Well done Respect!!

[TremulousTetra]

"Religion is the opium of the people" said Marx. "Neither God nor Master" say the anarchists. So, presumably, revolutionaries are for the disappearance of religion. Not its forcible suppression of course, but at least its gradual dying away and certainly not its encouragement. So why are the SWP encouraging religion (and only a particular one at that) by pandering to Muslim prejudices over food and drink and calling for them to have their own schools so that their priests can inculcate their untrue ideas into the minds of kids? (Answer: to get their votes and save themselves from political oblivion) Or do they really think that kids should be taught that the archangel Gabriel dictated the koran to Mohammed on behalf of Allah, the chief god of the Arabs of the time, rather than that Mohammed made it all up himself? Do they really want to encourage a religion which not only calls for submission but actually names itself "submission"? There are thousands of books, put out by rationalists, freethinkers and secularists debunking christianity. Why should Islam be exempt from the same treatment? Revolutionaries should be encouraging people from a Muslim background to stop being Muslims (the good news is that lots of them are anyway) just as we've always encouraged Christians to stop being Christians and Jews to reject Judaism (as many prominent in the leadership of the SWP have done).

the crucial phrase in your dialogue in my opinion is " Not its forcible suppression of course, but at least its gradual dying away "

SW does not say, anarchists have to stop being anarchists and work the way we do in the SW before we are prepared to work with them. We do not say that to the Communist Party, or any other political. Likewise we do not say Christians have to drop their beliefs before they can work with us. We forget about the petty issues, and concentrate on uniting in a process of struggle, and whilst in that process we hope delineating a better way of achieving our shared goals of a fairer and more just society. As revolutionaries we we are confident that it is this process of United class struggle that will bring about "the gradual dying away" of religion.

Your talk about our position only being held to gain votes is just complete crass stupidity in my humble opinion.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I never said there was. As far as I'm concerned, they're all as bad as each other. As to "neo-Marxism" (whatever that might be), is or isn't religion the opium of the people?

if Marxism isn't dialectical, it isn't Marxism. That is obviously the reason you have "Neo-Marxism".

I notice you didn't deal with the substance of his post, which in my opinion nailed you.

 

[Geoff kerr-morg]

Agreat read on religion is The Meek and The Militant by Paul Siegal

 

[Geoff kerr-morg]

Here is a short article on the Bolsheviks and Islam. The Bolsheviks had to work practically and politically with a large Muslim population in the Soviet Union post 1917.
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=181&issue=110

Marx wrote about religion,
"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

 

[emanymton]

Yes, I have just reviewed the correspondance on it and have it on the authority of Alan Thornett that it was a cock-up rather than a conspiracy.

The first draft was a general listing of everything Respect had ever agreed or thought of, but included a whole series of points that had not been seriously discussed and which could have diverted the campaign - eg a call for the nationalisation of the big football clubs (which was perfectly okay, but no-one wanted to make it the big issue for Respect in the election campaign!).

There was some heavy redrafting and in the process the original section on support for LGBT rights, that had been agreed by the National Committee, accidentally ended up on the cutting room floor without the final drafters realising until it went to print. That this should have happened was a major mistake, but not one motivated by a conscious intention to marginalise the issue. Alan supported the critical resolution to the conference to ensure such a thing could never happen again, and to be fair to all involved it never has been.

Fair enough then, major oversite though, you would ahve thought someone would have spoted it

 

[Jean-Luc]

Your talk about our position only being held to gain votes is just complete crass stupidity in my humble opinion.

Is it? There's a precedent for such a sell-out to religion to get elected: Jimmy Maxton of the old Independent Labour Party who claimed to be a bit of a (neo?) Marxist. Here's what William Knox records in his biography of Maxton:
" . . . Maxton won enthusiastic support from Catholics and endorsement from the Catholic Church at the 1922 General Election and subsequent elections but the support was given on a conditional basis. The price was silence on social issues such as abortion, birth control and segregated denominational schooling; indeed, anything calculated to harm the interests of the church".
The only difference with the SWP today would seem to be that the price is not silence but active support for Muslim demands such as the wearing of the veil in schools, the ritual slaughter of animals and segregated schools. Cardinal O'Brien's recent fatwa against politicians who support abortion is a sign of what is likely to happen if Respect councillors were ever to stop respecting Muslim dogmas.

 

[Das Uberdog]

Pff, "Muslim 'demands' like 'wearing the veil in school'" - you can't really claim that when the majority of Muslim girls don't even wear the veil. It's something like 1% of the Muslim population? And if you're accusing us of supporting Muslim women who choose to wear the veil (the vast majority) then yes! We do support that right.

"Muslim demands" - my God, like the Muslim community have stated aims and objectives which they're rallying for and pushing for - that last paragraph was completely misleading. As though Muslims are calling for the 'ritual slaughter of animals' and deliberately segregated schools... Muslims eat meat, and when they eat meat they need to have it prepared in a certain way. We have battery chickens, just as bad. Other religious groups in this country have their own faith schools - should we deny Muslims that same right?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Fisher_Gate seems to be the only one who has come back on the points I raised in my last post. To be honest though I found the article you gave a link to a bit weak, basically it was saying you can't have a position of no faith schools because it is too abstract and cuts you off from sections of the working class (despite saying that 64% of people are in favour of the state not funding any religious schools). But then goes on to put a suggestion which, in my view, wouldn't be accepted any more than people who object to getting rid of all faith schools.

But I’d envisage a deal which essentially says to religious authorities "give up your control of the schools and in exchange you will be allowed to continue to have religious worship and faith-based lessons as options within school time for those who want them", while insisting that the mainstream common curriculum and pedagogy is secular.

The point is that you don't just give up bits of socialism because it doesn't seem acceptable at this or that point (although as said in this case 64% do seem to agree!). I should imagine that there is probably a wide difference between socialists and many in religious communities over the issue of gay rights for instance, that doens't mean we'd drop demands on that issue because of that.

People won't be broken from religion through socialists preaching from the sidelines, it will be done through struggle (as was shown in the 1930s with the Jewish community). But part of that struggle (and unfortunately class struggle is at a very low ebb in the UK at the moment) isn't dropping this or that socialist principle to make things easier along the way. But I guess that's the fundamental problem with RESPECT rather than revolutionaries using the tactic of the united front.

As I said before there have been calls for black only schools. If that happened do SWP members on here think it would right to start demanding the right of all ethnic minorities to have their own schools, or should it be the case that you'd say seperatist schooling is wrong full stop. And why doesn't that go for religious schools? If you're calling for the end to all religious schools (as the SWP seem to do, but RESPECT remain silent as far as I can see), then the rights of this or that religion to have schools is surely then an irrelevance (apart from showing up the discrimination of the state).

How can you say that we support equal rights for all religions to get funding for faith schools but then at the same time say you support banning all funding of religious schools?! The second point surely overides the first.

PS What is the discrimination towards muslim schools?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Fisher_Gate seems to be the only one who has come back on the points I raised in my last post. To be honest though I found the article you gave a link to a bit weak, basically it was saying you can't have a position of no faith schools because it is too abstract and cuts you off from sections of the working class (despite saying that 64% of people are in favour of the state not funding any religious schools). But then goes on to put a suggestion which, in my view, wouldn't be accepted any more than people who object to getting rid of all faith schools.



The point is that you don't just give up bits of socialism because it doesn't seem acceptable at this or that point (although as said in this case 64% do seem to agree!). I should imagine that there is probably a wide difference between socialists and many in religious communities over the issue of gay rights for instance, that doens't mean we'd drop demands on that issue because of that.

People won't be broken from religion through socialists preaching from the sidelines, it will be done through struggle (as was shown in the 1930s with the Jewish community). But part of that struggle (and unfortunately class struggle is at a very low ebb in the UK at the moment) isn't dropping this or that socialist principle to make things easier along the way. But I guess that's the fundamental problem with RESPECT rather than revolutionaries using the tactic of the united front.

As I said before there have been calls for black only schools. If that happened do SWP members on here think it would right to start demanding the right of all ethnic minorities to have their own schools, or should it be the case that you'd say seperatist schooling is wrong full stop. And why doesn't that go for religious schools? If you're calling for the end to all religious schools (as the SWP seem to do, but RESPECT remain silent as far as I can see), then the rights of this or that religion to have schools is surely then an irrelevance (apart from showing up the discrimination of the state).

How can you say that we support equal rights for all religions to get funding for faith schools but then at the same time say you support banning all funding of religious schools?! The second point surely overides the first.

PS What is the discrimination towards muslim schools?

I think you are missing the point. Hatcher is saying that religions give up control over schools (which socialists support) and in return there is a guarantee for right of religious observance and optional faith-based curriculum in a secular/multi-faith environment (which socialists also support).

