Faith Schools in Wales get a FREE RIDE

CHILDREN should be given free transport to faith schools – but pupils travelling for Welsh-language education should be denied the same service, an Assembly committee decided yesterday.

A cross-party body voted to close a loophole denying those attending faith schools access to free transport, but refused to back similar proposals to strengthen the right to free travel to Welsh-medium schools.

The faith school vote in a cross-party committee was won with the backing of Labour AM Ann Jones, who said it put her in the “dreadful” position of having to choose between her conscience and party policy.

Her decision was applauded by Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan.

A final vote on the Assembly Government’s plans for school travel is expected in the autumn. It could put the Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition in the uncomfortable position of opposing amendments in support of Welsh-language rights put forward by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

The amendment securing transport to faith schools was championed by Lib-Dem AM Kirsty Williams and Conservative AM Alun Cairns. They argued free travel should not be left to the discretion of local authorities.

Mr Cairns warned that at a time of tightening local government budgets councils may seek to make cutbacks.

Shortly before the vote, Labour’s Ms Jones said: “I’ve thought long and hard about this one and I think this is a matter of conscience. I’m quite upset that the Government can’t accept this amendment…

“You are right. It is a matter of social justice; it is a matter of equality. And this amendment, and the Government’s stance on this amendment has placed me in a dreadful situation.”

The Archbishop of Wales said: “I am delighted with the decision. It will enshrine in legislation the same privilege to learners in the faith sector without fear of discrimination. It will reassure parents that the Assembly values the contribution of faith communities in Wales to maintain education. I am pleased that Ann Jones recognises it for what it is: a matter of conscience and social justice and not a budgetary option.”

Deputy First Minister Ieuan Wyn Jones had opposed the amendment, saying: “There is actually nothing in the Measure that reduces the powers of local authorities to support transport to schools on the basis of religious preference.”

He added: “If we were to legislate on the basis of an entitlement to have transport provided to a school that provides religious education which accords with the parental wish, we would also have to provide the same entitlement to those who did not want a faith-related education. And the problem is, once you have provided a duty, then the duty must be available to everybody.”

After the vote, Ms Williams said: “He was unable to adequately defend his reasoning and so the vote went against him – it’s as simple as that.” She added: “I am greatly disappointed that the amendment seeking to strengthen the travel provisions to Welsh-medium schools was voted down by the Government.”She said the obligation on local authorities to “promote access” to Welsh-medium education was too vague and did not guarantee safe, free transport.

Mr Cairns added: “We are not playing any more. We are writing laws and if we can’t offer absolute equal access to Welsh-medium parents as we are to English-medium pupils then I think we would have abdicated our responsibilities. The Assembly Government now faces two clear choices. Either they support our demand for those in Welsh- medium education to be given the same rights as those at English medium or faith schools, or they vote to reverse today’s decision on faith schools.”

A Welsh Assembly Government spokesman said: “We will now reflect on this matter before it returns to a debate during a full plenary session. To a greater or lesser extent, councils across Wales do provide such transport and we recently issued guidance encouraging them to continue using their discretion to provide transport to denominational schools.”

Cartoons didn’t insult Muslims, rules Danish court

A Danish appeals court yesterday rejected a suit filed by seven Muslim organisations against newspaper editors who in 2005 first published a dozen controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

The appeals court judges ruled that the caricatures, which have since sparked angry and in some cases deadly protests across the Muslim world, did not aim to insult followers of Islam, as the plaintiffs had charged. One of the cartoonists is still in hiding under police protection following death threats. The seven Muslim organisations, all based in Denmark, had accused the Jyllands-Posten daily’s chief editor and culture editor of wilfully offending believers by printing the “offensive and degrading” drawings. Yesterday’s ruling confirmed a verdict handed down in October 2006 by a lower court in the central Danish town of Aarhus, where Jyllands-Posten is based.

Appeals court president Peter Lilholt stressed that the Danish judiciary, in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights, could not “restrict freedom of expression” unless it clearly affected national or public security.

Church not ready for sexual abuse apology

Cardinal Marc Ouellet said the Roman Catholic Church is not prepared to apologize publicly for sexual abuse committed by priests because it’s not the right time.

