I'm sure my relative quietness on education and schools recently has been a blessed relief - although for those around me it's probably been replaced by excess chatter about Groupon deals. Anyway, for one night only I'm afraid you'll have to endure yet more, because today was Retro Comprehensive Evangelism Day!

Having taken the morning off work, Hannah (in the @HforHannah sense) were welcomed into Latymer Upper School - as ambassadors from state school world - to talk with, and be questioned by, a group of Year 10 students. (In this we were merely following in the footsteps of other QPCSers who have done the same thing in previous years, like Marion and Miles.)

I wasn't going to blog about the students too much, but suffice to say they were all engaged and open to discussing the whole state/private divide. Which is actually pretty brave of them, given that my aim is always to plant the idea that it doesn't have to stay that way. You don't have to send your own children to the same kind of institutions you were sent to - it didn't happen to me, for a start. But it can't be a 'sacrifice'. We have to prove that comprehensives really can do education better, and that starts by standing up and putting a human face on a system which will never compete in power and prestige. So, yes, it was really good to speak to them - and kudos to Latymer for allowing the whole exercise in the first place.

There was a slight weird coda to the day, too. Through an unexpected work connection I ended up seeing Andy Burnham speak in Tower Hamlets tonight, and after asking my obligatory question about schools he gave a long answer which effectively summed up School Wars! Nice to know these things are all a little bit circular

Blurry photos from the pub will recommence next post. Which may or may not be written entirely on the Tube home...

So, yesterday a bunch of us went to protest against the Pope's state visit to the UK. You may have heard about it. Suffice to say, there was a wonderful and good-natured atmosphere - and on a totally unpolitical note, it was actually just really nice to be able to stroll through central London without being surrounded by the usual traffic. But before we get to the photos, I want to say a few words about what I felt the protest was all about, especially for those of you who don't count yourself as one of us 'friendly atheists' (as my sign proclaimed).

I am serious about what I believe - and don't believe - and certainly don't subscribe to the view that religious topics should banned from polite conversation for fear of causing offence. In fact, I find it rather insulting to the human spirit to think that atheists and believers are incapable of having friendly debates about God without it becoming personal and nasty. Some of my best friends are committed vegetarians, communists or Tories: surprisingly enough, it is precisely because I consider them all intelligent and interesting people that I enjoy discussing such differences of opinion. Religion should be no different. The 'each to their own' attitude is ultimately facile, because we all have to get our ideas from somewhere - if you're not allowed to argue your case with others you meet over your life, we will all grow up shielded from anything that might conflict with the views of our parents or immediate communities, and never have the opportunity to explore the big wide world of ideas.

But these are intellectual debates: the stuff of blog posts, books and drunken chats in the pub. It's not that a big march designed solely to argue that God didn't exist would be wrong as such - and might indeed be necessary in cultures where atheism has no public recognition or acceptance. But that's hardly the case in Britain, and there's an obvious limit to how far chants and slogans can effectively convey a set of arguments about metaphysics. So Protest The Pope was not an 'anti-faith' rally, even if some of those participating would have felt that way. Protest The Pope was just that: taking a stand against a tax-payer funded 'state' visit of an influential man with vile views, an obnoxious agenda and - most importantly - a huge legal case to answer for his own role in covering up the systematic sexual abuse of children within his organisation.

Let's take them each in turn. On an astonishing range of issues, Joseph Ratzinger has set himself against many of his own followers in his intolerance and dangerous irresponsibility. He refuses women access to the priesthood. He believes that gays and lesbians have an inclination towards evil by dint of their very orientation, even if they never have sex. He chose to welcome back an unrepentant Holocaust denier into the Catholic church. He opposes stem cell research. He is against contraception in all circumstances - even to prevent the spread of HIV or to limit the size of exceedingly poor families in developing countries. Indeed, he even believes that condoms are ineffective and make the problem of HIV worse: a position so utterly devoid of either evidence or empathy that I find it breathtaking that he can actually hold it.

