• British Values and Education

    I do wish that Mr Gove, the Education Secretary, (and everyone else for that matter) would stop trying to wrap progressive values in a national flag.

    I feel uncomfortable about it, whatever the flag – and there’s a lot of it going on in Scotland at the moment too.

    According to the Prime Minister, the kinds of values that he and Mr Gove mean by British values are:

    • freedom
    • tolerance
    • respect for the rule of law
    • belief in personal and social responsibility
    • respect for British institutions

    Well, with the exception of the last on (which institutions? – there’s plenty of good British people who have little respect for parliament and parliamentarians at the moment) this has nothing whatsoever to do with being British and mostly to do with being a good citizen. (I say mostly because I’ve no interested in being merely tolerated by anyone).

    I think that if we want such things taught in schools then we should defend the idea of having proper civics classes and agree a strategy that doesn’t come waving flags of any kind.

    There’s also one or two things missing from that list like equality, being a global citizen, human dignity in work and human rights. If the Prime Minister was talking about some of that then I might be cheering him on. As it is, we are left with sound bites that sound like they have been left over from John Major’s Back to Basics campaign.

    It seems to me that very many people are weary of religion being such an issue in schools and think that schools would be better without it. Those who promote faith schools seem particularly defensive at the moment and not without good reason.

    The things is, it seems to me that it is obvious that faith schools are not part of the problem insofar as they are known to promote rather than detract from community cohesion. However, it is equally obvious that faith schools are part of the problem in that some religious groups have ready access to them and some don’t. Their existence automatically makes people think that everyone should have the right to a religious education no matter what kind of religion the state is being expected to endorse. Furthermore, we know that at least some of those faith schools have strong input (including clergy governors) who walk a long way away from equality and tolerance in the rest of their lives.

    My view – the state should be investing less in faith schools not more and it should be promoting the teaching of civics rather than British (or any other pseudo-nationalistic) values.

    And if we want progressive values taught in schools (and I do) then we should be prepared to come out and name those values and say so.

10 responses to “So, let me get this right…”

  1. Andrew Page Avatar

    I think you have understood if correctly (or at least as fully as it can be understood).

    This just shows how confused the church has become, or how keen it is to tie itself into the proverbial knots to appease both progressives and traditionalists.

    Either way, this position is both absurd and intellectually unsustainable.

  2. Kirstin Avatar

    Kelvin can I ask what submissions you are referring to, is there a new one?

  3. Joan H Craig Avatar
    Joan H Craig

    I think that, once marriage law is passed, current civil partnerships can convert to marriage by filling form, etc. Don’t think they said what happens if the couple want a religious marriage – or did I miss that?
    If our churches persist in saying no to marriage, wouldn’t it be better to do the blessing after they’ve converted their civil status – as in some countries where every marriage is a civil ceremony, and any religious service is done afterwards
    I hope everyone has completed the most recent consultation paper

  4. Rhea Avatar
    Rhea

    I think that the church wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants everyone to be happy, and this is probably the best way that it knows to do this.

    Is it ridiculous? Of course.

  5. Kelvin Holdsworth Avatar

    There is to be a new one. I’ve not seen it. I understand that the position that the Faith and Order Board is holding to is that “church teaching” is what Canon 31 says – that and nothing else and therefore we are doctrinally against change.

    Is that not the case?

    1. kelvin Avatar

      So far as I understand it, the SEC has not moved in its position since the first response at all.

      The first response included this:
      Question 10: Do you agree that the law in Scotland should be changed to allow same sex marriage?
      The Canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church (Canon 31) state that the doctrine of the Church is that marriage is ‘a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and as a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God’. In the light of that Canon, there is no current basis for agreeing that the law should be changed to view marriage as possible between two people of the same sex.

    2. Kirstin Avatar

      The SEC’s last response was in line with what the current law was, indeed still is, this consultation asks a very different question. To which the answer ‘well it isn’t legal, so we can’t say’, (I paraphrase) can’t be the answer this time, can it?
      Of course Canon 31 also states it is a “lifelong estate” but had clause 4 added at a later date to allow for divorce and remarriage.

  6. Rev David Coleman Avatar
    Rev David Coleman

    I was watching the evidence to the Westminster parliamentary committees the other day. In all these things, even from churches which are prepared to be tentatively in favour, or declining to be opposed, what is missing from all the evidence is the human experience of joy and delight that actually characterises a true and good wedding, of any combination of partners. How can we get across the compelling and converting happiness when processes take the form they do?

  7. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Is there any way of getting hold of the board – of ordinary church members getting hold of it and making it listen?? I mean I know my approach tends to lack in subtlety what it makes up for in directness, but then, well, it is very direct.

  8. Kimberly Avatar

    Rosemary, of all the many beautiful sentences you have written, that is the very very best.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • We are Created By God – a Mothers' Union Discussion Booklet

    I’m grateful to Sheila Redwood of the Mothers’ Union for sending me this discussion booklet as a response to my earlier posts (here and here)) about the MU attitude to those who are gay. It is a nicely produced book. A shiny cover has friendly stones piled on one another. It is clear that a…

  • Horse Tidbits

    I’m regularly astonished at the commitment of my local supermarket – a branch of Lidl just off Maryhill Road. Today for example, I was offered pheasant, quail, goose, venison and horse tidbits. I toyed with the idea of the bath salts flavoured with honey and milk which sounded vaguely Biblical but in the end opted…

  • Scottish Episcopalians who blog

    New blog from Rosemary Hannah here: http://rosemaryhannah.wordpress.com/ Tentative blogging from Eamonn here: http://nonesomodest.wordpress.com/ (Let us hope he continues). [Note that my list is of Scottish Episcopalians who blog. The list on the SEC website is SEC Episcopalians who blog quite a bit about the church. It is quite a difficult distinction to make, and open…

  • Listening. Talking. Discussing. LGBT

    A while ago, I posted some remarks about the Mothers’ Union (here and here) which surprised a few people, not least members of the MU. The MU, as I said before, is an organisation which does a lot of good things in the world. I was trying to explain why I would not welcome it…