Try not to laugh (or weep), but this was posted on LibDem Voice:As the issue of faith schools has often been debated on this site, and it’s been back in the news with the question of sex and relationship education, we’ve asked David Laws to explain the party’s approach to these issues:
(Note: David Laws was asked to explain the Liberal Democrat approach to these issues)
The recent Government climbdown over sex and relationship education in state funded faith schools has prompted further debate amongst liberals about what role, if any, faith schools should have in English education.
Some liberals argue that in a free society faith groups should be free to deliver a faith education, and that parents should be free to send their children to such schools. These liberals believe that state interference in faith education would be a major infringement of basic liberties.
Other liberals and Liberal Democrats argue with equal passion that faith schools have no legitimate role to play in faith education. These liberals believe that education and religious instruction should not be mixed, and they are concerned that faith schools divide the community on faith lines in an exclusive and divisive manner.
At our Spring 2009 Conference Liberal Democrats debated faith education, and we came to a clear position which I believe reflects the balance of freedoms which it is necessary to reach in this case.
The Conference clearly decided to allow faith education within the state funded sector. It respected the choices that many parents want to make, as well as the success and popularity of many faith schools. I believe that that was the right decision for a liberal party in a liberal society.
Faith schools should continue to be available, and new faith schools can be established.
But the Conference also sought to protect the rights of other citizens/taxpayers, and the freedoms which they can be denied through the approach of some faith schools.
For example, can it be right that a child living in the catchment area of a faith school whose parents want to choose that school for the child should be denied entry to the nearest taxpayer funded school on the basis of a religious test? That is the reality in many communities. Liberal Democrats therefore voted to require all faith schools to have a more inclusive approach to entry – and voted to give local authorities the powers to implement such a policy in a sensitive and flexible way.
Conference also decided that, with the exception of religious instruction, staff in faith schools should be chosen on the basis of ability to teach and not simply on the basis of faith. That is surely right – anything else is unfair both to the children who need the best education, and to the teacher with the right skills.
Finally, what of sex and relationship education? The new Bill makes this compulsory in all state funded schools. And alongside flexibility to teach this subject in a way that takes account of children’s religious and cultural backgrounds was a duty to promote equality and acceptance of diversity. It is that duty to promote equality and diversity that is totally undermined by the Government’s last-minute amendment.
Of course, this action could be defended in the name of “religious freedom”. But is it really acceptable in the 21st century that – for example – a school should be able to teach about homosexuality while at the same time making clear that it same sex relationships are morally wrong, or that hell could await those who find their sexuality defined in this way?
Can we really expect young people to be treated with respect and to gain confidence in themselves if state funded schools are allowed to teach such nonsense?
Liberal Democrats will defend the role of faith schools in state education. But state funded prejudice is not a freedom that liberals or Liberal Democrats should feel the need to justify or tolerate.
David Laws is Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families
So, this is what the Liberal Democrats believe constitutes a ‘balance of freedoms’?
Faith schools which must employ staff (including the headmaster) who do not subscribe to the faith ethos of the school's foundation and must admit students who have neither the interest nor inclination to submit to or follow it?
Faith schools which must subsume their centuries-old religious orthodoxy to the supreme ‘equality and diversity’ dogma?
Basically, you are free to believe whatever you want, but not too strongly?
What do you make of this:
At our Spring 2009 Conference Liberal Democrats debated faith education, and we came to a clear position which I believe reflects the balance of freedoms which it is necessary to reach in this case.
They came to a ‘clear position’?
Don’t laugh.
No. Really. Don’t laugh.
If this policy is ‘clear’, Cranmer is a peanut.
In trying to be all things to all people, David Laws is nothing to nobody. This paradoxical drivel passes no test for clarity, other than to confirm that the Liberal Democrats are two-faced, schizophrenic opportunists who think the electorate are irredeemably stupid.
Perhaps we should thank God that these illiberal undemocrats don’t have a hope in hell of ever forming the next Government.
Can you imagine what darkness and devils would descend upon the nation during five years of a Labour-LibDem coalition?
And why does David Laws style himself ‘Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families’?
Who made them Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition?
Liberal Democrats are but shadows to the Shadows: they strut and fret their hour upon the stage, and then are heard no more.
Thank God.
