Once again, I challenge Oliver Kamm, if he has such an aversion to "Biblical creationism" within his understanding of the term, to explain why he has been such a devoted supporter of the "Biblical creationist" George Bush, and why he remains a positively fanatical supporter of the "Biblical creationist" Tony Blair.
I further challenge David Miliband, extolled by A C Grayling as the great secularist Prime Minister in waiting. Why did you advocate and support the handing over of large numbers of state school pupils (though nowhere near as many as was hoped and intended) to the Emmanuel Schools Foundation? Why does Grayling hold out such high hopes for such a person?
And for that matter, why did Grayling's other atheist hero in the Cabinet, Alan Johnson (another Blairite ultra such as would be and is favoured by Kamm), launch a ferocious assault on Catholic schools while he was Education Secretary, even if he was successfully seen off? Why are Catholic state schools at public expense bad, but creationist private schools at public expense good, or at least acceptable? Why does Grayling support such people? Why does Miliband? Why does Kamm?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's because I look down on people like you, David.
ReplyDeleteSorry I couldn't reply sooner - I got here as soon as my officials made me aware you'd written this post.
You will have noticed that it's mutual, Milly.
ReplyDeleteTo those of us who wish New Labour ill, it is almost a pity that, thanks to that Guardian article, you will never now be Prime Minister.
Almost.
I'll thank you not to call me Milly, if you please.
ReplyDeleteOh, I think you'd thank me TO call you Milly in the flesh, so to speak. But you should be so lucky. You are not going out with that Ruth Kelly now, and nor is George Osborne.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, if we could please make our way back onto the topic.
No one ever withdrew girlfriend privileges from him in order to follow the way of creationism. But someone did once withdraw them in order to follow The Way, by St Josemaria Escriva. So creationism good, Catholicism bad.
ReplyDeleteIt accounts for a lot about Osborne as well. The abortion on demand thing and the anti-fatherhood thing.
David, isn't that last comment off-topic? Be consistent.
ReplyDeleteIt was a borderline case.
ReplyDeleteBut Leo Abse will never die on here, I see.
Have we touched on the specifics of your own Catholicism?
ReplyDeleteMind your own business.
ReplyDeleteTragically, our real Foreign Secretary would be unable to write even anything as bad as the comments appearing here under his name.
ReplyDeleteYou strike me as more of a Communion and Liberation man. Contrary to popular myth, Opus Dei would be nowhere near political enough for you.
ReplyDeleteHang on! I though President Bush was an evil neocon warmonger and considered Christianity to be a "noble myth", which he only prtended to believe in in order to persuade "blue collar" evangelicals and Catholics to vote against their own economic interests.
ReplyDeleteTony Blair is as much a Bible-believing creationist as he is a Roman Catholic.
Oh, I think that Bush and Blair are sincere in each moment that they do anything religious, but only for that moment. The Don Juan school of these things.
ReplyDeleteBut neither of them has ever really been in charge of anything, of course. They were merely the unwitting, because witless, frontmen.