Has the time come to ban all religious worship and related activities from UK Schools?


The 1944 Education Act put into place a state primary and secondary school system with an Act of Parliament introduced by a Conservative Minister, RA Butler, but implemented by the subsequent Labour Government under Clement Attlee. It was an immense leap forward. Nevertheless, as Anthony J Sargeant points out, the system introduced was ‘of its time’ with unfortunate and unforeseen consequences following subsequent developments in UK society and its school system.

RA Butler

 R.A. Butler 1902-1982 (Conservative Minister of Education 1941-1945).The Times obituary called him “the creator of the modern educational system, the key-figure in the revival of post-war Conservatism, arguably the most successful chancellor since the war and unquestionably a Home Secretary of reforming zeal.”


The Attlee government faced immense austerity in the immediate years after World War Two. It is often forgotten that rationing of some basics such as meat continued well into the 1950s. Coal was in short supply, there were frequent power cuts, and the war effort had virtually bankrupted the country. Despite the difficulties Attlee’s government did create the NHS, and it did implement the re-organization of primary and secondary state funded education. But in relation to the latter what it could not afford to do was to take control of all education. This meant that Private schools for the rich (misleadingly called “Public” Schools) continued to exist alongside the State system (usually, and still today under the guise of “charitable” foundations with all the consequent tax benefits).

Even within the State funded system itself the Government could not afford to take over the many primary and secondary schools which belonged to the Churches, many of which had been established in the 19th Century when State provision was at best rudimentary. The majority of these schools were Church of England foundations with a somewhat smaller number of Roman Catholic Schools (though there were a few others, such as The Jewish Free Schools).

At the time it was recognised that such fragmentation of the school system was less than ideal. Nowhere was this more obvious than in Northern Ireland with tragic consequences and where the division of that Society between Protestant and Roman Catholic is still perpetuated within the School system.

Starting in the 1990s there has been an increasing fragmentation of the school system outside of Local Education Authority Control with so-called ‘Free’ Schools and sponsored ‘Academies’ as well as the twilight area of ‘home education’.

The 1944 Education Act created an unfortunate precedent in allowing Church Schools to be funded within the State system. But in the 1940s those schools were predominantly from two Christian denominations in a country and society based on Western Christian culture. As pointed out this was not a major problem except in Northern Ireland, where it remains divisive (and perhaps some mainland cities such as Liverpool and Glasgow. In relation to the latter think of the tribal divide between Celtic and Rangers supporters on a Saturday night in the 1960s).

Now, however, there are a multitude of religious groups in the UK, some more bizarre, antipathetic and repugnant to the host society than others: for example, those promoting Female Genital Mutilation of young girls.  Unfortunately, given the 1944 precedent, it now seems impossible in the fragmented school system  to refuse permission to any religious group, to set up schools promoting their beliefs. Christian Academies in the North East teaching  ‘Creationism’ in place of evolutionary theory is one example, another is, Islamic Schools promoting Sharia Courts as an alternative to UK law.

Allowing Church Schools to continue within the State system after 1944 has proven to be an unforeseen Trojan Horse contributing to a ghetto-isation of children on the basis of their parents religious or cultural beliefs.

The consequence is further fracturing of the core values and moral code of UK society.  It may now be too late to undo the damage. The genie is out of the bottle. Nevertheless if one wants a society that holds together into the years ahead it desperately needs to avoid the creation of cultural and religious ghettos.

Something could be done to repair the damage created by the Trojan Horse as suggested below but it would require immense courage (or foolhardiness) for any politician to propose the following :

(1) Only authorise new state funded schools which do not include any religious worship or teaching in their activities.

(2) In relation to existing private fee-paying schools: Charitable status should be removed from all privately funded schools.

(3) Perhaps most importantly State funding should be progressively reduced from any school over a period of 5 years unless there is concomitant plan to remove religious content from the school’s activities such that no such content exists after that 5 year period. 


Anthony J Sargeant – 20th March 2018



Male Genital Mutilation and Christmas – there is a connection.


nativity guirlandaio-adoration-spedale

Christmas, a festival which celebrates the Birth of Jesus, crucially involves a ‘Virgin’, but also some Shepherds, Wise Men, and Angels. It is the subject of many paintings in Western Art, of sublime music and poetry – as well as the basis for countless Nativity plays performed, more or less endearingly, by small schoolchildren down the ages.

So the Nativity must surely be a very important story. But is it a true story’ ? or, is it a story of truth’ as understood by its Jewish writers near the end of the 1st Century AD’ ?

In fact only two books in the whole of the Christian Bible, Luke and Matthew which were written circa 85-90 AD, give an account of the birth of the itinerant Jewish preacher, Jesus of Nazareth, who after his death became the focus for the Jewish Sect sometimes called the Nazarenes.

The earliest books of the New Testament, the letters of Paul, have no stories of the Nativity, nor do any of the later books.

[Paul’s 1st Letter to the Thessalonians is the earliest of the New Testament books written circa 50 AD, that is about 56 years after the birth of Jesus, and, no, ’56 years’ is not a mistype – Dionysius Exiguus the 6th Century Monk charged by the Pope with creating the Anno Domini dating system was 5 or 6 years out in his calculation, so it is now probably 2023 AD]

The earliest of the Gospels, Mark, which was probably written in Rome around 65 AD has no account of the birth of Jesus and similarly there is none in the last of the Gospels, John, written around 100 AD or later (excepting the abstract imagery of “The Word Made Flesh”).

The conclusion must be that the Nativity story was either unknown, and/or considered to be of no importance to the writers of all the earlier and later works in The New Testament. So why were accounts of the events surrounding the Birth of Jesus included in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke written in the period 85-90 AD, and what is the connection with male genital mutilation? The answer lies in the date when these Gospels were composed by their unknown authors. Like breakaway sects of all faiths throughout history the Jewish-Nazarene sect, which included some pagan converts to this form of Judaism, found themselves in increasing conflict with the Orthodox Establishment. Finally towards the end of the 1st Century AD when the Gospels were written the conflict had reached crisis point.

The conflict included issues related to the observance of Orthodox Jewish customs, dietary and other laws, including a dispute over the necessity for ritual circumcision, that is, male genital mutilation, especially in the case of converts to Judaism. It is against this background that the writers of the two Gospels seek to establish the truth of their claim that Jesus of Nazareth was the long awaited Jewish Messiah, was Divine, was the Son of God. If they could so do it might mitigate against their other challenges to strict observance of the customs and laws of Orthodox Judaism.

[Writing in the 18th Century Edward Gibbon refers to male circumcision as a singular mutilation practised by Jews and Turks”. Although there were later spurious claims for the medical benefits of the procedure starting in the 19th and persisting into the 20th Century, before that time it was otherwise unknown among Christians in Western Europe. Similar spurious medical claims were made for female genital mutilation (FGM) in the 19th Century but these claims were also discredited and the practice was soon abandoned in Europe although it persisted in the USA into the 20th Century. It must also be noted that while male circumcision is a ‘mutilation’ it cannot begin to compare with the horrors of FGM which is still widespread in many countries around the world and within communities originating from those countries]

But to return to the 1st Century: What could establish the Divinity of Jesus and thereby justify and validate the challenges that the Jewish-Nazarene sect posed to Orthodox Judaism? In ancient mythology, and specifically in the context of the Greco-Roman world in which the authors of Matthew and Luke were writing, a Virgin Birth would certainly be high on the list of criteria. And so it makes perfect sense to include stories of a Virgin birth for Jesus, and at the same time to back-reference the stories to earlier Jewish Scriptures to add verisimilitude and securely embed the Jesus cult within Judaism.

Most famously Matthew’s Gospel quotes a verse from the Book of Isaiah (ch 7 vs 14) and renders it as, “…. a virgin shall be with child ……and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us”. In fact in the original Hebrew the words used in the Book of Isaiah simply mean “the young woman” but in a later Greek translation of Isaiah the word is rendered as parthenos, that is, virgin and it is this misleading translation that the writer uses (Matthew Chapter 1 vs 23). Moreover the Book of Isaiah was probably written around 730 BC and relates to the political and religious turmoil of that time and the need to encourage King Ahaz of Judah then threatened with invasion. The young woman” is most sensibly thought of as one of the wives of the King, thus the promised child will guarantee the dynasty’s future, and he can be called “Emmanuel” that is, “God is with us(and not with our enemies!).

Equally, the writer of Luke in his Nativity story has to create some historically inaccurate and impossible constructions about taxes and decrees from Caesar Augustus’ to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus. Notwithstanding the problems the writer thereby back-references and embeds his story in the Jewish scriptures of Micah 5 vs 2 with respect to ‘Bethlehem’ as a future birthplace of one who is to rule Israel’.

[It should be remembered that the unknown writers of the Gospels of Luke and Matthew were not writing for posterity. They were writing religious-political manifestos aimed at the Jewish community of their time. The Jewish-Nazarene belief of the authors was that Jesus was the promised Messiah, was the son of God, was Divine, was immortal, and thus resurrected. It is against this background that the ‘Manifesto’ of Luke makes that bold back-reference to Micah, the text of which identifies one who is to rule Israel’ as being ‘born in Bethlehem’. The writer of Luke wants to convince Jews that Jesus is the Messiah, that he is already, or very soon will be, ruling over “Israel” in his Divine, and therefore immortal, presence and that Orthodox Jews of the 1st Century must accept this truth. Whether viewed in a religious or political sense this assertion, this ‘manifesto promise’, like many others before and since, proves to be spectacularly wrong.]

Although they differ markedly in many respects the Nativity stories in the two Gospels have become amalgamated in the popular imagination: Thus the wise men’ in Matthew are put together with the shepherds’ of Luke in renaissance art. The scene is further developed with ‘non-biblical extras’ for dramatic effect – donkeys, camels, cattle in stables, and three ‘Kings’ of different ethnic origins (instead of an unspecified number of ‘wise men’).

But notwithstanding all this later conflation and accretion, both Gospel writers are simply using an ancient literary convention of storytelling, not to recount actual events and historical details, about which they knew absolutely nothing, but to tell the Jewish community of their time ‘what the truth must be’.

In the end the Nazarene cult with its pagan converts was unsuccessful in its struggle to remain within Judaism. It was eventually banned from synagogue services because of the challenges it posed to Orthodox Jewish beliefs and practices including, although it was just one element, the issue relating to ritual circumcision.

And so it was that in the land of its origin the Jewish-Nazarene Sect failed to gain a significant foothold. But it did go on to attract converts among pagans in the wider Roman World, eventually developing a faith system which, while having the same Abrahamic roots as Judaism, diverged to flourish as Christianity.  As Edward Gibbon remarks in ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’: Christianity offered itself to the world, armed with the strength of the Mosaic Law, but delivered from the weight of its fetters”. As a consequence it became a major world religion which no longer required ritual male genital mutilation, and also allowed its adherents to eat bacon sandwiches.

The Nativity stories of Matthew and Luke, written around 85-90 AD in an attempt to keep the Nazarenes within Judaism failed in their original purpose. Nevertheless they formed the basis for, and slowly developed into the Christmas celebration that we know today. Overlooking the deplorable excesses of that development in the 21st Century, the Nativity narratives have also been the source of great art, music and literature through the ages – something to celebrate and for which to be grateful.



Following the Manchester bombing the protestations from decent British Muslims that this is nothing to do with Islam just will not do


We keep seeing decent law abiding British Muslims speaking on television news after the murder of 22 young people in Manchester claiming that “Islam is a religion of peace”. For them it may be so – they are decent good people. But it just will not do.

The reality is quite different for millions of Muslims in many countries around the world. That is why murderous atrocities, of which Manchester is but one example, have been committed by Muslims who believe they are carrying out the will of God, and that they will be rewarded in heaven.

There are many places in world where Muslims approve, encourage or condone the murder of apostates, and blasphemers. In many Muslim majority countries this is written into the law. For millions of Muslims the punishment for adultery is for women to be buried up to their necks and stoned to death. Homosexuals are killed. Women are subjugated – misogyny is hardly adequate to describe the place of women in many Muslim societies: In which societies, for example, an almost impossible burden of proof falls on the woman in cases of rape and failure to prove her case means she is guilty of adultery and the consequence is death. Beheadings, amputation of limbs, and floggings are considered just punishments. Fatwas – death warrants – are issued by Islamic leaders against public figures in distant lands. Forced Marriages of young girls and so-called honour killings take place, not just in Muslim majority countries but here in the self-isolating Muslim communities in Europe. And so the distressing litany could go on.

The point is that for many millions of Muslims this is part and parcel of their religion. They would not recognise or accept the view of those decent Muslims interviewed on British Television News following the mass murder of children in Manchester. Those interviewees with their statements that “Islam is a religion of peace” are understandably attempting to counteract any backlash against the British Muslim community most of whom are good and decent people.

But it simply will not do.

The Twin Towers, the London Bus and Tube attacks, Paris, Nice, Germany, US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, Suicide bombers around the world – the litany goes on and on. Murderous atrocities committed against civilian populations by Muslims believing that Allah is great and that they will be rewarded in heaven.

Of course they are deluded, not least in a belief in a mythological God and a life hereafter but that does not help the victims of their religiously inspired murders. Murders committed in the name of Islam. To keep trotting out the line that “Islam is a religion of peace” simply will not do. For every peace-loving law abiding Muslim there are many others around the world, but also in our midst, who take a completely different view, despising and seeking to kill Kafirs (non-Muslims). Moreover, those that have come to the West, ostensibly as refugees and asylum seekers, are capable of infecting other Muslims born here with their religious justification of murder. Most especially this becomes the case where isolated and self-isolating communities are created within the host society. Communities that seek to impose Sharia law and create Sharia Courts independent of the host country’s judicial system. Where the Iman is considered the supreme authority, interpreter and moral arbiter by the Islamic men attending the mosque: Supreme above the established values and moral code of the host society. Where schooling in urban areas becomes segregated on religious grounds with what are essentially Islamic academies operating and funded within the State System.

Enoch Powell warned of the dangers of creating isolated and self-isolating communities within the host society in 1968. He was derided, ignored, and pronounced anathema by the liberal political system: But in essence his analysis and predictions have sadly proven to be accurate.

I do not know what the solution is for my good Muslim friends living in the UK nor for British Society as a whole. It may already be too late. But there will be no possibility of any solution if the denial continues and the issues are not addressed.

To keep repeating the mantra “Islam is a religion of peace” simply will not do.

Anthony J Sargeant reflects on the Eve and Adam Myth


A Meditation on Eve and Adam

by Tony Sargeant

Eve is seen as the cause of the fall – the one who succumbed to temptation.

The one who was prepared to taste of the fruit of the tree of knowledge – of good and evil – despite being warned not to – because the consequences would be dangerous and unpredictable – and yet and yet she has the courage so to do.

She has the courage –

And her courage – her curiosity – releases humankind from the womb of dependency.

Releases humankind from ‘The Garden of Eden’ and sets them free

free to choose

free to get things wrong

and free to get things right.

Free to do good

And free to do evil.

And all these things will happen because of Eve’s courage.

And the man, Adam?

He is pathetic – a scared little rabbit.

“Oh dear, what have you done Dear?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.”

Huh! – pathetic!

What the woman has done is to give humankind, female and male, the chance to become fully human. Hallelujah!

And just in case The Man should be tempted to regress to the infantile dependent state – thumb in mouth – as men can do sometimes (lest I should be thought sexist women as well of course) –

Just in case … an angel with a flaming sword stands guard at the entrance to The Garden of Eden – the womb of life – to prevent humankind climbing back in.

You can see how important that courageous decision was that was taken by Eve.

Unfortunately the men who wrote down this story chose so to do in such a way that subsequent generations of men used it to blame and subjugate women.


Anthony J Sargeant

(note the Gnostic Ophite sect regarded the serpent as the source of real wisdom! Also in Judaism ‘the Naasseni’)