Comments on: And it came to pass – or didn’t! http://freethinker.co.uk/2007/10/27/and-it-came-to-pass-%e2%80%93-or-didnt/ The voice of atheism since 1881 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:23:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: SilverTiger http://freethinker.co.uk/2007/10/27/and-it-came-to-pass-%e2%80%93-or-didnt/comment-page-1/#comment-396 SilverTiger Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:39:53 +0000 http://www.freethinker.co.uk/?p=268#comment-396 The council is following its own rule that that the child and at least one of his parents must be baptized in order for him to qualify for subsidized travel to the faith school. I assume that they apply this rule in all cases (short of making a mistake) and not just in this instance only. Presumably, also, the boy's parents (and the supportive MP) are aware of the rule. The only question, then, is whether the rule itself is lawful. If it is (and the Equality and Human Rights Commission will no doubt pronounce on the matter) then the council is acting within its rights. Why, exactly, is the <em>Freethinker</em> interested in this case? It seems to me that it is simply a legal dispute and has nothing to do with secularism v religious intolerance. After all, it is the <em>council</em> (which is supposedly secular) that is refusing to pay the money, not the <em>school</em> (which is religious). As an aside, I think you have to wonder why, if neither the child nor either of the parents has been baptized, why they are sending him to a Catholic school. Presumably this is not for religious reasons but because they think that the school is academically better than the alternative state schools. I can't say I find much sympathy in my heart for them either way. The council is following its own rule that that the child and at least one of his parents must be baptized in order for him to qualify for subsidized travel to the faith school. I assume that they apply this rule in all cases (short of making a mistake) and not just in this instance only. Presumably, also, the boy’s parents (and the supportive MP) are aware of the rule. The only question, then, is whether the rule itself is lawful. If it is (and the Equality and Human Rights Commission will no doubt pronounce on the matter) then the council is acting within its rights.

Why, exactly, is the Freethinker interested in this case? It seems to me that it is simply a legal dispute and has nothing to do with secularism v religious intolerance. After all, it is the council (which is supposedly secular) that is refusing to pay the money, not the school (which is religious).

As an aside, I think you have to wonder why, if neither the child nor either of the parents has been baptized, why they are sending him to a Catholic school. Presumably this is not for religious reasons but because they think that the school is academically better than the alternative state schools. I can’t say I find much sympathy in my heart for them either way.

]]>