Why Christians Should Support the Birmingham Muslims

One of the advantages of ‘lying on a bed of sickness’ is that I have the time to listen to radio, sermons, catch up on books I have been meaning to read.  It also helps me read  up on some stories in the media in greater depth.  One such is the Birmingham schools row – which is a fascinating and revealing insight into our culture.

Screenshot 2019-03-27 at 14.42.21There is an intriguing on going drama being played out  at the moment.      Parkfield Community school in Birmingham has been the focus of national media attention because of the protests that have taken place concerning the teaching of homosexuality.  A teacher Andrew Moffat who is himself in a gay relationship had introduced a programme called ‘No Outsiders’.   Mr Moffat who is in line for an award for ‘the worlds best teacher’ (I wonder why?), had already resigned from another school, because of a similar clash between him and Muslim and Christian parents.

Media Narratives

What is almost as interesting is the way that this story is being covered in the media.  There is no balance, no attempt to understand and no desire to look at the deeper issues involved.  It is taken as a given that teaching primary school children about same sex marriage is a good thing.  It is also assumed that the Muslims are at best culturally ignorant or at worst a bunch of ignorant religious fundamentalists in conflict with tolerant modern British liberals.   There has been no attempt in the media to attempt to understand what the concerns are or to question seriously what Ofsted and the school headmaster is trying to do.  In listening to all the media and politicians it appears that they regard as extremists those who do not want their primary school children to be fed the diet of books such as Mommy, Mama and Me, and King and King.

I must admit that I too bought a little into ‘the Muslims are narrow religious bigots’  narrative and wondered why Christians were also not taking a stand on this issue (it turns out that many are but this is not being reported – largely because of the liberal bias of many of the mainstream established churches).  But having read and listened to the Muslim spokespeople I have to say that I have generally been very impressed.  For example listen to this interview broadcast on BBC Radio 4 today.

There are several things that strike me about it.  Firstly that the Muslim spokesman had an almost impossible task – to defend what in todays secular society is regarded as blasphemy.  He did really well.

Relationship Education?

Secondly it is a disingenuous for the LGBT activists to claim that this is not about sex education but rather ‘relationship’ education.  What the parents are objecting to is the relationships education – because it is teaching a religious and philosophical view they do not believe in.  They have a particular view of relationships and what and how it should be taught.  The head teacher (and the governing elites of our culture) have a different view.   The ‘No Outsiders’ programme seeks to challenge ‘myth and practice of hetronormativity’.  It seeks to use children’s literature to ‘queer hetronormativity’.  It is nothing else than an ideological indoctrination exercise to be carried out on all our andtangomakesthreechildren.  You can see the kind of thing I’m talking about when you visit the No Outsiders Book pack – only £225 for schools!  As well as the usual children’s books on gay penguins, teenagers also get The Handmaid’s Tale to help promote a more ‘inclusive’ environment.  This is nothing but Soviet style state propaganda – designed to ensure that our children have the right views and think the right thoughts. (not the ‘reactionary’ views of their parents – but the views of the cultural elites who know so much better than the rest of us).

Despite the claims this  is not about diversity. It is in fact the very opposite.  This is about imposing one, and only one, sexual/relationship philosophy upon everyone.   They don’t want diversity.  They will not allow Muslim parents (or Christian) to have their children brought up in their faith.  We must all be brought up in the secular humanist faith and whatever its celebrants tells us at any particular time is moral or ‘on the right side of history’.

The End of Diversity

It is also disingenuous to say that this is just about educating children that there are homosexual relationships (who would deny that?) – and not about promoting homosexuality.  This is entirely about promoting one view of marriage, sex, sexuality and society.    As the leader of one of the many gay charities ‘Educate and Celebrate’ stated:

“”We must keep driving the rainbow bus until we arrive at the land of social justice”.

Whats Education For?

This conflict also displays  a very different attitude towards education. The prevailing view amongst our governing classes is that education (especially for the poor) is largely about social engineering, not education.  The chief inspector of Ofsted, Amanda Spielman, supported the school, saying it was vital children knew about “families that have two mummies or two daddies”.  Why is it ‘vital’?  What would Ofsted say about families that have three mummies and five daddies?  Should that be taught? Is that vital?    I once spoke to a child who told me that he had five dads (a Monday dad, a Tuesday dad etc).  Because we recognise these relationships exist, does that mean we should promote them?  Personally I would be happy to teach that there are a variety of relationships – but that the basis of Western civilisation has, for the past 1500-2,000 years, been marriage and the family.   Family in this sense is a marriage between a man and a woman – and the children that come from that. Now people can and do argue against that.  But why should those who seek to undermine that basis be the only ones permitted to teach and promote their view?

