DUP’s Robinson opposes segregated education, Cameron supports it…

November 26, 2011 at 5:01 pm (David Cameron, humanism, Ireland, Jim D, multiculturalism, Racism, religion, sectarianism, secularism, strange situations, SWP, Tory scum)

This is almost unbelievable:

While the present-day leader of Paisley’s ultra-Protestant DUP denounces segregated education

…Tory “moderniser” Cameron defends it:

Richard Dawkins puts a simple question to David Cameron:

Richard Dawkins

Why do you support faith schools for children who are too young to have chosen their faith, thereby implicitly labelling them with the faith of their parents, whereas you wouldn’t dream of so labelling a “Keynesian child” or a “Conservative child”?

[Cameron's reply]: “Comparing John Maynard Keynes to Jesus Christ shows, in my view, why Richard Dawkins just doesn’t really get it. I think faith schools are very often good schools. Why? Because the organisation that’s backing them – the church or the mosque or the synagogue – is part of the community. And it brings a sense of community and the backing of an institution to a school. The church was providing good schools long before the state got involved, and we should respect the fact that it’s not just the state that can provide education but other bodies, too.”

Mind you,  not all of the “left” has been on the civilised side on this question, either…

14 Comments

  1. Jimmy said,

    Of course Cameron would defend division. That is how the Tories survive.
    The fact is that many on the so called left are Catholics and Catholicism will always be put first by them before socialism. The afterlife is more important than the present.
    I recall at least one Glasgow Labour councillor and a T&G shop steward declaring they would resign from Labour if they attempted to abolish Catholic schools. It is cleary a problem for the Labour movement.
    Robinson will probably get more flack from his own kind.

    • Monsuer Jelly est Formidable said,

      delete the idiot pissflap glesga.

  2. SteveH said,

    I think this issue is more complex than you give credit. Though instinctively I have to side with Dawkins. Marx’s dictum that the state stay out of educating the people is still relevant isn’t it? So yes keep religion out of education but when arguing this subject we do so by not defending the state education system.

  3. Jim Denham said,

    The simplistic idea that Marx had some “dictum that the state stay out of education” can only be based upon a pretty fundamental misreading of the Critique of the Gotha Programme (section 4); here’s what Marx actually says:

    B. “The German Workers’ party demands as the intellectual and ethical basis of the state:
    “1. Universal and equal elementary education by the state. Universal compulsory school attendance. Free instruction.”

    “Equal elementary education”? What idea lies behind these words? Is it believed that in present-day society (and it is only with this one has to deal) education can be equal for all classes? Or is it demanded that the upper classes also shall be compulsorily reduced to the modicum of education — the elementary school — that alone is compatible with the economic conditions not only of the wage-workers but of the peasants as well?

    “Universal compulsory school attendance. Free instruction.” The former exists even in Germany, the second in Switzerland and in the United States in the case of elementary schools. If in some states of the latter country higher education institutions are also “free”, that only means in fact defraying the cost of education of the upper classes from the general tax receipts. Incidentally, the same holds good for “free administration of justice” demanded under A, 5. The administration of criminal justice is to be had free everywhere; that of civil justice is concerned almost exclusively with conflicts over property and hence affects almost exclusively the possessing classes. Are they to carry on their litigation at the expense of the national coffers?

    This paragraph on the schools should at least have demanded technical schools (theoretical and practical) in combination with the elementary school.

    “Elementary education by the state” is altogether objectionable. Defining by a general law the expenditures on the elementary schools, the qualifications of the teaching staff, the branches of instruction, etc., and, as is done in the United States, supervising the fulfillment of these legal specifications by state inspectors, is a very different thing from appointing the state as the educator of the people! Government and church should rather be equally excluded from any influence on the school. Particularly, indeed, in the Prusso-German Empire (and one should not take refuge in the rotten subterfuge that one is speaking of a “state of the future”; we have seen how matters stand in this respect) the state has need, on the contrary, of a very stern education by the people.

    But the whole program, for all its democratic clang, is tainted through and through by the Lassallean sect’s servile belief in the state, or, what is no better, by a democratic belief in miracles; or rather it is a compromise between these two kinds of belief in miracles, both equally remote from socialism.

    **********************************************************************************

    A very clear account of Marx’s (and Engels’) approach to education can be found here:
    http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2010/04/13/marx-and-engels-education

  4. SteveH said,

    I said stay out of educating the people, not out of education! The difference should be obvious. The point is that we don’t simply defend the lesser evil.

  5. Jim Denham said,

    The “lesser evil” in this case being?

  6. johng said,

    Why do you link to a bloke who wants to back christian fundamentalists against Muslims in Africa? (in other words a communal nutcase who see’s sectarian strife as a vehicle for turning Nigeria into Tunbridge Wells)? You’ll be linking to the EDL next.

  7. Martin Ohr said,

    johng- you’re making even less sense than normal- who linked to what?

    On the substantive question, are you with Cameron in supporting sectarian schools or a lone voice of reason within the SWP?

  8. charliethechulo said,

    What the fuck are you on (about) Gameboy?

  9. charliethechulo said,

    Seriuosly, John: both Martin and myself have asked you what you mean: you have not replied. Please do so or stand exposed an idiot and liar.

  10. SteveH said,

    The lesser evil is a secular ‘comprehensive’ state education system with non religious private schools bound by anti discriminaltion laws I would imagine. The point is that when attacking faith schools you do so without giving a proletarian alternative view on Education. The proletarian view has suddenly morphed into the liberal bourgeois one.

    You simply decide to leave it at defending the lesser evil – though I am not sure what you think the lesser evil is. Which is another problem with the way you frmae this argument.

    On JohnG’s comment – It isn’t that big a leap from Peter Robinson to the EDL you know. I can imagine the scandal if we cited someone anti semitic because he happened to be a bit right about some topic or other.

  11. martin ohr said,

    SteveH forgive me for being dim – but I thought that part of the point of the post, that even someone as terrible as Robinson is better than Cameron (and most of the deluded left for that matter) about this.

    For now I’ll happily take the lesser evil of bourgois liberalism over superstition, while still arguing for a marxist attitude to education.

  12. charliethechulo said,

    “The lesser evil is a secular ‘comprehensive’ state education system with non religious private schools bound by anti discriminaltion laws I would imagine. The point is that when attacking faith schools you do so without giving a proletarian alternative view on Education. The proletarian view has suddenly morphed into the liberal bourgeois one”:

    Ah! I get it now: anything short of the socialist revolution is a “lesser evil.”

    Well, I suppose that’s true. But not very helpful.

  13. SteveH said,

    ChuChu – you managed to bring a smile to my face with that comment(though me being backward that isn’t difficult of course).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 420 other followers

%d bloggers like this: