More evidence, as if it were needed, of the way religion likes to think itself inclusive but is anything but comes to us in a report on the Ekklesia website.
A girl wanted to get into a Christian “faith” school in Wrexham, UK. But she was the wrong kind of Christian, so couldn’t.
It’s called the St Joseph's Catholic and Anglican School, but Aston Padley (11) is not from an Anglican or Catholic family.
“Under British law,” says Ekklesia, “church schools, although funded almost entirely by the taxpayer, can give priority in admissions to families who attend churches linked to the school.”
And there’s the rub. Funded by the taxpayer. By you and me. Education is a national institution. For better or worse, there’s also a national curriculum, which ensures that, broadly, each pupil in the country potentially leaves school with some familiarity with certain central areas of knowledge.
But Christians – and others of the Deluded Herd – don’t like that: they prefer that they can get kids nice and early and bombard their brains with utter crap (their own utter crap) till they go on and breed and then indoctrinate their own kids with more of the same kind of crap, thus adding fodder to their brand of “faith” school in the future.
And so it goes on.
Fortunately, a lot of pupils wash their hands (a biblical reference that fewer know the origin of these days, it seems) of this toxic nonsense and develop a degree of rationality, scepticism and thinking for themselves.
__________
Related link:
The Bible? Is that the one with Charlton Heston?
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.
We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.
Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.
Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.