As I've said before, I do get impatient with the 'religion poisons everything' tendency. But it doesn't come amiss to be reminded of how benighted this country still remains in certain relevant respects. The report here contains such a reminder. It tells of a headteacher who wanted to create a secular state school, but came up against 'the legal requirement in all state schools for pupils to take part in a daily act of worship of a broadly Christian nature'. I love the 'broadly' in 'broadly Christian'. How broad can it be and still remain Christian? If it has indeed to be Christian, why not just narrowly? It's a mere token of freedom, locked on to a single creed.
He [Dr Paul Kelley] also wanted to change the way that religious education was taught, introducing tuition about a number of world views, some that involved faith and some that did not.That seems eminently reasonable in a modern liberal democracy. He doesn't want to eliminate religious faith from the curriculum, merely to achieve a greater breadth, as one might say, by introducing world views that don't involve faith alongside ones that do. What could be the objection?
Nothing doing, he's told: it's 'politically impossible'; it would be blocked by bishops in the House of Lords. You have to pinch yourself. Pedagogy of the only sort that's worth anything - the open communication and exploration of alternatives - would be impossible in the sphere of religious education because, amongst other things, of bishops in the House of Lords.
This is an 'impossibility' that needs to be worked on.