Today’s Times front page reports a warning from Ofsted head Amanda Spielman that extremists are using schools to ‘pervert’ education. In explanation, she said head teachers should not assume ‘that the most conservative voices in a particular faith speak for everyone — imagine if people thought the Christian Institute were the sole voice of Anglicanism’.

To refer to and indeed select the Christian Institute as being comparable with Islamic fundamentalism was more than regrettable.


For Ms Spielman to elide violent extremism which threatens actual physical harm with normal orthodox biblical and Christian teaching of the Anglican faith about marriage and sex demonstrates the religious illiteracy of those charged with supervising the education of our children and grandchildren. The Christian Institute is a well-respected research and campaigning organisation which carries out the role of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?, or speaking truth to power. Speaking truth to power originates in the teaching and practice of Jesus and the Jewish prophets whose tradition the Christian Institute continues. I trust that someone at the Church of England conference she is speaking to today has the guts to question her ignorance.

If this prejudice and illiteracy is an example of the British values she believes should be taught, we all have to worry.

281 COMMENTS

  1. They always go for Christianity because it’s an easy target. The media, gays, leftists in general always look to attack Christianity because it knows they will not fight back. Never mind that Islam has some of the worst animal rights or women’s rights records and would happily eradicate our country of homosexuality to the last gay; no, they cannot be the target because they WILL fight back.
    Cowards, the lot of ’em.

    • The real target is the Church Of England. They chip away at it to bring this institution down because it is the last pillar before the monarchy. The monarchy is the real target of the EU ‘republicans’.

    • In fairness, when asked about the issue on R4 this morning she went straight for Islam. Those were all her examples. Looks to me as if no one writing press releases wanted to go there.

      • Fair play to her but you have to admit, in general, that rather than focus on the real threat to society, leftists will always go for the easier option. What’s the point in sending the boys if your target fights back? And they would. No, Islam is one of the pillars supported by the left despite its obvious contradictions.

  2. Yes I saw this and noted that she specifically avoids talking about the one problem religion in all this. The result is morons also calling for Christian or Jewish schools to be banned. Very sad to see.

    • They are not calling for Christian and Jewish schools to be banned because they are morons and think those schools promote terrorism. Those calling for a ban are cynical opportunists who use concerns about Islamic terrorism to further their own agenda.

    • Why are you so triggered about banning institutions from filling children’s minds with unproven stories about an unproven entity?
      What makes you so mad that you can’t let the children make their own minds up as they mature?

      • Because its moral lessons form the core of our culture and society whether you like it not. We teach children plenty of other unproven things at school anyway.

        • Feckn hell, the tired old “you have to be religious to have a moral code” old chestnut beloved of the religious brainwashed again.
          Your “moral lessons” are all cherry picked anyway. If schools followed the Christian Bible to the letter they would teach boys how to sell their future daughters as prostitutes.

          • “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” – Matthew 7:24-27

          • It gets worse. A bible quoter. Like arguing with the moonies then. Well, you get on with that and I’ll get on with having a life.

          • The parable is reflective of our modern society. We are not building our society on something solid like the Christian faith, we are building it on a new “humanist” basis which isn’t solid because it is maleable. The result will be the crumbling of our society, you can already see it happening. Why do you think European civilisation has been so strong for so long and became the most advanced civilisation in the world while the Arab world has actually gone backwards? Where do you think the non-religious moral code you claim to have actually comes from?

          • “Where do you think the non-religious moral code you claim to have actually comes from?”
            I could turn it around : So without a funny book giving you instructions, you would have absolutely no idea how to behave decently towards your fellow man?

          • No I believe we have an inbuilt morality bestowed on us by God (its some of the best observable evidence for God) but the teachings of Jesus refine it.

          • Why would you believe nonsense like that? Man has been around for at least 100,000 years, God only for 10,000.

          • Wow, millenia of theological contemplation and you’ve just solved in a couple of hours. How very clever of you.

          • Argument from authority. An apparently intelligent man believing in hogwash doesn’t make the hogwash true.

          • According to “Trumpton” intelligent people don’t believe in God. If he (and you) believe that then clearly that is hogwash.

          • I’m always disappointed when I discover that a person I thought was fairly bright believes in the nonsense that is religion. They must have a silly compartment in the brain.

          • Whereas I feel exactly the same the other way round. Surely someone bright cannot imagine that there isn’t a God. I suppose that a part of their problem could be that they think that they are so clever that there is nothing superior to them.

            We all have “silly “ compartments in the brain. Things that we can’t do as well as other things.

      • Having sent my sons to a “Catholic” school, I wonder every day whether it was the right thing to do.

        I can assure you that the only thing that my younger son’s RE teachers (plural) insist on them believing is that women footballers deserve to be paid as much as men. Oh and there was that boy who was thrown out of class for calling ISIS “Muslim”. Other than that there is no compulsion to believe anything.

        I have a relation who is head of a Cof E school and I genuinely have no idea when he last attended Church and in all the time I have known him he has never once been voluntarily

        You can be assured that there is no compulsion whatsoever to believe in God or Jesus at either of these schools and I don’t think they are unusual. Those that do expect you to be a Christian are few and far between. You needn’t worry.

        • “women footballers deserve to be paid as much as men”.

          So we have spiritual and economic illiteracy hand in hand.

          Great.

          • Quite apart from the fact that most women footballers earn exactly as much as most men do — nothing at all, because the vast majority of adult football is completely amateur.

          • True.

            But then most players do not appear on the FIFA Computer game, which according to one of the teachers a couple of years ago is sexist because it gave higher ability ratings to the best male players than it did to the best female ones.

          • Yes well poor diddums probably didn’t realise that biological reality is “sexist” too, and that differences between the sexes cannot be vanished away with the flip of the magic ideology wand …

    • We’ve had Jewish and Christian schools omitting science from education because it contradicts bronze age meanderings. The best way would be to separate all schools from religious bunk entirely, but I would be content if it was just state schools. You think you have a god? Then prove it and you can teach it to children. Until then, kindly keep the stupid thing to yourself.

      • So you think the universe just burst into existence out of nothing.

        Prove it.

        And there are plenty of scientists who agree with us too.

        • You think a god just burst into existence out of nothing and created a universe with a magic spell. Ask yourself if that’s more likely. Anyway who says the universe came from nothing? Nobody says that.

          • There is no way to prove creation, evolution or the Big Bang – they can all form part of the school curriculum and do – certainly at Christian schools in this country.

          • You can’t lump the proven science of evolution with religion. To do so is dishonest.
            But I guess, in the absence of a god , dishonesty is all you have left.

          • The very existence of thunderstorms could indicate the existence of Thor, but I’m willing to bet that it doesn’t.

          • “Trumpton” and “NedOfWales” are sockuppet accounts engaging here in a fake “dialogue” for the sole purposes of internet trolling. Block both of them, and you’ll be rid of it.

          • Thanks. I have blocked Trumpton now, and possibly too the other already as I haven’t seen its name for a while.