It’s the Law

The social engineers when all else fails, are happy to use the law to enforce their views.  When it wasn’t the law they said ‘let the law be changed so that this is permissible”.  When the law was changed they now say ‘Its the law, nothing else is permitted”.  But the trouble is that again it is a superficial view of a complex subject.    The law states

Article 26 (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”

The European Declaration of Human Rights :“In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” First Protocol, Article 2

Scottish  law:- “.. education authorities shall have regard to the general principle that, so far as is compatible with the provision of suitable instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.” Section 28 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980

Stand for the Parents and for the Poor

Christians should stand up for our Muslim brothers and sisters not because we agree with their religion, but because we agree with their right to have freedom of religion.  We also stand up for them, because we want to defend our own rights.  We too want freedom of religion and the human right of bringing up our children according to our own religious and philosophical convictions.

Christians should also make a stand on this because we care for the poor.  The Bloomsbury set and the 1960’s Hippie version of love and relationships is something that harms the poor more than any other group.  Whilst our AB groups are marrying (around 80%) and having their adulterous relationships on the side, and buying sex whenever they want it – the poor are struggling in dysfunctional families (only 40% DE are married).  The biggest cause of our broken society is family breakdown.  The biggest cause of that is the removal of the Christian teaching about marriage, family, sex and sexuality and its replacement with Queer Theory.  Homosexuality is not the issue here.  There are far deeper and much more profound issues.  Not least the freedom for us, and our Muslim brothers and sisters, to bring up our children, without being dictated to by the political elites who seek to impose their bourgeoise morality on our children. On this issue Christians and Muslims stand together.

Scotland’s Little Pink Guards – The Strange Case of the School Chaplain, Time for Exclusive Education and Mob Rule

Quantum 34; East African Cyclone; Mosque Shootings; Nigerian Slaughter; Utrecht; Islamaphobia; Brexit; Iranian Refugee Christian; Misgendering; LGBT Indoctrination; Afghanistan Cricket; John Stott

Re-imaging Humanity – Sex, Sexuality, Gender and the Inhumanity of 21st Century Humanism – Part 1

 

 

34 thoughts on “Why Christians Should Support the Birmingham Muslims

  1. Careful, David. I tweeted that it’s not homophobic to disagree with LGBT issues being taught in schools and that everyone should be treated with dignity, love and respect and there should be no bullying. You would be amazed at the level of bullying, anti straight messages I’ve received. The level of hatred has been astonishing. It’s as if LGBT people think that being rude and objectionable will change anyone’s mind! Its telling that not one person has commented on the second part of my tweet.

  2. Reminds me of the famous Martin Niemoller quote:

    “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

  3. Hi David.

    Or should I now say, “G’day” or “Ow ya goin’ mate?”?

    You’ve tolerated a fair bit of my self-publicity over the years – e.g. by letting through numerous quite brazen links to my own pages in my moderable comments on your pages – although never actively giving me a plug, or “leg-up” as I like to put it, as I have to you. Or an “endorsement”, to put it in a posh way. (Not that I blame you.) Thanks anyway, or should I say “good on ya”?

    To get straight to the point, I support your motion that “Christians Should Support the Birmingham Muslims”. I further suggest that “Christians Should Support Other Christians Who Support the Birmingham Muslims”, (who latter are no longer confined to Birmingham, and) who got a spot on the Today programme this morning – about nationwide outbreaks of Birminghamist-like parental opposition to LGBT indoctrination in infant schools – all over the place.

    I therefore offer this valuable, informative (if old) link into Christian Voice’s website:

    Parents protest against No Outsiders SexEd
    https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/parents-protest-againt-no-outsiders/

    As you can see, the Christian Voice brand has been in the front line, shoulder-to-shoulder with the Muslim parents, for several weeks. I am surprised to learn either that you’d not realised this, or that you didn’t think this worth mentioning when your Wee Flea brand jumped, late, onto the same Relationship Education LGBT bandwagon that the BBC probably didn’t manage to stop, this morning. That you blogged about this, from Oz, without plugging Christian Voice, is therefore disappointing, pleasing as it is that this story has come onto your radar at all, albeit on the day on which even the BBC have conceded that even they can no longer ignore it, and covered it on Today.

    The story-so-far, in a nutshell, is as follows: HMG surveyed and/or consulted LGBT to inform its official LGBT agenda, which it published last year. The LGBT agenda affected, in controversial and historically unprecedented ways, what was to be taught to really quite small children in the British state’s tax-funded infant schools. The government somehow managed to forget to sign off the infant school syllabus impacts of its sparkling new LGBT agenda with the most important of the grown-up stakeholders of all, the parents of the infants it whom it was proposed to start indoctrinating in various LGBT doctrines that are doubtless familiar to you already. Unconsulted parents are now therefore protesting in their hundreds, including keeping their children off school, reportedly 600 of them on one day alone, hoping that the highly controversial, pro-LGBT, so-called “No Outsiders” syllabus for kiddy-winks as young as four, will be ditched permanently, the aghast parents hope.