The argument that these views are - in practice - not widely shared or followed by Catholics in this country is irrelevant. In other places, much poorer places, they are taken very seriously indeed. And even if they weren't - what other leader with such repellent ideas would our state, in our name, welcome with such fawning adulation? We are told that the Pope is different - special - because his stance is 'theological' rather than political, as if he would secretly really like to embrace feminism, gay equality and contraception but is prevented from doing so by the eternal edicts of God. What I am never clear on is why I should care. Seriously... what interest is it of mine why you've come to believe something I consider appalling and immoral? If you hold those views, I will oppose you, full stop, end of. Clearly, thousands of people at Protest The Pope felt exactly the same.

Secondly, there's the matter of his agenda in the UK. His argument - trotted out again and again - amounts to a withering condemnation of secularism. Secularism, need I remind you, is not atheism, but merely the separation of religion from the official life of the nation state. All religious views and forms of worship should be permitted, so long as they do not conflict with the law (and that's one, equal law for all citizens), but the state should remain uninvolved. Atheism I will argue for, but secularism I will go out into the streets to march for, because it is one of the single most important achievements of human history. We may not have it perfectly in Britain, but in effect - most of the time - we do have it, and I firmly believe that the vast majority of religious people support its basic tenets as strongly as unbelievers.

They have very good reason to. The Pope asserts that an 'aggressive secularism' leads to moral decay and, astonishingly, even likens it to Nazi Germany. Only religion can provide the state with a moral backbone, he says. His detachment from reality is stark. My family on my mother's side is Jewish - my grandfather left Germany for Britain as a boy. If he had stayed, he would have been killed. He would not have been murdered by secularists. He would not have been murdered by people who believed passionately in the separation of church and state. He would have been murdered by those in power who were about as far from indifferent to religion as it is possible to get - by people who ended up directing the entire state apparatus towards the attempted extermination of one particular religious group in the name of another.

But secularism isn't just a response to the atrocities of the past. Can anyone seriously look around the world today and claim they'd be happier living in a theocratic state over a secular democracy? Would the moralising power of religion really prove comforting as you awaited death by stoning in Iran? Do you think you'd be able to preach from your Bible for very long in Saudi Arabia? Even where the power of religious institutions is only partial, it can be devastating. Go have an abortion in Brazil. Even in the constitutionally secular United States, the explosive controversy over the Islamic centre in New York was a terrifying reminder that any deviation from secularism usually hurts religious people the most. (If would be nice if people such as Alexander Tefft, who rails against secular society on an almost-weekly basis, considered for a moment that the fight - and it really was a fight - to free the state from religion is the only reason that he is allowed to preach Orthodox Christianity in the UK in peace. A little gratitude, even, wouldn't go amiss - but then again, secularism protects the ignorant as much as anybody else.)

So when the Pope takes advantage of his (secular) rights to free speech to insult and belittle the very foundations of the society I want to live in, I absolutely will protest. But the spark which really ignited Protest The Pope is the sick joke that, whilst he comes over at our expense to declare us to be immoral, his organisation continues to take advantage of its theocratic status at the Vatican to protect child abusers by not handing over its full archives to civil authorities. He may express his sorrow, but that does not exonerate the Pope of his personal role in the cover-up of the affair, a story which is rather too long for this already over-long post but which, if you're interested, is fully explored elsewhere. It's grim reading.

This is the case against the Pope. It's not an atheist case per se, although it is an assertion that atheists refuse to be marginalised in society as 'aggressive' or 'immoral', and will not shut up just because we are told to. It's certainly not 'anti-Catholic': indeed, one of the most significant speeches came from a Catholic priest from New York, who came out as gay after witnessing the death and loneliness inflicted on his flock by the Vatican's attitudes to homosexuality and contraception. But it is secular, and proudly so. I hope that as many people as possible feel able to get behind it, and reject Ratzinger's pious condemnation of a society which - for all its faults - is a thousand times richer than his dark vision of a return to religious supremacy.

From: Dominic Self
To: macer.hall@express.co.uk
Sent: Tue 13/07/2010 16:55
Subject: Request for comment

Dear Mr. Hall,

I am writing in advance of publishing a short comment piece on my blog about your front-page article in today's Daily Express, headlined 'ONE IN 5 BRITONS WILL BE ETHNICS'.