          • It always amazes me how many folk think that evoutionism (actually an hypothesis as it cannot be tested as a theory can) is scientific, neither has anyone seen it happen. It does not meet the criteria for being falsifiable. Neither is there any known natural mechanism for introducing novel information into a cell’s DNA whereby molecules can “evolve” into man.

          • It amazes me how people can doubt it given all the evidence, yet believe twaddle about a magical being from an old book.

          • Well, yes, there are fossils which Darwin thought proved something. But the something it proves depends on one’s worldview. Darwin and his atheistic worldview thought that fossils would prove his theory (man to molecules evolution) but those of us with a Godly worldview know that billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the world, are evidence of a worldwide flood. The evidence is the same but the interpretaton is different, you see.

          • I forgive your nonsense because you are Welsh.
            Or, given the ludicrous content of your posts, are you simply trolling?

          • Micro-evolution is eminently observable ; macro-evolution eminently is not.

            But let’s put an analogy to you — God is not falsifiable by means of testing in lab conditions nor is He observable as some phenomenon can be in a lab, and yet He certainly is real.

            So you’re making a false objection ; the fact that X is not falsifiable predicates exactly nothing about the reality or not of X.

            Neither is there any known natural mechanism for introducing novel information into a cell’s DNA whereby molecules can “evolve” into man

            In other words you have not even the foggiest notion of what you’re trying to talk about.

            BUT —- hmmmmmm, clearly this is just another one of your cretinous sockpuppets, so — Blocked

          • You realise that the only person that doesn’t see a post when you block it is you, don’t you? It’s like clamping your hands over your ears and shouting lalalalala. Do you think that the reality of our godless existence will disappear if you ignore it?

      • Is that a routine thing or a rare thing? Christians developed the scientific method in the first place.

        In any event, the subject of the article is regarding Sunday schools which have no need to teach science as children already learn science at weekday school.

  3. Ms Spielman has alleged that she has been the subject of violent threats & obscenities
    from muslims & has named no other religions.
    Of course Islam is a particularly violent religion whose holy koran is full of violent imprecations
    – unique amongst. all major religions.
    Obviously there have been historically violent Christian groups in the past, but for Britain today, there is only violent religion.
    Ms Spiellman spoke of mohammedans posting “we know where you live”, terrifying if one thinks of the sufferings & 24 hour security required by other identified “islamophobes” – the greatest oxymoron of all time.
    Much as I despise the BBC for its massive bias combined with smug superiority, when it was covered on Radio 4 today, there was no doubt who the religious extremists were.

    • BBC news articles are often unbiased and reasonable. OK, maybe not often, but sometimes. They need to be able to tick their boxes.

      The problem is that the news that isn’t fair, and all their other stuff, is done from a progressive, liberal perspective, but when anyone complains, if they can’t just be ignored altogether, they will point to the articles and reports that are fair, and say “there you are, see, we are not biased” and then they will just carry on being biased.

  4. Spielman said that “Ofsted inspectors are increasingly brought into contact with those who want to actively pervert the purpose of education”. Well, yes. Stonewall for starters.

  5. These people are so good at being ‘against’ things and ‘anti’ this and ‘anti’ that – at least we know what Muslims, Jews and Christians are actually ‘for’.

  6. “How dare she?”

    Easy

    She dares because she has the backing of the government, the BBC and the loud mouth lefties.

    And no one is going to seriously take her on. Well, are we?

    • I tend to defend Judeo Christianity in the UK & the West, since it is a core part of our culture.
      Indeed, as a card carrying atheist I am more supportive of Christianity than most
      clergy, especially Anglicans who seem to be desirous of being sharia compliant.
      There is not a scintilla of doubt as to whom she was referring & much as I hate BBC
      bias, once one understands BBC code it’s easy to translate.
      “Religious extremism” means islam & nothing else – not Opus Dei or the KKK.
      “Far Right” means UK/Western political stances that do not embrace Islam
      and/or mss immigration.

      • As a former devout Evangelical Christian I was excessively critical of Christianity for a few years. However, as I abandoned my far left politics and embraced many aspects of social conservativism I saw that there were positive aspects to our Christian tradition and that recognising this was not incompatible with my agnosticism/atheism. I disagree with Christians on their theology but I share a lot of conservative values with them.

        • Me too.
          Which is why I found the treatment of Ms Spielman so offensive.
          She told the BBC woman that being tolerant had resulted in the importation of intolerance & values incompatible with our nation.
          What sort of a nitwit thought she was complaining about Christianity ?
          Especially when she went on to defend the head teacher who had tried
          to stop mohammedan headgear in Saint Stephens’

      • You may be right. I have not heard any of this debate.

        Would you be happier if I changed my “she dares”, to a more generic “they dare”? Because many of “them” including those, as you quite rightly point out at the BBC, “do dare” and for the reasons that I state.

        • I don’t know what the Christian institute is.
          According to the Times she stated that “imagine if the most conservative
          voices in a particular faith (how I hate that weasel word), spoke for everyone. Imagine if the Christian Institute were the sole voice of Anglicanism”
          The lady is being diplomatic, already she & some staff members have to have special security & she has been threatened by muslim groups.
          The Monday Club is/was a respectable non violent Tory group.
          In order not to invite violence from Britain First, she might have said
          “Imagine if the Monday Club were were the sole voice of conservatism”
          She’s very brave already, she knows she’ll get little support from most so called Christians when she exposes, as she has, rotten muslim practices being introduced in to the UK.
          There is a difference between tolerance & tolerating the intolerable as she pointed out to the muslim supporting BBC interviewer.
          Christians, for a start, must realise that silly & sometimes dangerous as are current leftist preoccupations, their, & all our, Oldest Enemy is Islam.

          • I am sure you can take a good guess at to what kind of organisation the Christian Institute is by looking at the original article and then some of the comments. There are at least two conservative Catholics strongly defending it for a start.

            OFSTED will have had run ins with the CI. Not least over the closure of the Christian School that refused “to teach what lesbians do in bed” as OFSTED required them to do under the guise of “British values”.

            The fact that she picked on a conservative Evangelical group is not surprising. I am sure that there are lots of liberal “Anglican” groupings that she could have picked on, but I do suspect that she would be happier if such an organisation did represent all Christians.

            Your comparable with Monday Club / Britain First does not seem to match.

            The Monday Club and Britain First would generally be on the same side, albeit one of them is violent and the other isn’t. How does that compare with two organisations who differ in desire as well as campaigns.
            Your suggestion in the comparison would appear to be that the Christian Institute and Radical Islam are the same except that one is violent and the other isn’t.
            Apologies if I have misunderstood but that is how it appears.

      • I don’t doubt she is doing a good job in standing up against Islamic extremism which is a huge problem.

        But that she tries to conflate Islamic extremism with anything done by Jews or Christians is a big problem, because it’s not very helpful. The problem with many secular people today is they seem to believe religion is out of date and will just disappear with no harmful effects, and Islam is going to prey on this fact of life. People need to realise that whether you believe or not, Christian morality and values are what made Britain what it was at the height of its success, and they will be needed it we want to return to being a civilised and free people again.