The archbishop of Quebec City made the statement Thursday at the International Eucharistic Congress in Quebec City after a small group of people protested outside the gathering, demanding the church acknowledge past abuses toward aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples.

The week-long congress is not the proper venue for such discussions, Ouellet said at a news conference. “We are in spiritual reflection and renewal. I think that from what we are living, there will be concrete actions afterwards with other people, with other initiatives,” he said.

The group of protestors demanded Ouellet apologize to all aboriginal people abused at residential schools, and other people who suffered abuse from priests.

France Bédard, who was among the protesters, said she feels a moral obligation to speak up for others.

She said she was assaulted by a priest as a young woman and became pregnant, but never saw justice because he died before his trial.

“I have to do something for these poor people who don’t have the capacity” to fight back, because they are lost in a world of alcoholism, drug abuse or self-destructive behaviour, she said in French. The protesters would like to see the church set up a commission to recognize people who have been abused.

Ouellet said the church will be present at the federal Aboriginal Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but any other discussions are inappropriate.

Christianity ‘could die out within a century’

The Telegraph says that Christianity could die out in the UK within a century

More than half of Britons think Christianity is likely to have disappeared from the country within a century, according to a survey.

Research by the Orthodox Jewish organisation Aish found that just over a third of people thought religions like Christianity and Judaism would still be practiced in Britain in 100 years’ time.

Although four in 10 people said they would choose to be a member of the Christian religion, almost the same number said they would rather practice no religion at all.

Buddhism however, proved more attractive than both Islam and Judaism, and was chosen by nine per cent of those questioned.

Aish UK’s executive director Rabbi Naftali Schiff said the results of the YouGov poll of 2,000 people were alarming.

“It clearly demonstrates that religion, including Judaism, is becoming unattractive to the British public.

“At Aish we know that Judaism provides real meaning and enrichment to one’s life. Whilst we have attracted many disinterested Jews back to Jewish identity it is clear there is much work to be done.”

Research published earlier this year suggested that church attendance is declining so fast that the number of regular churchgoers will be fewer than those attending mosques within a generation.

According to Religious Trends, an analysis of religious practice in Britain, the huge drop off in attendance means that the Church of England, Catholicism and other denominations will become financially non-viable.

In contrast, the number of actively religious Muslims is predicted to increase from about one million today to 1.96 million in 2035.

UK Monarchy costs us at least £150M says REPUBLIC

BBC NEWS reports the royals cost us £37M a year

Republic has today challenged Buckingham Palace to come clean on its
finances, due to be reported at the end of this month. For the past few
years the palace has attempted to distract people from the full cost of the
monarchy by talking in terms of ‘pence per person’.

Spokesperson Graham Smith said:

“The palace spin is that the monarchy costs a little over 61p per person.
This is a shameful piece of propaganda – no government department would get
away with justifying waste by dividing the cost by the entire British
population. By that logic MPs salaries and expenses can equally be
justified as costing us just £3 per person per year.”

“The palace will tell us that they cost around £37m a year, but this
ignores security costs, unpaid taxes and costs to local councils for royal
visits. The real figure is at least £150m a year.”

“The big question we need to ask the palace is ‘what’s not included?’
Royal security – much of it unnecessary – is estimated to cost over £100m
a year, royal visits around the UK can cost local councils as much as £60k
a trip.”

“Comparable European presidents cost as little as £1.5m a year.”

NOTES

Full details of our calculations can be found at
http://www.republic.org.uk/royalcosts

A visit to Romsey by the Queen last year cost the Romsey Town Council more
than £58,000, including £5000 spent on a new toilet for the Queen.

Total salary and expenses bill for 646 MPs is £155m a year, compared to
£150m a year for 15 working royals.

The Crown Estates do not offset the cost of the monarchy as the Crown
Estates would remain state property if the monarchy were abolished. It is
not the property of the Windsor family – see
http://www.republic.org.uk/royalcosts for details.

Religion (for entertainment purposes only)

NEW consumer protection laws that came into force last week covering stuff like clairvoyancy and fortune-telling has set the internet buzzing with speculation as to whether religions ought to be covered by the new regulations.

