Disabled people 'should be put down' because they 'cost the council too much money'

A Cornish councillor has claimed that disabled people should be 'put down' because they 'cost the council too much money'. The story is reported on This is Cornwall, though appears to stem from an incident in October 2011. The Guardian reports that Disability Cornwall and Scope have responded to the comments. 

Cllr Brewer has apologised but refuses to resign. As an Independent, he has no party from which to be expelled nor any party leader summarily calling for his dismissal. However, the chairman of Disability Cornwall, Steve Paget MBE, is demanding Cllr Brewer's resignation claiming "he is supposed to be an elected member representing public views and acting on behalf of the public. How anyone can come out with that is just shocking". A spokesman for Scope stated "to hear such an ill-judged and insensitive statement from a councillor is deeply disturbing and demonstrates that they are clearly not fit for office".

However, as in my previous comments here, one is hard pressed to argue that Cllr Brewer is articulating anything other than a consistent view. As Cranmer points out:

His [Cllr Brewer] view is precisely that which our progressive society manifests toward the disabled in the womb - right up to full-term. There is no 24-week limit when it comes to 'getting rid' of those who can't walk, talk, see, hear or catch a ball... you'll even find doctors who will neatly dispose of a baby with a hare lip, for that's an undoubted disability. The glorious achievements of our Paralympians have done nothing to change this.

Disability is a profound burden on parents (emotionally) and on society ('cost too much'), so our 'representatives and elected members' have indeed determined that they may be 'put down'. This has nothing to do with women's rights over their bodies, or with the question of when 'independent' life actually begins. It is a simple fact that society allows disability as a reason for abortion way beyond the 24-week period for the able-bodied, and that implies that disabled people, or the lives of disabled people, are less worthwhile than the lives of 'normal' people.

One must conclude that it is the position of Scope and Disability Cornwall that is inconsistent here. For, no calls have been made to have this statute 'confined to the history books' nor does it lead them to call this provision 'deeply disturbing' and denounce all those who uphold it as 'clearly not fit for office'.

Is it sheer inconsistency or merely that those who advocate this statute don't state it quite as crassly as Cllr Brewer?

* Collin Brewer has since resigned 

Good ways to do a word study

ScibblePreach.com, having previously offered '7 ways to do a bad word study', has posted '7 ways to do a good word study'.

Again, I encourage you to read the article. It offers several simple steps we may want to take when tackling a word study, making the seven following suggestions:

1. Identify "spark" words
2. Know the lexical range
3. Study the immediate context
4. Study the authorial context
5. Study the wider context
6. Identify defining passages
7. Choose what fits in context

If you want to know how to conduct a helpful word study this short post is definitely worth reading.

AC Grayling & Free Schools

AC Grayling, in yesterday's Independent, wrote a comment piece titled 'Creationist Free Schools are an abuse - ancient ignorance has no place in education'. Now, this blogger by no means agrees with the title of the piece (well, not the first half of it, at any rate). Nonetheless, I must admit to being no great supporter of faith schools. On this, at least, I am in agreement with Grayling. However, my reasons are entirely different to those put forward in his article.

Although I am not a fan of 'religious' schools per se, I would not proscribe them - just as I wouldn't ban the public/private schools that so blight our education system. I would, however, deny such schools the the benefit of the public purse. If Christians, Muslims, Jews - dare I even say, Atheists - want to run schools built around their own particular ethos/worldview/prejudice (delete as you deem appropriate) who are we to stop them? However, whilst such schools should be allowed to function, it seems absurd that Atheists should be forced to fund Christian schools, Jews to fund Muslim establishments and vice versa. I can entirely see how it would stick in the craw for AC Grayling to fund schools built around ethoses with which he so vehemently disagrees, just as it would no doubt be a cause for consternation amongst religious believer to fund his new educational venture.

My main concerns regarding faith schools have almost nothing to do with what, or even how, they teach. For the most part their teaching is very good. OfSTED judge faith-based education by the same standards as state schools and find no cause for concern.  Indeed, if we abide by the statistics alone and question them not at all, state schools appear to offer a generally better level education than their secular state counterparts.

This brings me to the nub of why I do not support faith schools. For, whilst the statistics appear to bear out that faith schools offer a better education, selection policies go a long way to creating this impression. Many faith schools have selection policies taking a percentage of entrants on faith requirements and a remaining number based on examination. Such policies can guarantee at least 50% of the school intake are 'above average' students. Whilst, no doubt, children of genuine 'faith-subscribers' make up some of the remaining 50%, it is well known that a mere nod and wink from a local minister/vicar/priest is enough to see one selected on the faith criteria. Parents with the motivation to prove they subscribe to the faith necessary for selection tend to take more of an active interest in their own child's education. Typically, though not exclusively, such children come from middle class backgrounds and have both the privilege and parental motivation to encourage achievement.

Equally problematic is the segregation of children from such an early age. This is not an issue of tensions between local Catholic/Protestant or Jewish/Islamic schools. Such issues of group belonging and the 'rival other' exist just as much between local secular schools. Rather, this is an issue of segregating out 'your' people from 'another' people. Indeed, how can we hope our children will respond and interact appropriately with people from different backgrounds if they have spent their entire childhood hiding from those same people? How can they hope to respond properly to others faiths if they have predominantly grown up in the presence of those who share their basic and fundamental views?