  7. Both are mystic spiritual faiths. I would certainly take current Christian religion over Islamic theocracy, but here in the UK, in most respects, there is little difference between the average Muslim and his Christian counterpart.

    Extremism isn’t a valid concept, it’s a conceptual package deal. Religion is religion. Some that subscribe to these religions use violence to achieve their political goals. The driver for these goals are countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan who fund it. There are really no ‘extremist’ Muslims as there are no ‘extremist’ Christians; neither are there are moderate Muslims or moderate Christians.

    Conservative Woman is a predominantly Christian organisation. Even here I can see that some Christians are chaffing at the bit to impose their ideas through the force of political means. I could easily use the slur of ‘Christian extremists’ in that respect of those people. Now, it is said, that communism is the implementation of an ideology by revolutionary force, but that socialism is the same concept of communism by the power of the ballot box. Christians and Muslims, in the Uk, seek power through democratic vote and, as such, are most certainly comparable.

    • In the countries where they predominate and plenty where they don’t, Muslims tend to impose themselves by force.

      As you say, there are no extremist Muslims, There are only `Muslims who find it convenient not to follow the express dictates of the Qur’an and the example of their Prophet, or who think they are following the doctrine of quiescence and subterfuge enjoined on them by Islamic authorities in situations where they Muslims are under the authority of others, as in Britain.

      Who are extremist Christians ? Those who follow the injunctions of the Sermon in the Mount in the spirit and to the letter. Like jihadist Muslims though, such Christians are rather thin on the ground.

      • All Mystics will inevitably impose their will by force, it’s only a matter of circumstance and the right leadership.

        I don’t know the sermon on the mount, or the modern Christian interpretation of it.

        • All Mystics will inevitably impose their will by force

          What a load of bollox

          I don’t know the sermon on the mount

          And yet you still like to pose as having anything relevant to say about Christianity.

          • Christianity is no different from any other religion in respect of it being a faith. Faith and Force are co-existents. Christianity is like a sleeping volcano which can always explode into life.

          • Faith and Force are co-existents

            More meaningless gibberish and unsupported ideological sloganism.

            Christianity is no different from any other religion in respect of it being a faith

            1) You continue not to understand what the word “faith” means

            2) Not every religion is centred on the concept of faith

            3) It is absolutely false to claim that “Christianity is no different from any other religion” etc. as this claim is based on the false ideological claim of relativism that “all religions are the same”

            It’s all just more bollox

          • That’s the subject of the article Jabba. It seeks to prove that Christian and Muslim religion cannot be compared. I’ve shown that they can.

          • Trying to change the subject away from this obvious example of your reductionism ? LOL

            That’s the subject of the article Jabba. It seeks to prove that Christian and Muslim religion cannot be compared

            No it isn’t, and no it doesn’t.

            The subject of the article is OFSTED and Amanda Spielman’s bigotry, and its purpose is to denounce prejudiced religious ignorance and attempts by this organisation and by the woman leading it to define this prejudice and bigotry as “British values”.

          • By using a comparison to Islam…yes very good, you almost got it right except for the deliberate omission. Read the title, that’s what they are for.

          • aaah, so now he thinks he can teach me how to read, even though his own command of the skill is so appalling …

            It is blatantly obvious that the article seeks to denounce anti-religious bigotry, ignorance, “illiteracy” and “prejudice”, and that it “seeks to prove” nothing whatsoever.

            Blatantly obvious to those anyway who do not seek to impose their own prejudice where it does not belong.

          • It’s right in front of you. Put your glasses on. It reads ‘how dare ofsted compare Christianity to violent Islamic extremism’. It uses the slur ‘extremism’ of course, like any good Marxist it seeks to dominate the language.

          • So where are these “proofs” that you allege to be proposed by the article then ?

            PS Did nobody ever tell you that there’s a difference between a text and its title ? Or did you think that Nineteen-Eighty-Four is some sort of annual, and Fahrenheit 451 a thermodynamics treatise, and The Fountainhead a potamological discourse ?

          • They were works of fiction, but then, knowing your attraction to fantasy I don’t suppose you can see the difference.

          • Oh wow, how unexpected. Everything is fantasy to a fantasist except his own unique delusion which he cannot prove, but is certain is true.

        • The Sermon on the Mount is foundational to the best of Western social attitudes.

          If you don’t know it, you should look it up without delay.

    • Both are mystic spiritual faiths

      Please stop pretending that you have even the foggiest notion of what the words “mystic” and “spiritual” actually mean or designate.

      I could easily use the slur of ‘Christian extremists’ in that respect of those people

      You could easily type whatever bollox you wanted into these comboxes ; and you seem to avail yourself far too frequently of this potential.

      Muslims … seek power through democratic vote

      Democracy is overtly and directly condemned by Islam, and Muslims are in principle forbidden from participating in it.

      • You are saying that no UK Muslim votes, seeks political office, or lobby’s their MP ?

        I know exactly what mystic and spiritual mean, they might have a different meaning to the religionists. A is A though. A mystic is someone who accepts an explanation on faith alone. Spiritual means ‘of the mind’ or ‘consciousness’ as opposed to the material body in objectivist philosophy. It’s not something that can be seperated from the body, but it is a specific thing, with a specific nature and identity that differentiates it from the body.

        • You are saying that no UK Muslim votes, seeks political office, or lobby’s their MP ?

          Channelling Cathy Newman ?

          A mystic is someone who accepts an explanation on faith alone

          Rubbish, “someone who accepts an explanation on faith alone” is someone who has been indoctrinated perhaps to the point of brainwashing — the phrase designates, basically, the exact antithesis of what it is to be a mystic.

          So no, you do NOT “know exactly what mystic … means”

          Spiritual means ‘of the mind’ or ‘consciousness’

          No, it bloody well does NOT — That which is “of the mind” is what is intellectual, and although this is not an exact antithesis, it is an opposite of what the word “spiritual” means.

          So, all you’ve done is demonstrate the truth of what I said — you have not even the foggiest notion of what the words “mystic” and “spiritual” actually mean or designate.

          • Channeling not answering the question.

            I know exactly what mystic means, it’s just not what you want to hear because it attacks your mysticism.

            There is no mind without consciousness. This is your religious interpretation. I may as well be arguing with someone who believes in a fairy tale in which concepts are what they are within the context of the story. All you can say is that I don’t understand your concepts contextualised within the book. However, I’m condemning the entire book as a work of fiction and not reason.

          • I know exactly what mystic means, it’s just not what you want to hear because it attacks your mysticism

            The internal circularity and festering sterility of your “method” would be less tedious if you didn’t insist so on declaring that it’s what constitutes “logic” and “reason” … so 100% laughably.

            I may as well be arguing with someone who believes in a fairy tale in which concepts are what they are within the context of the story

            It is a very frequent flaw of those with such massive intellectual flaws as yours to accuse others of the very thing that defines those flaws.

            Your magic “definitions” of this or that do not constitute what this or that actually are.

            All you can say is that I don’t understand your concepts contextualised within the book

            I’m not the one basing everything in my thinking around some work of literature, you are.

            I may as well be arguing with someone

            I’ve already told you that I’ll no longer be doing any hand-holding — I’m ridiculing your preposterous arguments, not “arguing with” you as if there were anything in them to take seriously.

            Your “objectivist definitions” of “mystic” and “spiritual” are bollox.

          • You want me to put you in my cross-hairs. Fine. I’ve tried to avoid it because it serves no purpose that I can see, but if you want that treatment then I won’t deprive you of it.

            You are a fantasist who has surrendered his mind. There is no proof for a fantasist because fantasy doesn’t demand any. Your beliefs are all built on sand and so are your arguments. It’s a pity all that intellect has gone to waste, but you chose to do it, just as a drunk continues to drown his mind in the effects of alcohol.

          • You are a fantasist who has surrendered his mind

            That is a false statement — and just another slogan from your Randian ideological indoctrination.

            And repeating this false claim for the umpteenth time doesn’t magically make it truer.

          • It can’t be made more truthful than the truth which no amount of repeating will help you. So, we can just snipe at each other eh ? Pointless, but then so is sackcloth, ashes and rosary beads.

          • Which is really my point about fantasists-they believe everyone and everything along the lines of their fantasy bias. They think they happen to have the right answer to all the fantasies because they have a superior knowing. It’s impossible to break through it. I told you that previously, which is why I said I respected your point of view as someone of deep faith, but I can’t go along with it.

          • fantasists-they believe everyone and everything along the lines of their fantasy bias. They think they happen to have the right answer to all the fantasies because they have a superior knowing

            The only fantasist here who’s ever claimed “superior” understanding and “to have the right answer to” everything is you.

          • Laugh: oh no, that isn’t what I claim at all. I only claim that we can know existent reality directly, not that we will necessarily do so.

    • Nockian, Christianity has shaped the conscience of the West for two millennia.

      I don’t doubt that a good many Muslims live pretty much as the rest of us at the moment. That’s because people with a Christian background still predominate.

      What happens when the country or large areas of it is predominately Islamic?Then there will be a Muslim conscience, not a Christian one.

      The difference will show up be pretty starkly.

      • That’s a false alternative. I detest both equally. At present Christianity does not dominate the West-today it is an equally awful pragmatism, but that’s another discussion. If Christianity did seek domination it wouldn’t look too different to Islam. I doubt most Muslims seek political power, but their leaders do. The Christian church was no different in the past and it would be no different in the future.

        Indeed I have heard Hitchens suggest there is much to admire about Islamic faith culture that would appeal to other faiths-by which he explicitly said Christians. They do all that family, tradition and faith thing that Christians respect.

        You are under the illusion that Western civilisation is built on Christianity, but it is the opposite, it was the birth of Aristotlian reason which lead to the enlightenment. This was the shedding of the terrible theocratic power of Christianity and the rise of culture, art, beauty, justice, individualism, rights and freedom. Certainly it is true that many in the Church took part in this peaceful revolution, but it wasn’t Christian values, or faith that was the driving force.

        • it was the birth of Aristotlian reason which lead to the enlightenment

          So let’s just blithely skip past 2,300 years’ worth of historical reality and cultural heritage then ….

          /face-palm/

          the rise of culture, art, beauty, justice, individualism, rights and freedom

          These are not “inventions” of 17th Century Masonic ideology any more than they were “invented” by Aristotle, who was ideologically opposed to the very concept of democracy.

  8. Three religions:
    Islam – the problem
    Christianity – the target
    Progressiveness – the objective.

    Children are to be indoctrinated in the latter belief system which sees itself as neutral and enlightened above all others. It is becoming an intolerant religion trying to fill the void of meaning and morality in our lives as Christianity is pushed aside. A new iteration of Marxism, Progressiveness sees people not as individuals but as mere units of identity groups. Moral superiority comes from backing the most fashionable oppressed minority in the struggle for power.

    It is to be expected that the Left of Labour is Progressive, but what is shocking is how the Conservative Party has fallen for the shallow ideology. They are mesmerized by the inviolable god, Equality, and terrified of crossing its high priests, the BBC.

    Modernising Tories are embarrassed by all the proven conservative values that appeared sacrosanct under Mrs Thatcher: family, Christianity, patriotism, freedom, individual responsibility, even truth. They suppress our natural taboos, re-engineering us with State-enforced taboos against categories of people who are to be hated for dissenting from Progressiveness – the homophobes, racists, Islamophobes. Only a few years ago Cameron came to office promising to protect children from sexualisation. The Conservatives are now trying to force homosexual teaching on young children. That is the dangerous extremism that Ofsted should counter, Amanda Spielman.

    More blasphemy against the god of Equality, please. In Solzhenitsyn’s words, “Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.”

  9. I am a former devout Evangelical Christian. I was also a Catholic before that. I am now a Conservative agnostic/atheist. I was able to cease being a Christian without any threats to my life from Christians, the same can not be said for Ex Muslims. Yesterday I spoke with a Christian convert from Islam. He told me being openly an apostate in the Muslim community in Britain leads to at the least social ostracisation and at the worst violent attacks. He himself was hospitalised after an attack and had to abandon his home in Bradford. Christians respect freedom of conscience and the rights of the individual. The majority of Muslims do not as poll after poll reveals. It is an utter false equivalence to compare Islam and Christianity. Even the very strict protestant sect I was a member of and believe me they were extreme in many of their views but they were in no way comparable to Islam.

    • 100% upticks for telling the simple unvarnished truth.
      If I wished to be polite about Islam, I’d say it was at the same moral & intellectual
      stage as those who conducted the Albigensian crusades.

      • I’d say it was at the same moral & intellectual stage as those who conducted the Albigensian crusades

        So that of various French noblemen acting in the interests of the King of France to wrest back control of a group of fiefs who were using the Albigensian Heresy as an excuse to cease paying their taxes and cease honouring their military duties to the Kingdom, or those of the hired mercenaries that each side engaged on the basis that their principal income would come from how much they could loot and pillage ?

  10. How dare Amanda Spielman, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, compare Christianity to a death cult undermining British society? Precisely because she knows it’s not true and that, therefore, she will not be threatened by any Christians.

    Although her job certainly ought to be be under threat. It is intolerable that someone with a position of such authority in the field of education – education, for goodness sake! – should be so ignorant of British society, culture, and history.

    • ‘It is intolerable that someone with a position of such authority in the field of education – education, for goodness sake! – should be so ignorant of British society, culture, and history.’

      Ain’t that the truth.

    • Like most people on here, you jumped to the keyboard without reading the article. She merely pointed out that the most conservative of any religion do not speak for all followers of that religion.

      Like the Westboro Baptist Church speaks on behalf of *all* Christians ? Is that what you believe ?

    • ‘How dare Amanda Spielman, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, compare Christianity to a death cult undermining British society? ‘
      She didn’t.
      This is the most brazen case of fake news I’ve personally encountered
      The author owes her, and us all, an apology.
      Without actually spelling out islam, that is to what she obviously referred.

      • Are you claiming that she didn’t refer to the Christian Institute? That Colin Hart of that organisation was wrong to respond?

          • You can see the problems with Islamic mythology but are curiously blind to the nonsense that is in Christian mythology. All religious folk are like that, they can’t see that their beliefs are just as absurd.

          • I am not religious, but the difference between the New Testament and the old is quite stark.
            Jesus preached tolerance and understanding in a much more progressive way in his time.
            So many believers can benefit from his teachings.

          • Hmm. Not sure it quite says that exactly. But what’s the odd little distortion so long as it furthers the revolution, eh comrade?

          • the difference between the New Testament and the old is quite stark

            Far less than is frequently (inaccurately) claimed.

            One major difference that some people just can’t get their heads ’round (from ignorance, incompetence, or atheist indoctrinations) is that the OT is packed full of the History of wars and heresies of various overtly or implicitly criticised bad kings and false prophets — whose actions and words these people love to claim as somehow being “teachings of Christianity” … whereas they are in fact historical examples to serve as warnings against hubris, such arrogant pride as displayed by this OFSTED woman, tyranny, bad politics, fake religion, and bad religious leaders.

            Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

          • Much of what we take for granted today by way of such matters as Rights, modern democracy and humane social attitudes we owe to Christianity.

            The idea of progress is itself Christian in origin, deriving from the doctrine of the coming Kingdom of God.

            It has of course been perverted into a secular, materialist understanding evidenced in Marxism / progressivism.

            Just as the teachings of Jesus have been perverted into Political Correctness, which is why this poisonously insinuating creed is so difficult to argue against for people living in a fundamentally Christian civilisation.

          • There is very good evidence for the truth of the `biblical accounts, which have been explored more thoroughly by the best scholarly minds our Civilisation has produced than anything else in ancient history.

            There is nothing more certain in ancient history than that Jesus was crucified,

          • Jesus promises to give life and to give it abundantly. As for the non-survival of the spirit, you have a lot of faith in that.

          • We know that consciousness is a brain function and the brain mediates all experience. It has been scientifically proved.

          • OK, Trotsky, explain to us how the brain produces first person experience. Can you? Didn’t think so. You have absolutely no clue about science and don’t try and bullshit because, unlike you, I do know what I’m talking about.

          • I have no idea what you’re talking about. Headsets not working don’t remove all experience.
            “Science is not in principle committed to the idea that there’s no afterlife or that the mind is identical to the brain…

            If it’s true that consciousness is being run like software on the brain and can – by virtue of ectoplasm or something else we don’t understand – be dissociated from the brain at death, that would be part of our growing scientific understanding of the world if we discover it…

            But there are very good reasons to think it’s not true. We know this from 150 years of neurology where you damage areas of the brain, and faculties are lost… You can cease to recognize faces, you can cease to know the names of animals but you still know the names of tools…

            What we’re being asked to consider is that you damage one part of the brain, and something about the mind and subjectivity is lost, you damage another and yet more is lost, [but] you damage the whole thing at death, we can rise off the brain with all our faculties in tact, recognizing grandma and speaking English!”
            Sam Harris.

          • As a Sam Harris fan, I feel that arguing with the genuinely religious is a
            waste of time.
            By all means argue with those who make a fat living by peddling superstition, US evangelists, most UK bishops & archbishops.
            But, let the average Christian, go about their often virtuous lives,
            knowing that if their views are sincere, they will stand next to rationalists
            & Westerners generally in the already underway fight against islam.
            Currently, of course, the fight is one sided, but we can only be pushed so far.
            Only yesterday the Times reported a hard right German AFD politician had converted to islam, since he felt Christians lacked conviction.

          • I disagree with you about argument. There is a powerful tradition in Christianity of using logic to argue which is exemplified most spectacularly by Aquinas. It is actually far easier to debate with a reasonable Christian that a secular post-modernist or neo-Marxist who believes that truth is relative and logic is a construct of the patriarchy (or whatever demon is currently on the victim horizon).

          • “Headsets not working don’t remove all experience. ” That’s the point. The headset is an interface. Its destruction does not prevent experiences per se, it merely prevents one participating in the VR game. You cannot conclude that because a brain is destroyed the consciousness is destroyed, only that the ability of the consciousness to interact with the world is compromised. What I’m saying is that your conclusion that consciousness is generated by matter is absolutely unwarranted from the evidence available. Especially given that quantum mechanics suggests that the opposite is equally possible (think delayed-choice experiment).

          • The scientific evidence available suggests you are incorrect, that was the point. You have a belief based on nothing.

          • You’re just parroting the positions of vacuous atheist celebrities. There is *no* scientific evidence about ontology (God, other minds, anything that exists independently of the observer) because science is the study of phenomena (the experiences of the observer). It is about using models to make predictions about future experience. It does not say what does or does not actually exist or discuss how such ontological entities behave, because it has zero access to any of them. Read up on the philosophy of quantum theory, as a bare minimum and then come back and debate this.

          • I do occasionally eat fish, but you are out of your depth. Seriously, do educate yourself before your next trolling expedition.

      • I have taken the trouble this evening of reading the speech as delivered, to the Church of England Foundation for Education Leadership: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/amanda-spielmans-speech-at-the-church-of-england-foundation-for-education-leadership

        I think any fair-minded person would agree with me that Dr Sugden’s article, which I have also just re-read, is fair comment.

        Miss Spielman alluded to problems caused by Islam, in Church of England Schools in particular. But she referred to the Christian Institute in precisely the way described by Dr Sugden, and also criticised the Church of England for opposing Ofsted inspection of Sunday Schools – so that “the small minority of settings that promote extremism are not able to evade scrutiny”.

    • Bur she didn’t. She said they were a conservative Christian organisation, and not representative of all Christians. She didn’t compare them to Islamic fundamentalists and she most certainly did not say or imply they were violent. BY all means criticise what she said, but try to keep it grounded and factual.

      • I read the speech. In a speech about “faith schools”, to a conference on education in the Church of England, she alluded to problems caused by Moslem extremists in C of E schools, and said that not all Moslems were like that, after all not everyone in the C of E is like the Christian Institute, and, besides, you really ought to let my organisation come and inspect your Sunday Schools, to root out any extremists a that might be there.

        The Christian Institute was quite right to stand up to her, and Dr Sugden was quite in order to write this piece.

  11. I see that Miss Spielman was appointed to her current position by that arch cultural Marxist, Nicola Morgan, against the objections of the Commons Education Select Committee.

  12. Spielman has a business background. A career in finance does not guarantee a knowledge of religion. In any case, thanks to her background her appreciation of Christianity is likely to be limited.

    As it is, Education is successfully perverted by leftism in academia.

    Ms Spielman might get round to occupying herself with addressing that pressing problem in our schools but somehow I doubt it.