According to a Times report:

Fortune-tellers and astrologists will be bracketed with double-glazing salesman under the new Consumer Protection Regulations. Fortune-tellers will have to tell customers that what they offer is ‘for entertainment only’ and not ‘experimentally proven’. This means that a fortune-teller who sets up a tent at a funfair will have to put up a disclaimer on a board outside.

Similar disclaimers will need to be posted on the websites of faith healers, spiritualists or mediums where appropriate, as well as on invoices and at the top of any printed terms and conditions.

Andy Millmore, a partner at the law firm Harbottle & Lewis in London, is quoted as saying:

What is significant is the sweeping nature of the regulations. They will effectively criminalise actions that might in the past have escaped legal censure, even if they may perhaps have been covered by industry voluntary codes. Personalised services may also come under scrutiny. A tarot pack reader, for instance, cannot just pick one of several templates – it would have to be a proper reading designed for that person.

Claims to secure good fortune, contact the dead or heal through the laying-on of hands are all services that will also have to carry disclaimers, other lawyers say.

Said one:

You could argue that this is no different from promises given by the Church of Eternal Life, which people pay for, in the sense that they feel obliged to give to the collection. It’s no more proven.

The Spiritualist Workers’ Association attacked the changes, saying on its website:

We do not believe we are conducting a scientific experiment. To have to stand up and say so is a denial of our beliefs. It is also sending out a message that we do not believe what we are saying and doing.

Lyn Guest de Swarte, a clairvoyant, said:

It’s like trying to regulate God.

Commenting on the new regulations, Times columnist and atheist Matthew Parris said:

Another example of careless jurisprudence this week: on Monday a new law came into force requiring fortune-tellers, clairvoyants, astrologers and mediums to stipulate explicitly that their services are for ‘entertainment only’.

Well, trades descriptions legislation is anciently established; but in the realms of the spirit, prophecy, invisible worlds, ghosts and human souls, it has generally been felt that the whole thing is too cloudy for law … By deeming in law – for that is what this measure does – that claims about worlds undreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio, are false, Parliament has taken a serious step in principle, even if the measure itself is trivial and most clairvoyants are only jokers anyway.

What, for instance, about the “faith” community? Perhaps it’s there in the legislative small print already. There will have to be an exception in law for ‘religions’. Whereupon clairvoyants will presumably rename themselves spiritualists. And spiritualists will presumably claim the status of a religion. Whereupon lawmakers will stipulate that a ‘religion’ has to centre around a deity. Whereupon Buddhism will cease to be a ‘religion’; and …

Here is a selection of amusing readers’ comments that followed the original Times report:

• Does this mean that placards should be placed at the entrance to all places of worship saying, ‘all who enter here don’t believe all you see and hear.

• I trust that every Bible and other such book will carry an appropriate disclaimer regarding the reliability of its content and promises. And that preachers will similarly preface every sermon with ‘for entertainment only’.

• Coming soon to a church near you….. A huge great ‘not experimentally proven’sign. If you’re going to discriminate against one form of spiritual activity (be it questionable or not) at least discriminate against them all.

• Will this stop religions obtaining money from the Government, particularly in education, on the basis of their predictions of life after death, the claimed existence of God and the validity of their doctrine which they may believe, but cannot prove?

• Does this mean that people who promise salvation or 42 virgins if you do what they tell you can be done under the new regulations ? This looks like a good way to get rid of religions

• We should also get Trading Standards to target religious establishments. After all they too invoke the supernatural and superstition, in order to give their customers some sort of reassurance about the future. Despite holding huge financial assets they also continually ask the public for money.

• The difference is that religion doesn’t charge you for the service they provide, any money they receive is purely voluntary. Astrologers, psychic healers, mediums etc charge you for a service that is claimed to do a lot of things that are scientifically unproven. I agree with the change.

• Religion not charging? Islam makes a big deal about the faithful paying the “religious tax” and even imposes punitive taxes on non-muslims to permit them to follow their own faith. Look up zakat and jizyah. These are not voluntary, though perhaps they cannot be enforced in the courts here.

• Hmm, religion doesn’t charge … money from the government, collections at the church/mosque/synagogue/temple, purchase of the Qu’ran, Bible, Torah, Vedas, etc, ‘donations’ to the church to obtain that date for your special day. We all pay for religion even if it’s just through taxes. It’s a farce.