I don't see it as giving up "bits of socialism" at all.

How realistic a call it is is in the current climate is a more difficult question, but no different from (say) making the case to Chelsea or Liverpool football fans that if their team were to be nationalised, rather than funded by a Russian oligarch/US ice hockey tycoons, it would be better for football! Some idealistic fans would agree no doubt, but the majority would be practical and rather have the millions coming from somewhere. I'm not against arguing the case, but it's an uphill task.

 

[Geoff kerr-morg]

I have just listened to Anas Al Tikriti and others speak on Muslims and the Left taken from Marxism 2006 the meeting and others is on the mp3resistance website. This meeting takes up many of the issues discussed on here.

click on http://mp3.lpi.org.uk and scroll down

http://www.radio-rouge.org/Users/re...lindsey_german_anas_al-tikriti_and_others.mp3

Muslims And The Left Today. Lindsey German, Anas Al-Tikriti And Others, 2006.

* Islam And Islamic Civilisations. Chris Harman, Mon 10 2006.

* The Bolsheviks And Religion. Dave Crouch, 2006.

* Islam And Islamism Today. Talat Ahmed,

 

[Geoff kerr-morg]

Try this quick link to the said meeting
http://www.radio-rouge.org/Users/re...lindsey_german_anas_al-tikriti_and_others.mp3

 

[october_lost]

After listing those have you nothing to add?

 

[cockneyrebel]

I think you are missing the point. Hatcher is saying that religions give up control over schools (which socialists support) and in return there is a guarantee for right of religious observance and optional faith-based curriculum in a secular/multi-faith environment (which socialists also support).

I don't see it as giving up "bits of socialism" at all.

How realistic a call it is is in the current climate is a more difficult question, but no different from (say) making the case to Chelsea or Liverpool football fans that if their team were to be nationalised, rather than funded by a Russian oligarch/US ice hockey tycoons, it would be better for football! Some idealistic fans would agree no doubt, but the majority would be practical and rather have the millions coming from somewhere. I'm not against arguing the case, but it's an uphill task.

In terms of giving up bits of socialism I was talking about SWP policy, not the article.

And I agree about not ditching things because they are an uphill struggle, I was just pointing out that I didn't think what the author was saying was any more easier to achieve than saying get rid of all religion in schools.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Also I heard tonight that the Tower Hamlets NUT branch has supported the opening up of a muslim school and SWP members in the branch supported that stance. Is that right?

 

[Columbine]

I have just listened to Anas Al Tikriti and others speak on Muslims and the Left taken from Marxism 2006 the meeting and others is on the mp3resistance website. This meeting takes up many of the issues discussed on here.

click on http://mp3.lpi.org.uk and scroll down

http://www.radio-rouge.org/Users/re...lindsey_german_anas_al-tikriti_and_others.mp3

Muslims And The Left Today. Lindsey German, Anas Al-Tikriti And Others, 2006.

* Islam And Islamic Civilisations. Chris Harman, Mon 10 2006.

* The Bolsheviks And Religion. Dave Crouch, 2006.

* Islam And Islamism Today. Talat Ahmed,

Well if you aren't in the SWP I doubt you'd waste your time listening to the load of middle class shite that constitutes your "analysis" or "Marxism".

But good try.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Also I heard tonight that the Tower Hamlets NUT branch has supported the opening up of a muslim school and SWP members in the branch supported that stance. Is that right?

No idea about the specific policy - but the plain fact is that Tower Hamlets council already has 6 out of 15 LEA maintained secondary schools that are christian church controlled (Church of England or Roman Catholic) receiving state funding. Given that the government would veto the closure of any church school, is it realistic to refuse state aid to a muslim school on the same terms? [in the borough with the highest proportion of muslims in the country - 71,000 muslims in the census compared to 75,000 christian and 42,000 no religion/atheist; I wouldn't be surprised if among 11-16 year olds, muslims were the largest group currently].

 

[nino_savatte]

Also I heard tonight that the Tower Hamlets NUT branch has supported the opening up of a muslim school and SWP members in the branch supported that stance. Is that right?

Quoi? Has the SWP lost every last vestige of secularism it once possessed? Mind you, many, if not all, politcal parties operate rather like religions anyway.

 

[cockneyrebel]

No idea about the specific policy - but the plain fact is that Tower Hamlets council already has 6 out of 15 LEA maintained secondary schools that are christian church controlled (Church of England or Roman Catholic) receiving state funding. Given that the government would veto the closure of any church school, is it realistic to refuse state aid to a muslim school on the same terms? [in the borough with the highest proportion of muslims in the country - 71,000 muslims in the census compared to 75,000 christian and 42,000 no religion/atheist; I wouldn't be surprised if among 11-16 year olds, muslims were the largest group currently].

What are you talking about? We're talking about the position of the NUT branch and also SWP members within that NUT branch, not what the government says or does.

Surely their position should be that all faith schools should be opposed and that existing faith schools should be made secular. How can SWP members (or any revolutionary socialist) seriously justify supporting the opening of a religious school?

 

[mutley]

What are you talking about? We're talking about the position of the NUT branch and also SWP members within that NUT branch, not what the government says or does.

Surely their position should be that all faith schools should be opposed and that existing faith schools should be made secular. How can SWP members (or any revolutionary socialist) seriously justify supporting the opening of a religious school?

Equality.

In the situation FG describes, with a score of Xian schools and no chance of closing them (and noone raising a peep about it either), I don't have any problem with supporting the funding of a Muslim school.

I would talk to Muslim parents about whether its the best thing, and try to get them to support more funding for decent comprehensives, but if that argument was lost, I'd support their right to equal treatment without a second's hesitation.

 

[mk12]

Kenan Malik wrote some good stuff on this (race, religion, multiculturalism). Especially this bit is relevant I think:

"equality no longer meant treating everybody equally despite their racial, cultural, ethnic or religious differences but treating people differently because of them"

 

[cockneyrebel]

Equality.

In the situation FG describes, with a score of Xian schools and no chance of closing them (and noone raising a peep about it either), I don't have any problem with supporting the funding of a Muslim school.

I would talk to Muslim parents about whether its the best thing, and try to get them to support more funding for decent comprehensives, but if that argument was lost, I'd support their right to equal treatment without a second's hesitation.

This really does show the road the SWP are going down. If Lee Jasper had got his way and a black only school opened up, by the same logic would you then support an Asian only school being set up because a precedent had been set?

And as for "no-one raising a peep" about christian schools, well up until recently the left raised this, including at NUT conferences, with a commitment to saying that all schools should be secular.

So rather than saying that all religious schools should be secular the SWPs position is now that for the time being there should be an equal number of religious schools for percentages of the population of each faith and you'll actively support more muslim, sikh, jewish, hindu and buddhist schools until they all have equal representation?

And what if after the first muslim school is built and muslim parents want a second muslim school built. Would you support that as well? What about a third? Or will you do it strictly on a quota basis?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

This really does show the road the SWP are going down. If Lee Jasper had got his way and a black only school opened up, by the same logic would you then support an Asian only school being set up because a precedent had been set?

And as for "no-one raising a peep" about christian schools, well up until recently the left raised this, including at NUT conferences, with a commitment to saying that all schools should be secular.

So rather than saying that all religious schools should be secular the SWPs position is now that for the time being there should be an equal number of religious schools for percentages of the population of each faith and you'll actively support more muslim, sikh, jewish, hindu and buddhist schools until they all have equal representation?

And what if after the first muslim school is built and muslim parents want a second muslim school built. Would you support that as well? What about a third? Or will you do it strictly on a quota basis?

Your approach is abstract in the extreme. It smacks to me of the sectarians who say we should not support pay strikes because the primary struggle of socialists is to abolish wage labour. Secularisation of education is a perfectly reasonable strategic demand but it is not going to happen tomorrow. In the meantime we have a large number of religious schools, predominantly of a christian character even in muslim dominated areas. Given the interplay of race and religion this is clearly a racist situation.

Demanding that, if there are religious schools that at least some of them should be muslim, seems a perfectly reasonable democratic demand.

I am reminded of a few previous debates. In the 1970s, factories operating night shifts had to get special dispensation to enable women to work them; the question came up at union meetings as to whether the application for special dispensation should be supported by the union. Some socialists argued as follows: night shifts are a bad thing, disrupting family life and normal biorhythms, under socialism there would be no night shifts; therefore it is a good thing that women are protected from working night shifts, and the union should oppose dispensation for them. Others argued that: night shift workers earn more than day shift workers; excluding women from the night shift means that they are being financially discriminated against for no reason other than their gender; therefore the union should support the dispensation as an equality measure. A parallell argument surrounded the issue of women coal miners.

It is a controversial area of course, but in the USA in the 1930s there was a heated debate among the left as to whether to support black self-determination up to a seperate state.

These debates have much to tell us about the balance between democratic and equal rights demands. I feel that those who argue we can do nothing to challenge institutionalised discrimination against muslims in schooling until we have abolished church schools, have little to offer. It is a tricky path, but on balance supporting the democratic right of muslims to have equality with christians is one I think we must support in the current period. As to how far it goes and when it is most important that is a practical question - a bit like should we demand a 5% pay rise or a 10% pay rise in a current pay rounds.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Your approach is abstract in the extreme. It smacks to me of the sectarians who say we should not support pay strikes because the primary struggle of socialists is to abolish wage labour.

Don't be ridiculous, there is no comparison.

Demanding that, if there are religious schools that at least some of them should be muslim, seems a perfectly reasonable democratic demand.

But where do you draw the line. If secular schools are an abstract demand and not achievable (and you might as well throw the majority of socialist principles/goals out the window for the time being while you're at it) what is the answer? As said if there were black only schools, would you then say that there should be Asian only schools for the time being?

And in Tower Hamlets how many muslim schools are you and the SWP going to support opening? One, two, three, four? Will you do it on quota systems for all religions around the country? What are your practical answers to this, or will you just make it all up on the spot?

Also your argument about factory shifts is again a total nonsense. Muslim children aren't being excluded from an education and schools are they? The point is about whether socialists will support opening religious schools or campaign for secular schools.

Your half-way house seems a mish mash of stuff that is knee jerk and un thought out. At the end of the day you are placing yourself in the camp of Tony Blair and his support for more religious schools. As said I'm sure it is the case that there aren't nearly enough religious schools of every religion to percentagely cover it, so will you be arguing for an increase in schools of every religion?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Given that in the 2001 cencus said that 71% of people in this country are christian there is a chronic lack of christian schools for people to send their children to. Should a lot more christian schools be built?

Christian 71%
Muslim 2.97%
Jewish 0.50%
Buddhist 0.28%
Hindu 1.06%
Sikh 0.63%

http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/VOL/v000495/schools_04_final.pdf

From the stats above only 17% of secondary schools are christian. That means we need an increase of 581 christian schools to about 2400 christian schools. (on a side point there are 352 Roman catholic secondary schools compared to 199 Church of England ones).

We also need:

100 Muslim schools (currently there are 5)
17 Jewish schools (currently there are 5)
18 Buddhist schools (currently there are none)
34 Hindu schools (currently there are none)
22 Sikh schools (currently there is one)

Maybe this could go into the RESPECT manifesto as a demand?

As you can see from these stats Buddhists and Hindus actually have a worse deal than Muslims.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Hmmmm just looked at this link:

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=2864

And it says there were 60 muslims schools in 2006.

I'm assuming the 60 schools mentioned above are nearly all private schools (where as the stats above are for state schools). Maybe if private schools that are religious are given state funding it would helped to end the discrimination quicker.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Actually good news. This update from 2005:

There are currently only five Muslim state-funded schools in England. However, the government is keen to increase the number on offer to parents. Powers that will be proposed in a white paper due in November are expected to boost the amount of such schools.

It is thought likely that independent schools - including Muslim schools - may be offered greater flexibility on the conditions they have to fulfil if they decide to join the state sector.

The government seem to be doing what I proposed above. RESPECT and Blair unite and fight!

 

[mutley]

Most (well, pretty much all) of what CR has posted is abstract crap.

In the concrete circumstances of a group of Muslim parents asking for funding for a school, when locally there are already Xian schools, if the vote came up (say) in a council sub-committe, what would you do? There are independents and socialist councillors, any of whom could find themselves faced with such a situation. To say 'we're for a totally secular comp system' and oppose it would be the height of sectarian abstract bollocks. The parents would just say 'those goras have got Xian schools, but they can't stomach a Muslim one' and the fundamentalists would make hay.

In that concrete situation, you'd have to support that group being given equal treatment to that which others have received for decades. That does not (obviously!) mean a commitment to divide up that LEA's schools, or the whole country's. It is a concrete response to a concrete situation.

Asd for your other points - Muslims are not excluded from education no. They just get to go to over-crowded inner city comps, and I would bet end up with lower attainment than the average. No formal exclusion, but a hell of a lot less life chances. In Brum one of the biggest issues in the areas Respect has a base is the lack of school places. It's a tribute to the commitment of most Muslim parents that they aren't demanding more Muslim schools, but this issue is one that will drive the demand for a Mualim school.

As for Jasper, you know full well his definition of 'Black' would include 'Asian'.
And as for uniting with Blair, on some issues the left does have to have the same line eg when it comes to LGBT equality. The formula 'Blair's for it so we must be against' is a bit weak really.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Is it? There's a precedent for such a sell-out to religion to get elected: Jimmy Maxton of the old Independent Labour Party who claimed to be a bit of a (neo?) Marxist. Here's what William Knox records in his biography of Maxton:
" . . . Maxton won enthusiastic support from Catholics and endorsement from the Catholic Church at the 1922 General Election and subsequent elections but the support was given on a conditional basis. The price was silence on social issues such as abortion, birth control and segregated denominational schooling; indeed, anything calculated to harm the interests of the church".
The only difference with the SWP today would seem to be that the price is not silence but active support for Muslim demands such as the wearing of the veil in schools, the ritual slaughter of animals and segregated schools. Cardinal O'Brien's recent fatwa against politicians who support abortion is a sign of what is likely to happen if Respect councillors were ever to stop respecting Muslim dogmas.

Honestly mate, you are talking shit. And I can prove it.

I haven't been an active member for a couple of years now, and I have no problem whatsoever supporting Muslims equal rights to schools, and the right to wear the veil. Not only supporting them, defending their right. I would always have held this position whether or not respect existed. I may not agree with what they say, but I would defend their right to say it.

Now as I say I haven't been at an active member for a couple of years. I have my doubts about the respect project, possibly through this lack of activity. And so if I can support these measures with no electoral gain then I do not see any reason why other socialists cannot do the same.

Socialist worker may be guilty of many things, but what you suggest is simply untrue.

 

[cockneyrebel]

In the concrete circumstances of a group of Muslim parents asking for funding for a school, when locally there are already Xian schools, if the vote came up (say) in a council sub-committe, what would you do? There are independents and socialist councillors, any of whom could find themselves faced with such a situation. To say 'we're for a totally secular comp system' and oppose it would be the height of sectarian abstract bollocks. The parents would just say 'those goras have got Xian schools, but they can't stomach a Muslim one' and the fundamentalists would make hay.

This is a ridiculous argument. If socialists said they oppossed the opening of any religious schools and that they wanted the christian schools to be made secular then it would be clear to muslims that they weren't being prejudiced. Indeed they could put forward motions calling for all schools to become secular at the same time.

Muslims are not excluded from education no. They just get to go to over-crowded inner city comps, and I would bet end up with lower attainment than the average. No formal exclusion, but a hell of a lot less life chances. In Brum one of the biggest issues in the areas Respect has a base is the lack of school places. It's a tribute to the commitment of most Muslim parents that they aren't demanding more Muslim schools, but this issue is one that will drive the demand for a Mualim school.

Poor working class people from all religions and no religions have a hell of a lot less life chances. Personally I don't think the answer to this is to divide people in the education system along religious or ethnic lines, the answer is a well funded secular education system for all.

The formula 'Blair's for it so we must be against' is a bit weak really.

In some circumstances yes, but not in this instance.

As said if you look at the figures hindus and buddhists are actually more discriminated against (from your view point) than muslims. There are no hindu and buddhist schools.

Actually I'm not sure Lee Jasper would include Asians in all black schools from what he was saying. But my point is that if a school was opened up for a certain ethnic minority, would your response be that every ethnic minority should be able to have their own school or would it be that all schools should be racially mixed.

You can keep saying this is abstract but it's clearly not.

How many religious schools would you support and what religions would you support? If there were no or only one or two christian schools in an area would you support the opening of new ones? What about hindu, jewish, sikh or buddhist schools?

Would you support opening them until the quotas above have been met? At what point would you draw the line? You can't ignore this as all the signs are that there are going to be more and more religious schools opening up over the coming years.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I agree with what you say on the veil but what does this mean:

I haven't been an active member for a couple of years now, and I have no problem whatsoever supporting Muslims equal rights to schools

Does that mean you support muslims having the proportion of schools as christians (in terms of the population)? As christians actually have 17% of schools and are 71% of the population that would mean there would be about 0.75% of schools would be muslim (a quarter of 3%). That's about 30 muslim schools nationally.

Or should all religious groups be given the number of schools that they represent in terms of their proportion of the population?