          • The whole country, or a lot of it, went off its rocker in the 60’s. It fell over a cliff and it’s still falling.

          • It was far from perfect. One improvement since I approve of has been a decline in class consciousness. But people did have standards to live by and something other than their personal comfort to believe in.

            Selling illegitimate babies was one way of having them provided for, `I suppose, although I have never heard of the practice.

            Nowadays of course some women get a living paid for by the taxpayer by having umpteen children by various fathers. Or they get abortions.

            Is that an improvement? I don’t think so.

          • I was being sarcastic. The way babies were wrenched from the arms of women perfectly able to care for them was an absolute disgrace. Our moral values are much improved nowadays.

          • Abortion is legal on demand in reality. As for babies……watch this space. The inevitable slide to amorality which is the inevitable result of liberalism will bring it eventually. Maybe 50 years, but eventually,

          • I was talking about murder, not abortion. Abortions that are so late they could be described as a murder are prohibited. There’s a woman doing jail time for self-aborting outside the 24 week limit.

          • You’re playing with words and sliding deceitfully between moral and legal argument. Another Marxist ploy from an ideology founded on lies and incoherence. The 24 week limit is an arbitrary legal boundary: it has no moral significance whatsoever.

          • Yes but “illegal” by the law of your particular state (the “small” definition) or by the moral law (the “big” definition)? If you live in a Nazi state and it declares that killing Jews is legal does that mean you would no longer consider deliberately killing a Jew an act of murder?

          • “The absurd is born out of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world.” Camus.

          • How would an ordinary single woman be able to look after a child if she had to work to support herself ? Not possible if there were no relatives around who were willing and weren’t working themselves.

            That was the problem. Illegitimate children were an imposition on others. That was one of the main reasons why having a child out of marriage was a serious offence against the community. As well as the disdain for women who got themselves into this situation because of their lack of self restraint.

            Nowadays this imposition is transferred to the taxpayer at large. So that’s all right then ?

            Our ‘moral values’ which you say have improved have merely encouraged this kind of immorality, undermined the family and contributed to a plague of fatherlessness with dire results for all manner of social problems.

            It wasn’t fair that blame attached to the single mother and not so much to the man involved who should have been required to support mother and child, that’s for sure.

          • If the RCC really cared about preventing illegitimate children they wouldn’t have such an absurd stance on contraception.

          • Well … as I remember it, the push towards the cliff was in the 60s, but the toppling over happened in the 70s.

          • Most of the ones who educated me were off their rockers well before that, Bunch of nutters. Then they passed me on to the Christian Brothers. Bunch of nutters and sadists.

      • Some of the smartest & most confident girls I knew in my youth went to the same convent school.
        One is regularly on the media defending essentially catholic values, & doing it with the charm & confidence she did 50 years back.
        Another became a celebrated topless (and the rest) model in the 60s.

  13. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes – this phrase was coined by Juvenal, a Roman satirist who was most definitely not a follower of Abraham. I can’t accept that this is of christian or jewish origin – why not give credit to pagans when it is due? This article is just another example of the the declining standards of modern education.

    • And “speaking truth to power” was certainly practiced before the alleged date of Jesus’ birth. At Roman triumphs a man whispered in the Emporer’s ear that he was only human.

  14. Here’s what the admirable Colin Hart, of the Christian Institute, has to say in response:

    Muscular liberalism must not mean aggressive secularism

    Today, Ofsted’s Chief Inspector, Amanda Spielman, will give a major speech on British values. In a front page article in The Times, she is quoted calling for school leaders to promote a “muscular liberalism”.

    Institute Director Colin Hart responds:

    “My concern is that some Ofsted inspectors will misinterpret the Chief Inspector’s call for ‘muscular liberalism’ as a call for inspectors to enforce more secularism. Muscular liberalism must not mean aggressive secularism.

    “I genuinely hope that the Chief Inspector of Schools can lead Ofsted in a way that promotes the Great British tradition of liberalism.

    “At its heart liberalism means the freedom to disagree.

    “And The Christian Institute has disagreed with the way in which some Ofsted inspectors have gone about their work. For example demanding that Vishnitz – an Orthodox Jewish School – should be promoting transgender rights to five-year-olds. Anyone reading that inspection report will see how inspectors can be unhelpfully ‘muscular’.

    “There have also been cases of unprofessional conduct where inspectors have asked teachers their personal views on same-sex marriage.

    “Clearly there is a problem of religious literacy. Just because you have socially conservative views doesn’t mean you’ve got a foot on the first step of an escalator leading to violent extremism.

    “Social liberalism is a particular viewpoint, whereas the tradition of British liberalism is about the freedom to disagree. Ofsted inspectors need to know the difference.”

    http://www.christian.org.uk/features/muscular-liberalism-must-not-mean-aggressive-secularism/

    • “At its heart liberalism means the freedom to disagree.”

      Yeah, just try that one, as Tommy Robinson has just found, yet again to his cost, disagreeing with the state means they will attempt to fit you up as an accomplice to a crime which you have no involvement with.
      Osbourne who ran the Muslims over outside the Mosque allegedly received a text message from Tommy Robinson directly. This was stated by the CPS prosecutor in the trial, and run with by the media – it was a lie deliberately told by the state to blacken someone’s name and reputation. It was quietly withdrawn but the media continued to run it as truth.

      You cannot disagree with a Fascist ideology masquerading as ‘liberal’ as evidenced by the states behaviour.

      As was pointed out earlier Erdogans Turkey might be a pretty unpleasant place but it’s no worse than May’s Britain at the present time.

    • “Muscular liberalism” is another shamefully deceptive label for modern totalitarianism also known as “progressivism”. The whole point about freedom of religion being a fundamental human right is that no matter how “muscly” the state, it may not coerce its citizens into state defined beliefs against their will.

  15. “she said head teachers should not assume ‘that the most conservative voices in a particular faith speak for everyone”

    So, everybody on here happy to let the Westboro Baptist Church speak on behalf of Christianity?

    A few people on here probably are, more’s the pity.

  16. When I was a pupil at secondary school we were visited yearly by the Churches Mission to the Jews
    *
    We were told that it was our duty to go out and convert these people to the faith
    *
    I am now enlightened to the fact that the three Abrahamic faiths have the same God
    *
    I am therefore perturbed by the thrust of the article above. Yes there are deviants in each of the three subdivisions but they do not define all Christians, Jews or Muslims

    • You are deluded, not enlightened. One man write a book making claims for himself – Islam. The Bible encompasses the Jewish history and encompasses the Messiah as the Christ. John the Baptist was the last prophet of Abrahamic faith.

      • Whatever god these superstitions are supposed to have none of them belong in a school. Schools are for education, not indoctrination with bronze age tribal nonsense.

        • Schools are full of indoctrination, but it is progressive liberal ideology. Certainly not Christianity. Schools in the UK were founded by the church – the state only took over during the last century and standards are now abysmal.

          • How the schools were founded isn’t really relevant because to profess a belief in the Christian resurrection nonsense was obligatory back then, just as Islam is still obligatory in Islamic countries. It’s who funds the schools that is relevant, and the majority in the UK are enlightened enough now to not have any god beliefs. Keep your god nonsense out of state schools and the Muslims will have to do the same.

          • The Church of England owns the land and buildings you moron. They are the schools that people try and get their children into because of the ethos and the standards. Far better than secular schools.
            Morality and behaviour is the preserve of Christianity. But since we have ditched them we are going down hill fast.

          • Well secular schools teach socialism and post modernism: all the Orwellian sh*t about how truth is relative and power is everything. Doesn’t get much more nonsensical or one-dimensionally evil than that. So, yeah I understand why Marxists are anti-religion. People with no culture are much more easily indoctrinated into that foul, genocidal, utopian belief system.

            My apologies if you’re not a Marxist but you sure as hell sound like one.

          • Secular schools teach exactly the same subjects as faith schools. The only difference is that no time is wasted fawning over the imaginary.

          • A faith school is only a faith school if it teaches the faith. Otherwise it’s a secular school. FFS stop using legal pedantry in philosophical arguments.

          • Yes but a faith school will teach only one and so to it that is “the faith”. But any of them provides individuals with some defence against your nihilistic totalitarian, death-cult. Which is why you hate them so much.

          • Who defines nonsense? You? Why would I accept your definition? What makes you a better judge than me? You don’t seem to know any more science or any more philosophy and your belief system seems perilously close to Marxism, which is logically incoherent as well as murderous (moral definition). So why would I defer to you on this, unless of course you have the bigger stick (which is how Marxists traditionally win arguments).

          • I would define Marxism, socialism and post modernism as nonsense. But I’d call them evil as well. Now which of us has the bigger stick?

          • All good governments have an element of socialism (progressive income tax etc) and Groucho is my favourite Marx brother.
            On the Guardian lefty loons think I’m a staunch Tory, so it appears to be you with the extremist viewpoint as well as being borderline loonytunes.

          • I think you’re flirting with circularity there (“good” in whose view?). I bet Pol Pot would class you as a Tory as well if he were still around and Hitler would no doubt think I’m a raving Bolshevik. This proves what exactly, except that fallacy is alive and well and living amongst us?

            I do agree with you about Groucho though, so at least we’ve found one element of commonality.

          • And as the great man once said: “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”. Every socialist should meditate upon that.

          • Do you think the people who founded the schools were not sincere in their beliefs? Not everyone was or is as cynical as PC types.

          • Religion was the norm, just as it is the norm in Pakistan. It’s impossible to tell who really believed in nonsense.

          • Schools in the UK were founded by the church

            hmmmm, not really, and the parallel system whereby some schools are “church schools” whilst others are “liberal schools” dates back through the Middle Ages to the latter Centuries of Antiquity.

            It’s the Universities that were founded by the Church — the Catholic Church — rather than the schools as such.

        • This is the usual ignorant nonsense we hear from intolerant ideological atheists who have little insight into British or even European history or society as a whole.

          Even radical ideological atheists with a little education can see that to understand anything about how we came to where we are now requires a grounding in, if not a belief in basic Christian theology and practice.
          Without this you simply cannot understand any literature older than about 50 years.
          You cannot understand the basis of law in the UK or Europe, you cannot understand philosophy.

          Makes no difference whether you believe it or you don’t your children and all children need to learn it, after that it’s up to them whether they believe in it or they don’t.

          • There’s nothing intolerant about a secular state education system. Most people are in favour of it. It’s also the only way we can rid ourselves of Islamic schools. You can teach kids about religion, but not as if it is fact, which, being utter nonsense, it clearly is not.

          • Well you certainly didn’t read what I had written and understand it correctly!

            Perhaps you might like to tell which part of the Christian religion is ‘utter nonsense’ given that there is a great deal of contemporary third party corroborative evidence?

          • Faith is required for certain things, but unlike most of the other religions thanks to the existence of the Roman Empire most of the New Testament can be corroborated as fact.
            Take a look at the Pilate stone for one example if it’s all nonsense as you claim tell me how that can possibly exist ?

          • not so! It proves what is written on it and that Pilate existed at the time the Bible said.
            How about the Caiaphas Ossuary then ?

          • And you cannot understand social development either. Christianity has shaped the conscience of the West for two millennia

            Marxism, Progressivism, Political Corrdctness are perversions of Christian doctrines,

    • “have the same god” it’s a while since I heard that old chestnut, though it can still make me laugh. Yes of course the Bible constantly refers to Allah, and we all know how much love for Jews is expressed in the Koran. I’m not trying to be sarcastic but have you actually read any of these texts and understood them or do you get your religious knowledge from your mates down the pub?

      • “Jews, Christians and Moslems worship the same God” is, of course, a Moslem article of faith. Or, perhaps, it’s better described as a way in which they try to gain converts. Dawah, they call it.

        It’s a lie, of course. I wish I had time to explain why, but it’s clear, from philosophy and theology alike.

      • Gods are universally risible and ridiculous, and it is our duty to laugh at them whenever anyone mentions them.

      • Elah (Aramaic: אֱלָה; pl. “elim”) is the Aramaic word for God. The origin of the word is uncertain and it may be related to a root word, meaning “reverence”. Elah is found in the Tanakh in the books of Ezra, Jeremiah (Jer 10:11, the only verse in the entire book written in Aramaic), and Daniel. Elah is used to describe both pagan gods and the Jews’ God. The word ‘Elah – إله’ is also an Arabic word which means god. The name is etymologically related to Allah الله used by Muslims.
        Elah Yisrael, God of Israel (Ezra 5:1)
        Elah Yerushelem, God of Jerusalem (Ezra 7:19)
        Elah Shemaya, God of Heaven (Ezra 7:23)
        Elah-avahati, God of my fathers, (Daniel 2:23)
        Elah Elahin, God of gods (Daniel 2:47)

        • Elah/Allah actually means “the god”/”the divine one”.

          The root *lah otherwise means “divine” as its core meaning (adjective and noun both).

          If you want to be pedantic, at least make the effort to get it right …

          Quite apart from which — all of this is entirely irrelevant.

        • A god who chose the Israelites to be the agents of salivation and rescued them on numerous occasions would not also describe them as unworthy pigs to be destroyed as the Koran does.

    • I’m delighted to hear that Muslims and Jews worship Jesus Christ the Son of God. I had laboured under the misapprehension that this was not so for many years, and am relieved to have been put right on this score.

      • It’s absolute bollox — in fact, Muslims accuse Christians of being “pagan” because we worship in Jesus the Person of the Son in Trinity.

        • Christians are ‘polytheists’ because of the doctrine of the Trinity. Unfortunately the Qur’an describes the Trinity as God, Mary and Jesus.

          Just one example of Mohammad getting a garbled version of Christianity.

          • Doubly garbled, given that he got a previously garbled version of it from the local Jewish community, and then went on to garble it even more completely himself.

  17. Amanda Spielman has a point. The Academy Trusts are preparing to go bust, and keep an eye on that one. But the New Schools Network, a registered charity that derives 90 per cent of its income from the State, is still paying £90,000 per annum to a known supplier of Class A drugs who dressed as a woman in order to assault lesbians sexually, who attended at least one eugenics conference with at least one advocate of the rape of drugged children, and who is a close friend of several members of the Cabinet.

  18. Which book calls for adulterers to be stoned to death?

    That’ll be the Bible.

    Which verses say that you can kill a woman if she seizes a man’s private parts without his permission?

    That’ll be Deuteronomy 25:11-1

    Which book says: “: “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.” ??

    That’ll be Exodus 21: 7-8

    Is Christianity just the New Testament (in which case right-wingers have major problems with eyes of needles, and many other commandments), or is it both Testaments?? And if it’s not, why don’t people like “Dr” Sugden unequivocally renounce the Old Testament?

    • LEARN how to READ.

      Which verses say that you can kill a woman if she seizes a man’s private parts without his permission?

      None.

      Deuteronomy 25:11-1 is about women who involve themselves in fights between men by grabbing the enemy of her husband by the balls with violence — and the punishment is loss of the hand, not “you can kill a woman”.

      Which book says: “: “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.” ??

      None — “slave” is blatantly wrong, a frankly mendacious “translation” of a word meaning servant/labourer/employee, and this portion of chapter 21 concerns itself with work contracts for girls and young women as servants/employees and marriage laws concerning such women and the freedom of these women to depart in cases of ill treatment or broken promises, as well as cases of failure by the girl/young woman to perform the tasks she was hired for in a satisfactory manner (i.e. she can get fired for being useless).

      Is Christianity just the New Testament (in which case right-wingers have major problems with eyes of needles, and many other commandments), or is it both Testaments??

      Christianity is not a work of literature.

    • Dear bobworth,

      Which bit of the clear commandment “Thou shalt not kill” are you struggling to understand?

    • Christianity is based on a series of accounts of miracles or of incidents the writers did not witness.
      The Old Testament, with its cruel & vain God, has little factual truth, but it has
      encouraged the Jews to be responsible & hard working people in the belief that God is constantly testing them.
      Objectively, this is good, which is why judeophobia is essentially a form of jealousy.
      Jesus, about whose life & contribution to Christianity there is plenty of dispute,
      was a reforming rabbi whose message of peace was directed at squabbling
      Jews & cruel Roman colonists.
      The end result, assorted forms of Judaism & Christianity, is very useful in the modern world if adherents to those religions stick to their basic tenets, while acknowledging
      that there is genuine scientific progress which may cast doubt on the literal truth of the Bible
      Caving in to heathen aggressors or jumping on the latest PC trend illustrate the lack of sincerity in so many modern Christians.
      History shows us that a divided (multi cultural) civilisation will crumble if assaulted by enemies united in a single religious ideology

      • The writer of John says he was there. The other Gospels admit to being second hand accounts. You might of course suggest John was lying but part of this belief, which claims to major on Truth, is that lying to anyone is wrong (unlike Marxism, for example, where lying to further the cause is encouraged), so it is a very serious accusation of hypocrisy in this case.

        Also, surely, Christianity is primarily based on the Word of Jesus not just on miracles or incidents which were there to back the claims to those present at the time? So we have: “Love your enemies”; “Be perfect” (the most extreme imaginable call to virtue); “Do not gather treasures on Earth where they will rot”; “No man can serve God and mammon”; etc.

        This is hard-core stuff that makes the likes of the much vaunted “Golden Rule” (treat others as you would wish to be treated) look like it’s for moral beginners.

        The truth (or otherwise) of Christianity’s call to virtue is self-contained and available for all to examine as it is written. If you find fault with the core message, that is your privilege; if you do not, then perhaps consider Jesus’ own words: “A good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit, neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”

      • The usual tedious farrago of nonsense …

        genuine scientific progress which may cast doubt on the literal truth of the Bible

        Biblical literalism is an American invention of the late 19th Century. It has exactly nothing to do with traditional Christianity as such.

      • ‘Christianity is based on a series of accounts of miracles or of incidents the writers did not witness.’

        The Gospel writings are based on eyewitness testimony. Refer for example to Richard Bauckham’s ‘The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple. Narrative, History and Theology in the Gospel of John’ and his ‘Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony’.

        1. Peter 5:1

        Therefore I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ….

        2 Peter 1;16-17

        For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ but we were Eyewitnesses of his majesty.

        1 John 1: 1-3

        What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands….what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also….

    • I believe they are both in the old testament from which Islam also gains a lot of its stories and beliefs and gives Christians some leeway as being followers of the book. i.e you can live as second class citizens rather than being put to death!
      Christians moved on from the old testament, Islam didn’t.

    • Christianity is based on the New Covenant, the OVERRIDING message of which is ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’. This abrogates (overrides) anything contradictory in the Old Testament. Of course, this does not stop people like you who are either ignorant of the facts or who deliberately distort the facts. This makes you either a fool or a liar. Take your pick.

    • The Old Testament dates from 3800BC. If one looks at the practices which occurred at the time, then it is a major improvement. The sin of Moloch is child sacrifice and skeletal remains shows that this practice occurred in the Middle East and Carthage . The story of Abraham and Isaac outlaws human sacrifice. There are indications that fertility cults undertook human sacrifice in the Middle East to ensure good crops- blood of the victim was poured onto the soil. It recounted by the Romans that the Celts/druids undertook human sacrifice, the Wicker Man and those found in bogs. Human sacrifice was undertaken in Central America until 1492. Cannibalism occurred in the jungles of SE Asia and parts of the Pacific until the 1930s. In the S Pacific prisoners were kept alive and strips of flesh were cut off them and fed to the chief.

      The 10 Commandments provide a simple basic set of rules to live by, especially for nomadic people. When living in tents there is little privacy and sexual jealousy can soon lead to murder. Where loyalty is based upon family connections, a sexual act may lead to the murder of several people. A conflict in loyalty within the tribe, especially if nomadic can lead to it’s destruction by another. Many of the conflicts within and between tribes in the Amazon and Papua New Guinea are over fertile women. Prof Steve Pinker has assessed murder rates in primitive tribal societies and they are very high and most are over women.

      If one looks at NW Europe religions before Christianity was based around the cult of the warrior and where the ability to kill one’s enemies were the most important quality.

      Many laws are based around hygene and health, especially in hot climates where flesh rots quickly and where water and soap are scarce. If one looks at human health once humans started living in settled communities around 10,000 years ago and when animals were first domesticated there was massive increase in disease.

      Often when it comes to religion, the practices carry one but the reasons are forgotten.
      Overall, I would say the Old Testament greatly reduced the blood lust, cruelty and the babarity of the times and has continued to do so. Just read some of the descriptions of practices described by explorers in parts of the World as late as the 1930/40s.

  19. It is just the usual straw man approach to avoid actually identifying the problem.
    Lets set those guys up as they won’t complain about it.

Comments are closed.