However, none of this is to suggest - as AC Grayling does - that faith schools are 'an abuse'. Certainly, they are no more an abuse than private education and - as I stated from the outset - I would place faith schools in exactly the same bracket. Grayling's article is faulty for several reasons.

Grayling asserts 'figures reported in The Independent this week show that 132 of the 517 applications to open free schools in the past couple of years have come from faith groups'. What he fails to tell us is that many of these applications were rejected, notably one from a Plymouth Brethren group the only details of which we are given is that they 'teach creationism'. He then goes on to state 'Creationists and fundamentalists of various stamps are eager to open schools so that they can proselytise the young, knowing that this is by far the chief way that religious belief survives in the world'. One is unsure what facts and figures Grayling has to back up the claim that 'religion' is propagated predominantly through faith schools. Such baseless comments are hardly following evidence where it leads.

Grayling also argues 'education should be about how to think, not what to think; it should be about learning, enquiry, testing evidence and arguments, not indoctrination of the young into having “faith” in one or other of the many ancient belief systems that constitute religion'. Of course, very few would disagree. His implication, however, is that faith schools specifically 'indoctrinate' children into having a particular faith. One cannot help but feel OfSTED would most certainly be making enquiries and bringing schools into special measures if such were the case. Moreover, if this were the case, surely figures would bear out that the majority of children from a faith school background remain devout to that faith and I'm not so sure such evidence exists. Of course, this may simply mean these faith schools are rubbish at indoctrination but, if that is the case, Grayling has little to worry about as it suggests the minds of young children are not as easily manipulated as he thinks.

All of this is by the by. No Free School with a faith ethos is run upon the lines Grayling imagines. He tries to differentiate his own educational venture by arguing, 'in being taught about religion (as opposed to being taught to believe religious dogmas), they will see for themselves the conflicting claims, the basis in ancient ignorance, and the too often baleful effects of religion on human lives and societies'. The inference is clearly that faith schools enforce religious doctrine rather than teach generally about religions. I must say, RE lessons in both faith and secular state schools do exactly what he outlines his educational institution is seeking to do. He has erected an imaginary approach to RE that simply does not exist either in faith or state schools. 

Nor has 'creationism' wormed into science classrooms by the back door. All GCSE biology examination boards require an understanding and knowledge of evolutionary theory and ask no questions about Intelligent Design or 'Creationism' of any form. Both faith schools and state schools are tied to the examination boards and must teach what they require. At best, certain teachers - and yes, perhaps a handful of schools - question elements of evolutionary theory and highlight some of its perceived flaws. But surely, at worst, this is just academic rigour and should be applauded? The only basis for upset would be if teachers and schools refused to teach evolutionary theory or they purposefully taught error to lead pupils to a false position. The former cannot occur due to the nature of independent exam boards and the latter would be a matter in which OfSTED would involve themselves and on which the exam results of that school would plummet, also causing OfSTED involvement. Surely Grayling isn't suggesting that flaws (if there are any), or current unknowns within evolutionary theory cannot be explored at all? That hardly appears to support his view that 'education should be about how to think, not what to think; it should be about learning, enquiry, testing evidence and arguments'. 

To save us from this imaginary evil, Grayling and others have created their own college. He states:

I and my colleagues at the New College of the Humanities have put in a bid to open a free school in Camden with a concentration in the arts and humanities. One stringent principle of its educational ethos is to be that pupils must be encouraged and equipped to think for themselves, to challenge, to ask questions, to have a very good case for committing themselves to any ideological viewpoint, whether political, religious or otherwise. That is the overwhelming responsibility of education.

So, just how different to a faith school is this new venture? AC Grayling is a Vice President of the British Humanist Association and himself committed to particular beliefs. His desire to encourage children to 'have a very good case' before committing themselves to anything is problematic when Grayling appoints himself arbiter of that which constitutes a 'good case'. This is seen most pointedly in that he rejects the evidences and case put forward, both in debate and writing, of one of the world's leading philosophers. This means any child who comes to a faith position must construct a better, stronger case than that put forward by Dr William Lane Craig before Grayling will approve it. On this evidence, one must say his approach is unlike any Free Schools with a faith ethos. For his approach will most certainly revolve around humanist indoctrination.

Grayling ends his article by arguing:

A young mind is a beautiful opportunity: receptive, curious, quick to soak up information and techniques; it is something to be treated with utmost respect, not twisted into shapes that conform to antique dogmas, but given every chance to grow and discover. That is what a free school should aim for: an education in intellectual autonomy.

The problem for Grayling is that he does not believe in true intellectual autonomy. Ultimately, he believes anyone who comes to a faith belief has, definitionally, reached a non-evidenced, baseless conclusion. As such, Grayling says that children can be autonomous as long as they autonomously reach his position. Such a view can hardly be said to be 'not twisting minds into shapes that conform'.

Bad ways to do a word study

The Challies blog, via ScibblePreach.com, courtesy of Dr Mark Jennings (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary) and Dr Grant Osborne (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) has posted '7 ways to do a bad word study'. 

I really encourage you to read the article. It offers a helpful critique and highlights how lay people, as well as ministers, can know if a word study really is legitimate. It tackles the seven following poor approaches:

1. The Root Word Fallacy
2. The Origin Fallacy
3. The 'Everything' Fallacy
4. The Lexical Fallacy
5. The Word-Argument Fallacy
6. The 'Authorless' Fallacy
7. The 'Webster's Dictionary' Fallacy

If you want to know which approaches to avoid when leading a bible study, or you simply want to recognise appropriate use of word studies, this post really is worth a read.

The Metropolitan Tabernacle, Peter Masters and two-stage separation

I have read two posts this week about an issue surrounding the Metropolitan Tabernacle (Met Tab), Peter Masters and a few articles and emails that appear to be in circulation. The 'Who's that preacher?' blog commented here and 'Andy's Study' comments here. Both articles make some valid and helpful points. In my view, Who's that Preacher? is perhaps the more balanced of the two but the ultimate conclusion of both posts is much the same.

There is little to add to what has already been said, so I will limit myself to the following points:

• The critical spirit of Peter Master's is hardly a new phenomena. He is well known for turning his ire on anyone and anything that does not subscribe to every jot and tittle taught at the Met Tab.
• As Andy's Study rightly points out, Peter Master's two-stage separation policy ultimately means "the range of those condemned is enormous". More pointedly, this policy - taken to its logical conclusion - means members of the Met Tab must separate from themselves! Who's that Preacher? notes, the Met Tab are in association with Joel Beeke through their Summer School of Theology. As Beeke "is himself associated, through the Gospel Coalition, with the 'New Calvinists'", those at the Met Tab must conclude they cannot associate with members of their own church.
• We must take care not to be drawn into the same snare as the Met Tab. It would be all too easy to denounce that church entirely and ignore their faithfulness and zealousness in the gospel simply because they fail to recognise other faithful, zealous churches. Andy's Study argues that Peter Master's "broad brushstroke of condemnation inevitably leads to an Elijah like cry of "I am the only one left" and, as we know, Elijah was wrong about that!". Whilst this is true, Elijah did not cease to be the Lord's - nor did he become unfaithful - despite his failure to recognise that there were others who were faithful too. So, although the Met Tab are wrong to denounce others who are clearly gospel focused, we should not pretend they have diverted from the truth because they fail to seek gospel unity.
• Equally, we should not imply the Met Tab has received no blessing nor that they have been unfaithful to gospel truth simply because we don't like something of what they do. The facts (much to the chagrin of those us who vehemently dislike the Met Tab approach to unity) suggest that Peter Master's has been faithful to gospel truth and blessed by God with a sizeable congregation, indeed a much larger gathering than when he first joined. They have a thriving evangelistic Sunday School and are most zealous in gospel work. To suggest they produce no fruit is simply to ignore the facts of the matter.
• Nevertheless, a large congregation and zealous gospel outreach does not, on it's own, indicate a good church. Scripture has much to say about love within and between faithful churches. In this instance, Jesus' words to the church in Ephesus (Rev 2:1-7) are helpful. Jesus commends the church for much of what they do, for their faithfulness toward the truth and does not suggest they no longer belong to the body. However, he gives them stark warning that, without love, they are in real danger. The Met Tab may lean toward Ephesian ecclesiology but we would do well to remember (a) the Ephesians remained within the body of Christ and; (b) whilst we should be able to highlight and reject error, there is a danger we can become overly critical and thus find ourselves closer to the Met Tab school of thought than we care to think.

The historical, religious and political ineptitude of the current government

How does one show their appreciation for an outgoing, influential world figure whilst simultaneously ingratiating oneself to those under their charge? Of course, it is through the giving of a special, and particularly thoughtful, gift. In this, David Cameron and Baroness Warsi have truly excelled themselves. For, the outgoing leader was Pope Benedict XVI and the special, most thoughtful, gift was a copy of the King James Bible. And, indeed, one is certain that the special thought - almost certainly lost on Mr Cameron - would have been noted by the Bishop of Rome.

One does not need a particularly brilliant grasp of history, politics or religion to know that the King James Bible was not exactly a triumph for British-Papal relations. Indeed, the Preface and Translators Introduction of 1611 is littered with less than complimentary language about the Catholic Church (see here for some choice excerpts).

Cranmer comments:

Accepting, of course, that neither the Prime Minister nor Baroness Warsi would have wished to so offend the Pope of Rome, one can only conclude that certain officials in the Foreign Office decided to convey this rather insensitive message. They do, after all, have some form in this.

However, whether this is a Foreign Office gaffe or a civil service botch is neither here nor there. The buck stops with the Prime Minister - he should have picked this up long before he gave it the green light. Wherever the plan may have originated, the the harsh reality is that the Prime Minister is historically, religiously and politically ignorant.

If Noah ran a business...

I came across the below in today's Times...

(Click the image to enlarge)