    Welcome to this issue. Thank you for your belated solidarity. I saw this particular culture war coming almost 20 years ago. LGBT is definitely a pretty toxic cult, in my opinion, to put it kindly. I am glad that others are now catching on, at last.

    Kind regards,

    John Allman
    http://JohnAllman.UK

    1. I don’t think you are correct in saying that this is government lead. No Outsiders is the initiative of a single teacher in Birmingham, though it has inspired similar lessons elsewhere. I am willing to be corrected, but I think I am right in saying that most primary and secondary state schools in E&W still have no LGBT content in their relationships and sex education.

      Although they produced an LGBT action plan some time ago to improve treatment of LGBT people, the government have not yet done anything about it because they have been too busy with other matters.

      When asked about this issue in PMQs, the PM seemed not to know anything about it and just referred the questioner. When asked about the issue in a phone in, Andrea Leadsome said that it should be up to individual parents when they exposed their children to LGBT information.

      1. Please take a wee bit of time to check before you write. No outsiders is not the initiative of a single teacher in Birmingham. Most secondary state schools in England and Wales have LGBT content.

      2. No Outsiders was developed by Andrew Moffat. It has not come from central government.

        Unless you can cite some evidence then we will have to agree to disagree on whether most schools cover sex and relationships education with respect to LGBT people. I am not in education but I am aware that there are currently campaigns to get it widespread. I doubt people would be campaigning for something that already existed.

        Please could you try to be more civil. I don’t say this because I am a cry baby snowflake, but because dialogue on emotive issues is hard enough without deliberately insulting one another.

      3. Who said that it did? Although he did not develop it on his own. You were the one making the claim that most schools do not cover LGBT relationships – where is your evidence for that? I am incredibly civil – given the level of provocation and the constant posts which misrepresent what is being said. I don’t really have time to keep correcting you so in future I will only post your posts that are relevant and have something substantive to say.

      4. Parliament voted yesterday to bring in LGBT inclusive education in E&W. I can’t see that they would do that if it was already widespread.

        As I understand it the new guidelines will still not contain any teaching aimed at LGBT children. I think voluntary additional classes for this – especially sex education for teens – is essential. How many gay teens reach the age of 16 and don’t know the dangers of sex?!

  4. Hey David- great article. I wrote on this too, and I also noted the very common sense, and brave, response by some of the Muslim leaders, who are brave enough to walk the tightrope. I kinda wish some of our crowd were that brave, but then again if you’re a lower-to middle class Muslim minority in an Western country it’s not like you’re going to lose a seat at the table by speaking honestly, since you’ve never had such a seat in the first place.

  5. I hope you can at least agree that LGBT children and children of LGBT parents should not be treated worse than the other children and that homophobic bullying (70% of LGBT children say they experience this in schools) should be dealt with as with all other forms of bullying.

    When I was in primary school, anti gay slurs (bum chum, shirt lifter) were widely used as insults by the children and the teachers did nothing about it. When I was in secondary school some of the teachers used “gay” to insult unruly pupils.

    There was never any serious discussion of what it meant to be gay or trans – it was almost certainly illegal to do so.

    There has to be a way we can all live together without hurting or insulting *children*.

      1. I ask because I want to clarify that you are only opposed to the method and not the goal.

        The whole point of learning about LGBT people in the classroom. It’s an attempt to create an environment where homophobic bullying is unacceptable and where LGBT children are equals with non LGBT children.

      2. I wish that there were just the case. I’m afraid that bullying is the Trojan horse that is being used to indoctrinate our children in a philosophy that is fundamentally anti-Christian.

      3. Interestingly enough in my Granny’s generation, it was reasonable common for children to be brought up by two women because so many male lives were lost in the world wars.

        I don’t think all was rosy then – I’ve read that there was a lot of suspicion of the “spare” women.

    1. “homophobic bullying ….should be dealt with as with all other forms of bullying.”
      Exactly. But, of course, that is not whhat is happening. All sorts of LGBT lobby groups want access to shools so that they talk about ‘homophobic bullying’ and nothing else. What should be happening is that bullying is dealt with a a whole. There is no need to spend vast resources and time and dealing with one, exclusive, form of bullying, especially when that form of bullying affects only a tiny proportion of school children. What needs to be dealt with is the bullying that affects all pupils, especially the vast majority of those who are bullied.

    2. Gavin Ashenden’s briefing paper to the House of Lords (https://ashenden.org/2019/03/20/why-the-draft-relationships-education-relationships-and-sex-education-and-health-education-act-2019-should-be-rejected/#more-3458) states:
      ‘Well–meaning people find their sympathies engaged when they are told that sex and relationship education for children is vital to contain and engage with homophobic bullying. The facts demonstrate this is a mistaken assertion used for political ends. In fact, attitudes to sexuality and gender identity or expression come bottom of the list at 4% and 3% respectively. ‘
      He gives a link to a survey conducted in 2017.

