charitable status, the imprisonment of bishops for not ordaining women, the jailing of priests for not marrying gay couples, the heavy fining of teachers who uphold the Church's teachings on sexuality, and the banning of the Bible and the Catechism from libraries and bookshops for promoting religious bigotry, divisiveness and homophobia.
The penultimate turn of the screw will be what I call the "new Act of Succession" -- making everyone sign up to a secular "human rights charter" (which will be impossible for any Catholic to sign in good conscience) before they are permitted to go to university, accept a job offer, have access to medical care, and send their kids to school.
"But in the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph..."
Yes, all these things are absolutely appalling and Father Tim, you rightly draw attention to them on your blog. Anti-religious (let's stop calling them "secularists" shall we?) activists are increasingly resorting to dangerously illiberal tactics and arguments in their war against any form of dissenting opinion.
But journalists wanting to take the polemical argument to the anti-religious and expose their Stalinoid rubbish for what it is will find themselves left exposed by the relevant Church agencies which should be waging a serious campaign against these destructive people but aren't.
Some of us have been screaming ourselves hoarse about the dangers of a tiny, unrepresentative but well organised and determined anti-religious lobby for a number of years now but no one seems to listen or do anything other than moan about it. That's not the way to defend hard won gains from bullies.
We should be organising away to defend our human rights lest they removed from us inch by inch but damn all is happening to prevent that.
For heaven's sake! This isn't the time for diplomacy. The implications of John Austin's comments are mind boggling; he is seriously suggesting that it be forbidden for children to be given religious instruction and presumably that infant baptism and circumcision be rendered illegal.
A mere two weeks ago, Barry Sheerman MP (who was aptly described to me by a Labour Party insider as "an oily, self-important Blairite") said: "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," which has to be one of the dumbest - and maddest - statements ever made by a B list politician anywhere.
I'm afraid the time for politely asking politicians whether they think bringing up our children the way we see fit is harmful is long since gone.
We need to organise to defend our rights or we may as well surrender to the bullies.
We also need to defend our turf in the big bad world. We've go to stop merely talking to ourselves. We should go onto non-religious blogs and and make our case in the court of public opinion, so to speak, or again we must simply accept that the bullies have forced us into the ghetto and dominate public debate. In other words we must mount a serious fightback or concede defeat.
Well, here is a question for John Austin, M.P.
When he says he wants the government to "re-examine" the future of "faith" schools, does he mean he wants the government to reconsider the state financing of church schools, in particular Catholic schools ?
If so, this sounds like he is seeking to re-ignite the old argument of "Rome on the rates".
Is that what he means ?
They're just a joke !
No, they are not a joke ; they are lethal - and they seek to destroy us ; and everything we stand for .
Have you read the rantings of Evan Harris ?
He is not alone ; and one need only regard the increasing anti-religious vitriol within the popular media - especially the BBC.
Militant Atheists are being given platforms all over the place where anyone of a religious sentiment would be silenced - Linda Smith has , since her early demise, by being president of the Humanist society , been turned into some martyr for the Truth of secularism by some comedians - Marcus Brigstocke was allowed to produce an idiotic oft-repeated rant against all religion on radio 4 and BBC3 ; Mark Steel is allowed to repeat his assaults on God and religions at every opportunity, The God hating Johan Hari billows forth irrational, unhistorical and superstitious hatred of catholicism as if he were an Orangeman - and the powers that be do not bat an eyelid.
Many Politicians are becoming increasingly distinctly anti-catholic - and deliberately proposing legislation to the effect that it is contrary or antagonistic to us - and this will get worse to the extent that we are heading for trouble bigtime - Some of us thought that the possibility of dying a martyr disappeared in all but the remotest corners of the world - we could all be on the brink of a nightmare where we're rounded up like Jews in Nazi Germany .
I've seen this report. You write 'Actually, the Dioceses could refute this by looking up the annual pastoral returns which report on baptisms of children up to 1 year, 1-7 years and over 7. The latter category is minuscule and it would be quite a rare case if someone had a child baptised purely for the purposes of applying to secondary school.
No, the dioceses can’t refute it, because the data has been collated from the same annual pastoral returns of which you speak.
Take for instance the Archdiocese of Southwark.
In 1958 'Baptisms under 1': 12013, 'Baptisms 1 - 6': 658, 'Baptisms 7-13': 321
In 2005: 'Baptisms up to 1': 3698, 'Baptisms 1-7 inclusive' 2145,’ Baptisms over 7': 548.
These are hardly miniscule figures. Late baptisms in your own Diocese of Southwark are now running at about 42% of total baptisms, 'baptisms aged 7-13' comprise 20% of this, or nearly 9% of total baptisms.
These data are deeply troubling, and deserve thorough assessment; it is to be hoped that clergy will take a detailed look at them.
Fr. Tim,
“The relevant Church agencies…should be waging a serious campaign against these destructive people but aren’t.”
Correct. One of the reasons the agencies are being passive is that they are in denial about where the secularists are taking us. Why? Because the agencies tend to be populated by “social justice” types who are politically very close to the secularists in all matters other than religion – the secularists and the agency folks tend to be politically correct, Guardian-reading, and new Labour/ LibDem supporters. The agency people are only different in that they go to Mass, send their kids to Catholic schools and read the Tablet. But apart from that, they see the secularists as their ideological confreres in the great campaign for justice and peace.
Many of the bishops, I suspect, are in a similar category. The hierarchy still hopes that appeasement will work – let’s just get the secularists to agree that there are different roads to socialism, and Catholicism is one of them. “Sorry about all those nasty reactionary missives from Rome; we’re just as opposed to them as you are, but don’t worry – we’re working on it. By the way, we’d love to receive you into the Church so you can help us bring Catholicism into the 21st Century.”
I do understand one aspect of the chosen policy of appeasement, however. The secularists are always going to have "one more territorial claim" against the Catholic Church, and legally enforced anti-Catholicism is inevitable. This being the case, we Catholics are in a bind if we up the ante and go on the offensive, as this will accelerate the inevitable secularist clampdown.
But that's the thing, Jackie, these people no longer are a joke. I wish they were but they aren't and they're intent on taking away our hard won rights. Its truly absurd that in this day and age we have to defend our human rights to think, act and bring our children up the way we want to. But we do.
And make no mistake, the anti-religious are spiteful and aggressive. Remember how the NSS encouraged its members to troll on your blog this summer, Jackie? It was revealing of their tactics and their mentality - pure bullying, basically.
Now imagine that kind of mentality writ large on the national stage. That's why we have to fight back.
The British Humanist Association lists John Austin MP as one of its "distinguished supporters". Other MPs listed include Graham Allen, Nick Brown, Michael Clapham. Michael Connarty, Mike Hall, Kelvin Hopkins, Ashok Kumar, Robert Marshall-Andrews, Julie Morgan, and Rhodri Morgan. Peers and MEPs include Lord Avebury, Baroness Blackstone, Viscount Craigavon, Lord Dubs, Viscount Falkland, Baroness Flather, Lord Graham of Edmonton, Lord Harrison, Lord Hattersley, Lord Hughes of Woodside, Lord Hunt of King's Heath, Glenys Kinnock, Ken Livingstone, Baroness Massey of Darwen, Lord McCarthy, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, Baron O'Neill of Clackmannan, Lord Peston, Lord Bilston of Bilston, Baroness Turner of Camden, Baroness Whittaker and Professor Lord Wedderburn of Charlton.
I am sure that your readers will wish to take this information into account at election time and when these matters come before Parliament. They might also wish to be aware when these people, and others on the list (Polly Toynbee, Philip Pullman, Terry Pratchett, Claire Rayner, Ian McEwan ... "That's enough Atheists" ed) intervene in the secularism vs religion debate. They have agendas to pursue and are not objective
Jackie, what they say is stupid, to be sure, but unfortunately, never underestimate sheeple who listen to them. Fr. Tim is right, the charges are easily refuted. And now is NOT the time to be "diplomats." Because when you are diplomats you get eaten by slow death. These people should be ridiculed.
Karen
Francis - spot on!
Auricularius - thanks for that list. People should indeed quote NSS policy to their prospective MPs and ask whether they agree.
Christina - thanks for that. Yes, those figures are indeed worrying. But in my experience, these are people who are from Catholic backgrounds who are lapsed and finally realise that their children should be baptised. They are not people who suddenly have an epiphany moment and become Catholics to get into a school.
I am from America. I thought you might be interested in this questionaire developed by the Christian Coalition.
sumermamma
Candidates are asked to check either 1) "Supports", 2) "Opposes" or 3) "Undecided". They are then given the opportunity to supply a written statement on each issue of up to twenty-five words. Received responses are then reviewed along with public information and candidate statements.
Increase in federal income tax rates
Elimination of the federal marriage tax penalty
"Hate Crimes" laws that designate crimes as more severe due to the perpetrator's thoughts and motivations
Further restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms
Public funding of abortions, (such as through government health benefits)
Parental notification for abortions by minors
Prohibit embryonic stem cell research
Holding criminals liable for harm they cause to unborn children
Federal Marriage Amendment to prevent same sex-marriage
Prohibit the public funding of art that is pornographic or anti-religious
Prohibiting the IRS from ruling on issues of free speech in churches
IRA type education savings accounts
Vouchers that allow parents to choose public or private school
Tax credits for parents who home school or use private school
Voluntary prayer in public schools and facilities
US Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget
Some version of a flat rate federal income tax
Substitute a federal sales tax to replace current income tax code
Capital punishment for certain crimes, such as first degree murder and terrorism
Appointing judges that will adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution
Federal registration of firearms and licensing of gun owners
Amendment to the US Constitution protecting the sanctity of human life
Laws prohibiting abortion except in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother
Eliminate all federal funding of Planned Parenthood
Require notification prior to abortion that unborn children feel pain
Legislation allowing physician-assisted suicide (Right-to-Die)
Grant sexual preference a protected minority status under existing civil rights laws
Allowing adoption of children by homosexuals
Require Internet filters which block obscene material in public schools and libraries
Allow states to block federal approval for Indian gambling in their respective states
Restrict the age of legal gambling to 21 years of age
Federally run health care system
Prohibit federal funding of medical benefits for "domestic partners" of government workers
Tax credits for purchasing private health insurance
Granting federal government employees the right to strike
Affirmative action programs providing preferential treatment to minorities
Allowing individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security tax in private retirement accounts
Allowing federal funding for faith-based charitable organizations
Allowing US troops to be placed under United Nations' Command
Prohibit US military from using women in combat situations
Post a Comment