Comments on: In Good Faith

By: nikolai

nikolai — Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:00:00 +0000

Harry;
“But it seems a bit rich to say ‘no more muslim schools’ unless you are going to campaign for the abolition of the others and do so with some prospect of success.”
Why?
The UK population can only support a certain number of schools. Faith schools discriminate against those who are not of a particular religion. What you’re saying is that because one relgious group has an unfair deal (relative to other religions) regarding being able to discriminate against others (using public money), other groups should be allowed to increase their portion of faith schools, allowing them to do their fair share of discrimination.
You seem very concerned about “unfairness” toward Muslims, but not very concerned about unfairness toward everyone else.
“Many RC schools and a good number of CE schools are religiously exclusive. And they, unlike the Muslim schools, are exclusive by design, deliberately discriminating on grounds of faith.”
I think the difference you’re proposing between RC/CE and Muslim schools is tenuous. Muslim schools discriminate by design against others on grounds of faith by the creation of a school which non-Muslims simply do not want to sent their children to. Just because other people don’t want their children to go, and so aren’t directly turned away, doesn’t mean they aren’t being deliberately discriminated against “by design”. The creation of these schools is a deliberate act.
That said, I thought the review was very interesting. I wasn’t aware of the book, thanks for bringing it to my attention, I hope to get my hands on it.

By: Tom Doyle

Tom Doyle — Sun, 13 Mar 2005 02:48:58 +0000

“The authors rightly place Muslim schools at the centre of the debate about faith schooling. Islam is the largest non-Christian faith in Britain, and has the worst press. It is the only religion about which it is permissible to publicly express uninformed hostile opinions.”

There was a time, (before Bush) when I followed developments in the six counties rather closely. Didn’t Paisley and certain allied religious and political partisans employ a distinctive anti-Catholic/anti-pope rhetoric, in conjunction with rituals which had similar themes. The following examples are from John Conroy’s “Belfast Diary,” (Beacon Press, 1987)

(I don’t bring this stuff up to start an argument about it, e.g., who’s worse, SAS atrocities, IRA unconscionable outrages, Crossmaglen, etc. Really.)

“[Paisley] points to the pope as the enemy,…“referring to him as ‘the Scarlet Whore,’ ‘the anti-Christ,’ the slanderous bachelor who lives on the banks of the Tiber[.]”(Conroy, 122-3)

“I watched ….the Twelfth of July parade in 1984..[S]mall boys ran around with Union Jack caps and “Proud to be a Prod” T-shirts. …Orange Order officials at the speakers platform denounce the pope, Tip O’Neil, and the Kennedys(John Kennedy was denounced not only as a Catholic but as a womanizer.) (Id., 123)

Conroy also described (July) Eleventh Night in Belfast’s Protestant neighborhoods. Residents burnt effigies of the Pope on huge bonfires. .

(How has this changed, if at all. E.g. died out, flared up, never happened in the first place, etc.? Do current anti-muslim “publicly express[ed] uninformed hostile opinions” resemble NI anti -Taig talk ?)

By: David B

David B — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:51:58 +0000

“Islam …is the only religion about which it is permissible to publicly express uninformed hostile opinions.”

– Permissible in what sense? Legally? Socially? Without fear of being hunted down and butchered in the street? Or am I just thinking of Holland…

By: Harry

Harry — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:29:19 +0000

I wasn’t accusing Hattersley of racism nor were the authors—that is a very odd way of interpreting the citation. He is making a point, which the authors (and I) endorse, that people wrongly refrain from scrutinising anti-Muslim prejudice as strictly as they do other forms of racism. He certainly doesn’t find non-white fundamentalism any less unacceptable than white racism.

The proper point of comparison is not CE schools, about which eveything you say is true, but RC schools, which are almost exclusively RC, determinedly discriminate in favour of RCs, and get special treatment by all LEAs except Camden. I agree: the govt should stop promoting new RC and CE faith schools completely, and should disallow those that exist from selecting on grunds of religious belief. But it seems a bit rich to say ‘no more muslim schools’ unless you are going to campaign for the abolition of the others and do so with some prospect of success.

I think you’re wrong, by the way, that no non-muslims will want to attend these schools: there wil be plenty of demand from middle class non Muslim parents for those schools which they think will be a good academic bet. Its just a matter of time.

By: Chris Rolliston

Chris Rolliston — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:06:56 +0000

“The sagacious Lord Hattersley is quoted as pointing out that “fundamentalism is less acceptable when it is not white”. Islam has been a focal point for the new racism, and remains on the edge of mainstream British life.”

So, because Hattersley opposes state-funded sectarian schooling, he’s a ‘new racist’.

“The authors also find that pupils in funded Muslim schools are almost exclusively Muslim. Many RC schools and a good number of CE schools are religiously exclusive. And they, unlike the Muslim schools, are exclusive by design, deliberately discriminating on grounds of faith.”

Right. That’s because Muslim schools have no need of discriminating on grounds of faith, because by virtue of having a genuinely religious aura, whatever their academic achievements they don’t attract the non-practising Muslim. In contrast, when the local school is a CE school, it is subjectively still seen as ‘just the local school’ by non-religious parents.

“the well-willed secularist argument against Muslim schools is stronger: there would be nothing unfair about eliminating all funding for faith schools (though I, from a secular perspective, personally think it would be unwise). However, as the authors point out, de-funding all faith schools is politically unfeasible.”

But the point in question is surely the government’s stated aim of creating many more faith schools. To be opposed to this, while not also calling for the abolition of existing faith schools, is to suffer from neither inconsistency nor ‘racism’. For it can be generally expected that a long-established faith school will have long lost the religious fervour that it had originally been imbued with—and if governors of such a school were to try and re-establish this fervour, the LEA would have the legitimacy to put them back in their place.