  6. I was disturbed to hear Sir Michael Wilshaw (ex head of Ofsted) interviewed on the Today programme regarding this. The interviewer put to him the position of parents, saying, “Morally we don’t accept homosexuality as a valid sexual relationship to have.”
    Michael Wilshaw’s response? “That’s wrong. That’s absolutely wrong.”
    Frightening!

    But then he goes on to argue that these parents must recognize that they live in a “pluralistic society with liberal values that strongly believes people should be treated fairly and equally…that respects people no matter what their faith.”
    Patently, not everyone is treated fairly and equally – especially those with ‘traditional’ views on morality.
    And as for respecting people no matter what their faith – wasn’t he listening to himself when he made his earlier statement?

  7. It sounds as though you dream of a world in which the only ideas a child is exposed to are those which completely mirror their parents. How awful. If only you were a Muslim and born in Iran.

    The solution to the demand that Christians should have the right to force their children to adopt their parents beliefs is Christian schools. Do you really suppose that the curriculum of public secular schools should be dictated by the objections of parents who happen to follow a particular religion?

    1. That is precisely the opposite of what I am saying. What you and the political elites who control our education system are demanding is that children should only be exposed to your views – and all other views should be excluded. As a Christian who believes in reason, truth and freedom of speech and thought – I am more than happy for children to be taught the different views. But you are not. And yes I don’t think that the curriculum of public secular schools should be dictated by the objections of parents who happen to follow a particular secular philosophy.

      1. There will never be any pleasing you David. Never. You profess to be loved by a god who created the universe and everything in it, to have a relationship with him, to apparently have the chance after this life to spend eternity with this god – yet you still obviously aren’t happy.

        You just cannot abide the fact that everyone doesn’t share your religious convictions. You are free to follow them, you make your living from them – but still you aren’t happy.

        How odd.

      2. I notice that you again change the subject. I answer your question and explain that I am for children being taught from a wide perspective. I point out that you want only one perspective. Something you don’t deny. Instead you just resort to name calling and abuse. I am happy – indeed joyful. But just because I have bread does not mean that I don’t care for those who are starving.

  8. I read your blog and thank you for your Christian good sense.
    Unfortunately the problem is much larger than LGBT and taking away parental rights to remove their children from graphic sex education in Secondary Schools.
    This is a worldwide UN sponsored attack on the family. It is pure evil and stems from the premise of Freud that children are sexual beings from birth. A,Fred Kinsey in the 1969s pushed these views and was found to have been paying paedophiles for so called research on children and babies as young as 5 months.
    The UN and WHO have published the guidelines for “Standards for sexuality in Europe:
    Age 0-4 explore nakedness and the body and gender identities. Learn ‘my body belongs to me’.
    Age 4-6 name each body part – caregivers are instructed to ‘wash each body part’ and talk about sexual matters in sexual language” children should be given information about enjoyment and sexual pleasure when touching one’s own body in early childhood masturbation.
    And the list continues throughout school years. Please see Faith-and-Politics website where Will Jones gives the full list of horrors.

    1. Sorry forgot to say the article by Will Jones is called “The Sexual Brainwashing of our children must stop”. Plus Alfred Kinsey and 1960’s correction. Dr Judith Reismann is an expert on Kinsey.

    2. Do you understand why they are being taught “learn my body belongs to me”? It is to protect them from sexual abuse! This is the world we live in where 4 year olds need to be taught about the concept of consent because they are vulnerable to sexual abuse. We can’t leave it until puberty as puberty is far too late.

      I think Christians need to strongly back measures to protect children from abuse or come up with sensible alternatives.

      1. There used to be a slogan which said, ‘Just say no to strangers’. Of course, it did not go far enough because much abuse occurs in the ‘family’, especially from live-in boyfriends. I don’t see the need to teach little children intimate details about their bodies in order to make sure that they only engage in activities when they give their ‘consent’. (I wonder if the idea of the age of consent is still taught.) I suspect that all this ‘consent’ business is just another ruse to indoctrinate children with a particular view of sexual relationships.

      2. You are an idiot if you believe that 4 year olds have the capacity for ‘consent”. Children have to be protected from predatory adults, and the people to protect them are their parents. Children do not belong to any Government unless you are in a communist or fascist state.
        Children at 4 do not even cross the road without an adult, they cannot smoke, drink, drive and the age for consent is 16 years.

  9. I entirely agree with the arguments made, and in relation to the specific issue my quibble pales into insignificance, but you don’t think that describing Muslims as our brothers and sisters is going a bit far, theologically?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *