THIS IS A Catholic blog. I am a Catholic journalist and author. If you enjoy this Blog, you'll probably enjoy my books - so contact me (via a Comment to this blog) and ask me about them.
A comment on the article says that Faith schools don't have to accept children from another faith unless there are not enough children of the Catholic faith wishing enrolment. Is this correct?
A lot of equality ethics are code for deChristianisation. Those who insist on council decorations for Ramadan wouldn't for a moment consider seriously investigating whether the Koran was genuinely the word of God, because then they would have to end their casual relationships and wear veils. However Muslims and other groups are often fooled into seeing allies where the liberals regard them only as tools.
In this case we, the Catholics, are the tools. We mustn't make the same mistake. As long as the Church of England is the state Church, obviously the monarch must be an Anglican. Of course in an ideal world the Anglicans would come back into union with Rome. As for the question of whether a state Church is desireable, that is complex. In practise secular states tend to drift into being secularist states. It is better to be committed to a partial version of the truth than the complete negation of it.
"In 2002, Frank Dobson proposed an amendment to the Education Bill (for England & Wales) which would limit the selection rights of faith schools by requiring them to offer at least a quarter of places to children of another or no religion, in order to increase inclusivity and lessening social division. The proposal was defeated in Parliament"
Malcolm McLean: "Those who insist on council decorations for Ramadan wouldn't for a moment consider seriously investigating whether the Koran was genuinely the word of God..." How, exactly, would anyone prove that any written text was, or was not "the word of God"?
How would we determine whether a text was genuinely the word of God? One obvious way is to look at the moral teachings it contains. Do they strike you as anodyne, derivative, pastiche? If not, we have proved that it is the word of God, but it deserves further investigation. If, as Muslims claim, it was impossible for the Koran to have been written by an unlearned man like Mohammed, that would imply it was written by some other agency. If this wasn't human, what was it?
4 comments:
A comment on the article says that Faith schools don't have to accept children from another faith unless there are not enough children of the Catholic faith wishing enrolment. Is this correct?
It's a good article.
A lot of equality ethics are code for deChristianisation. Those who insist on council decorations for Ramadan wouldn't for a moment consider seriously investigating whether the Koran was genuinely the word of God, because then they would have to end their casual relationships and wear veils. However Muslims and other groups are often fooled into seeing allies where the liberals regard them only as tools.
In this case we, the Catholics, are the tools. We mustn't make the same mistake. As long as the Church of England is the state Church, obviously the monarch must be an Anglican. Of course in an ideal world the Anglicans would come back into union with Rome. As for the question of whether a state Church is desireable, that is complex. In practise secular states tend to drift into being secularist states. It is better to be committed to a partial version of the truth than the complete negation of it.
The comment on the article is correct.
"In 2002, Frank Dobson proposed an amendment to the Education Bill (for England & Wales) which would limit the selection rights of faith schools by requiring them to offer at least a quarter of places to children of another or no religion, in order to increase inclusivity and lessening social division. The proposal was defeated in Parliament"
Malcolm McLean: "Those who insist on council decorations for Ramadan wouldn't for a moment consider seriously investigating whether the Koran was genuinely the word of God..." How, exactly, would anyone prove that any written text was, or was not "the word of God"?
How would we determine whether a text was genuinely the word of God?
One obvious way is to look at the moral teachings it contains. Do they strike you as anodyne, derivative, pastiche? If not, we have proved that it is the word of God, but it deserves further investigation.
If, as Muslims claim, it was impossible for the Koran to have been written by an unlearned man like Mohammed, that would imply it was written by some other agency. If this wasn't human, what was it?
Post a Comment