In particular, I was wondering if you could let me know what you envisage the remaining 80% of British society as being composed of? I had always assumed that human beings were universal possessors of ethnicity, but clearly I am mistaken in this regard. Could you identify the key characteristics of 'an ethnic', please?

On a personal note, I trust you will understand that any critical tone which I may take in my coverage of you will be purely in the interests of sensation and the courting of controversy. So if, for example, I were to describe you personally as 'nasty', or 'revolting', or 'cowardly', or 'squalid' – or, indeed, all of these things and more – rest assured that this would all be in the public interest and should be taken in a warm spirit of open dialogue and discussion.

Wishing you a pleasant evening,

Sincerely yours,

Dominic Self

Sadly, no response from the nasty, revolting, cowardly and squalid man at the nasty, revolting, cowardly and squalid newspaper has yet been received. Shame.

Well, as of this evening we now have a Conservative Prime Minister. And yet, I'm feeling rather content - even optimistic. Here's why.

Since the Second World War, we have only ever had Conservative and Labour governments. In fact, until New Labour we usually had prolonged periods of Conservative rule interspersed with brief patches of Labour, but that's just another reason why I am quite happy to have sat out on most of the twentieth century by virtue of not being born. It's been a two-party system, with the pendulum swinging from one to another, and sooner or later every government must get so tired, weary and bloodied from office that it falls to the opposition. That's just the way it is.

So imagine, back from the vantage point of the twentieth century, of being told that in the future there would be a thirteen year spell of a Labour government. That's over a decade in which - for all of its shortcomings, which no doubt someone will now see fit to bring up - we got the minimum wage, record investment and delivery in schools and hospitals, a huge advance in gay rights, proper government restored to London, a big expansion in university provision and - thanks to an independent Bank of England - no ruinous inflationary economic cycles of boom and bust. (Ah - before you object - the credit crisis and subsequent recession was a quite different beast, no doubt leaving its own lessons to learn but not the same thing.) Imagine being told all this, and then being asked what you thought would follow. Well, another turn for the Conservatives, naturally. The pendulum swings back.

Except it hasn't - not this time. I'm sure that most of the people reading this will share with me an intrinsic gut reaction against the sight of a Tory stride into Downing Street, even if deep down we recognise that the British Conservative party really is nowhere near as bad as some of its international equivalents. But, this time, he's not walking in to lead a Conservative government but a coalition. Thanks to the Lib Dems, progressive politics now keeps a foot in the door.

The Lib Dems might now be able to act as a crucial brake on Conservative instincts. Thanks to them, we might yet avoid ludicrous fiddles to inheritance tax thresholds or marriage allowances. Income tax for the poorest might even be cut. Lib Dems will be in the Cabinet. Lib Dems might win us changes to the voting system to escape the deficiencies of first-past-the-post which brought us the two-party pendulum effect in the first place. Lib Dems in the government might just be a crucial signal to the rest of Europe that Britain is still engaged with the rest of the continent.

I say 'might', because they might not be able to achieve any of these things. Fair enough. But at least now we've got a chance - at least we haven't gone back to a purely Conservative government by default.

And if the Lib Dems fail? Well, I happen to know of another party. It's now in opposition, but with 258 seats in the Commons and millions of voters still loyal to it. It's untainted by anything the government does from now on, but will soon have fresh leadership and a chance for renewal and new ideas. It's the Labour party, and one day it will earn the support of the people to govern again.

The ups...:








...and the downs:




Well. I guess the real losers here are those 'not interested in politics' who finally thought they might get their TV / radio / newspapers back from all of that glorious political coverage. Haha! It's going to go on for ages yet Immediate reactions are that a) wow, Glenda Jackson held on in my neighbouring constituency by 42 votes, which is truly a remarkable tribute to those canvassing for her! b) I'm pleased for Caroline Lucas down in Brighton c) I'm very much not pleased with whoever ousted Evan Harris, the Lib Dem's remarkable sane Science spokesperson and d) as I actually said to a BNP supporter the other day, they weren't going to get anywhere in parliamentary elections and they didn't.

Can't get too carried away, though... I have 20% of my degree sitting in my bag at the moment and mustn't forget to hand it in