The following story appeared in The Observer:

The LessonToday (11 July 04)

Which has provoked the following reply:

OBS> McQuoid - If that is what Christian Socialism is, then I am all for it.'

REP> A good idea of what Christian Socialism is about can be found at; http://www.christiansocialist.org.uk/magsbookscomment/CSMvalues.html They are firmly against all forms of discrimination & exclusion, unlike McQuoid who seems to believe that he has some God given right to encourage these things. The CSM also states that, “we stand against religious extremism”. It is obvious that McQuoid & the CSM have very little in common outside a belief in a Christian God. Here’s an example of McQuoid at work, http://tinyurl.com/4m3el Is this what CS is all about?

OBS> Above the plaque is a verse from Timothy: 'The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.'

REP> The fear of the lord is the END of wisdom – As well as rationality, compassion, objectivity, reason etc. It is the flinching away from an oven door opening into an eternity of flesh burning hell. It represents the kind of teaching children had to endure in the past. Those days were gone but now thanks to the fundies & our so-called “New Labour” government they are back again to undermine the outlook of yet another generation of victims.

OBS> Sir Peter Vardy does not see himself as a 'tub-thumping Christian fundamentalist', so it annoys him that newspapers and elements of the educational establishment have sought to portray him in that way. In his own eyes he is just a common-sense businessman who wants to give something back to the community in which he has grown up. An old-fashioned philanthropist, if you like.

REP> Sir Peter Vardy has a well-established press routine that consists of these sorts of statements. When are one of these bloody journalists ever going to do anything but sit back & let him run through this “I’m just an okay regular guy” act that he is so good at. Are they afraid of him or something? Why can’t someone ask him why, in spite of the level of criticism levelled at his creationist stance he denies he is doing anything wrong & continues to teach creationism? If he is as reasonable as he would like to make out why does he not remove these unscientific teachings from the school? The answer is obvious & that is because he IS a bible-bashing fundamentalist as are the other people in his organisation.

OBS> Last year, the school, which draws its pupils from one of the most deprived areas of Gateshead, produced the fifth best GCSE scores in the country.

REP> There are many reasons why this school is achieving the results that it does (such as its popularity which tends to attract the more motivated, also its longer working week etc). Secondly, is that the fifth best of every school in the country or just those that are non-selective? Finally, the success or otherwise of the pupils at these schools is completely irrelevant. The issue of concern is the teaching of creationism and this should be stopped.

OBS> At around the same time, however, the school began to attract attention for other reasons. Vardy still cannot understand what the fuss is about.

'For some reason people seem to believe that Creation is for nutcases and Evolution is the only answer,' he says. 'Actually, it's a difference of opinion. You can't prove Evolution conclusively, and obviously I can't prove Creation. But I'm not forcing anyone to believe that. I mean, I've got 5,500 people out there working for me at the car dealership. If you go out and ask them if I spend all my time talking about Adam and Eve they will think you are round the twist.'

REP> No, creationism is for nutcases (& liars) & evolution is the only answer found to make any sense. To say it is a difference of opinion is to openly state ones ignorance. To say you cannot prove evolution is nonsense. And you ARE forcing your beliefs on other people’s children.

OBS (PV)> I'm not that interested, to be honest. But when I look at the mind of man and the intricacies of everything I see around me, I can't believe that started with a bit of slime. I just can't see it. What I am not doing is forcing my beliefs on children in our schools, but I don't expect the others to do it either.'

REP> here we go again; feigns disinterest, babbles on about slime etc, same old boring argument from incredulity, restates he is not forcing his beliefs on children, when he is taking over schools & doing exactly this….When is all this deception ever going to end?

OBS (PV)> 'If we are educating children I think it is our duty to tell them about both, absolutely. We tell them about Evolution and we tell them about Creation. It's up to the children to make their minds up.'

REP> Evolution is a modern scientific theory backed up with an absolutely massive amount of supporting evidence, creationism is a silly little story that has been proved incontrovertibly to be a false description of reality. Unfortunately when school children are presented with these two conflicting views of reality & told by someone in authority that they both have equal merit then the end result is going to be (as the creationists planned it to be) that a significant percentage are going to end up believing the silly little story. It is far easier to absorb this version of events rather than the much more intellectually demanding theory of evolution. Furthermore, as these are mutually exclusives descriptions of reality, another likely outcome is that the children will end up very confused by it all. Why are children being confused & misled like this? Because Sir Peter Vardy just happens to be a millionaire, whose old pal just happens to be the Prime Minister. And that’s how people behave in this country in the year 2004.

OBS> But what about the 200 years of evidence that proves Evolution as fact?

OBS (PV)> 'I think that is brainwashing.'

REP> And that ladies & gentlemen is his REAL opinion on evolution, need I say more?

OBS> The chief enforcer of these standards is headmaster Nigel McQuoid. 'My philosophy here,' he tells me over lunch, 'is that we try to think like parents. If you forget about politicians but think what parents want from a school, and give it to them, then you have a fantastic starting point. And what they want, we believe, is a school where discipline is similar to what they would hope for at home. And obviously things like manners and decency and respect for your elders.'

REP> Of course you cannot teach these sort of things in a secular school. (Sarcasm)

OBS> The way to raise standards, McQuoid believes, is to base the school philosophy on absolutes. In a series of papers written for Burn's Christian Institute, McQuoid and his mentor have set out a vision for education. In one of these they wrote that: 'To teach children that they are nothing more than developed mutations who evolved from something akin to a monkey and that death is the end of everything is hardly going to engender within them a sense of purpose, self-worth and self-respect.

REP> Note how he deliberately mixes the meanings of the word mutation from the one used in evolution to the other where it would suggest something disfigured or hideous. This distorted image of evolution is what he wants to plant in people’s minds. Then he demeans our ancestors whose struggle for existence allows us to be here now. How ungrateful can you get? Plenty of Christians believe in an afterlife & as well as evolution & it is wrong of him to try to twist the facts to suggest otherwise. In addition, I know plenty of atheists & all of them have a sense of purpose, self-worth & self-respect.

OBS> ' When I raise the controversy of such faith, McQuoid dismisses some of it as media invention - 'the fundamentalist raven that hovers over the whole thing' - and argues against the 'vested interests' that seek to undermine the work of the school. 'There are some people who would take religion out of education entirely,' he says. 'In fact, they do want a faith, but they want it to be their humanist faith, that God does not exist and he is non-scientific.'

REP> I see, so there really is no controversy over the teaching of creationism in schools, no top scientists criticising it, people setting up websites opposing it, no parents marching down the street with bloody great banners above their heads, it was all an invention of the media! I think Mr McQuoid is telling porkies! His argument about the secularisation of the educational system is irrelevant (straw man) & hysterical.

It is a dirty, rotten lie to suggest that anyone criticising their teachings is undermining the workings of the school. It is what I call the “don’t wake the baby argument” which goes like this. “I am leaving you & moving in with my new lover, I am taking the car, all the money, all the furniture, the kids & giving you the debts. And don’t start arguing about it or you will wake the baby”. He & his little gang of imbeciles are the ones who started this controversy, and if it is disrupting the school then THEY are responsible for that fact. Then he starts talking nonsense again.

OBS> McQuoid and Burn have railed against this 'scientism', which they believe leaves children rudderless. Presumably his ideal for the school is that the children adopt his belief system?

REP> How can believing in science in a society based on science leave a child rudderless, what is this nonsense?

--- McQuiod continues --

OBS> McQuoid and Burn argue that: 'If ['relativist'] philosophy is acceptable, then sado-masochism, bestiality and self-abuse are to be considered as wholesome activities. It is very important that young people begin to realise that activities which are "private and personal" often degrade oneself and are not necessarily good and acceptable.' In among these unacceptable practices, apparently, is homosexuality. 'I have to be very careful when I speak about morality,' McQuoid says. 'I have to say where I am getting it from. I think the Bible says clearly that homosexual activity is against God's design. I would indicate that to young folk.'

REP> Relativism simply means you judge different situations on their merits rather than using a badly written history/story book that is 2000 years out of date as a legal reference. The bible simply does not have a lot to say about modern practices, as they had no knowledge of them. That does not mean that, “anything goes” as they like to blabber on about, many things that will always be wrong, which is just common sense. It is a logical error to state that belief systems not dependent on error prone interpretations of error ridden old books will result (amongst other things) in “bestiality”.

Regardless of what McQuoid seems to think, discrimination based on sexual orientation is frowned upon in this country. This incidentally is the position of the government & politicians we elected to represent us. Nobody voted for McQuoid, for all his pretensions to importance, he is no more than a headmaster in an ordinary school. Nobody gives a dam about what he thinks; he should stick to managing the day-to-day running of the school & stop trying to impose his personal & inflammatory views on impressionable schoolchildren.

We are lucky that the bible doesn’t promote boiling babies, because if it did McQuoid would be one of the first to be telling us what a good idea it is. After all, the bible says it is okay! What is more he would clearly indicate this to young folk. In other words, to him it does not matter that the government & society thinks. It is wrong for McQuoid to go around encouraging discrimination against homosexuals. As far as he is concerned the bible seems to be the defining authority here & the government & every one else it seems, can just get stuffed.

OBS> One of the great things about Biblical absolutes, he maintains, is that once you have reference points you can discuss anything. 'In another sixth-form lesson, I remember starting out talking about homosexual activity and questioning the idea that whatever someone wants to do in their room with a consenting adult is their business,' McQuoid says. 'Then someone said, "If you take that point of view then bestiality is fine, too." Then someone argued that the dog or whatever could not show its consent. And so it went on.' What it showed to him is that the school had a group of children who were prepared to question anything, and think for themselves. 'And that culture allows a kid to walk out of here saying, "I am gay" or "I am an atheist", and to defend that position, because of this and this and this.'

REP> This is an example of how McQuoid brainwashes children. The sixth former speaking here has clearly articulated the same logical error made by McQuoid in the previous (OBS) paragraph. The idea that homosexual activity between consenting adults somehow legitimizes bestiality is truly bizarre. It is disgraceful that the teaching of such nonsense is being allowed anywhere

OBS> McQuoid would go along with the spirit of this. 'I'm not a scientist, but I don't believe science has proved anything about Creation,' he says. 'Whichever way you go back there comes a moment where you have to leap. I believe that God made the world. And He made the first man and the first woman complete.'

REP> He can believe any rubbish he wishes, but he should not be allowed to impose these views on other people’s children.

OBS> Back at Emmanuel in Gateshead, the new head has arranged some sixth-formers for me to talk to while we wait to take Sir Peter Vardy's photograph. I am not quite sure what I imagine they are going to say, but it seems unlikely that they would respond as a couple of Emmanuel children reportedly did to a BBC interviewer when once asked some basic questions: 'God created the world and everything in it,' one said. 'It is about 6,000 years old.'

REP> The fact that the school seem to have chosen who they will allow to be interviewed makes this whole exercise simply worthless.

OBS> The half-dozen eloquent and bright 17-year-olds who talk to me hold no such beliefs. Not only that, but they are almost unique among teenagers in that they can not think of one thing they would change about the school to improve it. If they were head for a day there is not a single rule they would relax. Perhaps they think that the cameras are on us.

When I ask about clashes between science and religion they roll their eyes a little. 'People always ask that. But it's not like you have to take everything on board that they say in assembly. And no, we don't have to carry our Bibles with us at all times.'

REP> The pupil may not think they are taking on board religious messages in assembly, but remember it is something they will have to listen to, day after day, year after year. They may not even be aware that it is affecting them but it will be. Also, although some may remain unaffected, plenty of others will be. Not even the Vardy Foundation would expect a 100% conversion rate. It seems obvious from the reply of the pupil above, that although they may not be forced to carry a bible around with them all the time, they are still required to possess one.

OBS> Two weeks after Tony Blair went to Middlesbrough, the local MP, Dr Ashok Kumar, applauded the Prime Minister's visit at parliamentary Question Time. Blair responded by saying, 'There is nothing more inspiring, particularly when one knew the old school that the King's Academy replaced, than to see the brand new buildings, the total commitment of the teachers and staff, and the pupils there eager to learn. It is one of the best examples of modern social justice that I can think of.'

REP> There is nothing quite like blowing your own trumpet is there! Firstly, one of the buildings knocked down was only 25 years old; many children are still being taught in 100-year-old Victorian buildings who have a far greater need for a new school. Where is the justice in this? All schools should be have committed teachers & staff, not just the Vardy Foundation’s. Finally, it is totally WRONG to teach creationism to schoolchildren & doing so cannot be justified under any circumstances.

Alan.