No attempt at ethical or social seduction can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
This came out of a row in Britain over an investigation into schools in Birmingham. Unlike the US situation, what brought this about was a charge that Muslims were trying to take over schools in Birmingham and alter the lessons to support Islamic Ideals.
Yes, this is largely a damage limitation exercise in order to look as though Gove is actually in charge of things. In actuality he is the worst secretary of education for a very long time.
Politicians interjecting themselves into what subjects teachers are allowed to introduce in the classroom and how such subjects must be discussed does _nothing_ to produce an educated population.
The syllabus in the UK is largely developed by subject specialists, not politicians. Having said that Michael Gove, the current secretary of state for education has attempted to put his imprimatur on one or two subjects, particularly English. He has essentially removed any books from the syllabus not written in Britain (Of Mice and Men has been removed for example), his interference has been treated with derision by those with some knowledge of the subject.
The other thing he is famous (infamous?) for is distributing a signed copy of the King James bible to every school in England and Wales. Not for nothing is his nickname Pob.
... is doomed to repeat it.
A far better quotation is:
Those who begin by burning books will end by burning people.
There are (at least) three positions a person can hold regarding God's existence:
1. "I believe that God exists" (aka religion) 2. "I believe that God does not exist" (aka atheism)
This is extremely restrictive in that it frames things in terms of a single god and only in belief. The more common atheist position is:
2b. I lack belief in the existence of gods.
While your 1. hides the existence of the asymmetry between theism and atheism, every theist I have ever come across believes in a single god or particular pantheon of gods and either lacks belief in the existence of other gods, actively disbelieves in them or thinks they are a misattribution of the god(s) that he worships.
3. "I hold no beliefs concerning either the existence or the non-existence of God" (aka agnosticism)
Is a misunderstanding of what agnosticism is. Theism and a-theism (not the privative alpha) are about belief, gnosticism and a-gnosticism are about knowledge. It is perfectly possible to lack belief in god(s), i.e. be an atheist while at the same time not being certain that god(s) do not exist, i.e. agnostic.
Actually, Claire Perry is pretty much a laughing stock even inside her own party.
As are several others including the minister for Health (who believes in homoeopathy) and the minister for work and pensions (who faked his own CV) and the minister for local government (who looks as though he has eaten his way through the output of a pie factory). But all of the ministers in this government simply ignore any evidence which runs counter to their ideology.
Government department + software project = total failure.
I would love to know how cheaply this same project could be done. Probably by one person. Probably a $10,000 project with the final project size 100 times smaller, run 100 times faster, 100 times more accurate. [That is what I achieved after a payroll application they tried to force on our dept. was discarded and we rolled our own.]
Not a real biggie, just a replacement for Jobseeker’s Allowance, Income-related Employment and Support Allowance, Income Support, Child Tax Credits, Working Tax Credits, Housing Benefit for the whole of the UK population. I mean how hard can it be? Given your obvious talents I am sure you could knock something together using a few Excel macros by next Tuesday.
One of the things about this is that it is being driven by an ideologue who doesn't give a toss about evidence, not quite the person who thinks all government sponsored software development but pretty close.
As an outsider, it isn't fair for me to comment on her domestic policy. For the US, the 80's seemed decadent for the upwardly mobile segment of the population while the middle class waited for the benefits to trickle down as their economic security was threatened or eliminated. I'm assume the UK experience was similar with the upwardly mobile taking advantage of the deregulated markets and the middle class feeling the pressure from the lack of job security or outright job loss.
My wife's relatives come from the Barnsley area of West Yorkshire, mine from around Castleford in the same county. Thatcher's policies were a disaster for these and many other areas of the country outside of the London metropolitan region. They were directly responsible for the increase in unemployment from around 1.5 million to 3.5 million and the loss of jobs for a generation.
Look at the reports in the press and the broadcast media, notice how few come from the North of England, Wales or Scotland.
Besides, once this law is entrenched, removing any such limitations will be trivial.
Except if you read the legislation it will take a 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament to change the law.
There were replies to this above. JPII was actually quite progressive, as far as Popes go. Judging his progressiveness based solely on the way the church has handled homosexuality or contraception is quite a narrow view. Consider that popes before JPII didn't venture outside the Vatican very often, didn't address the faithful in their own language and didn't so openly help bring about the fall of the most dangerous and destructive evil empire in history (USSR: 30M+ intentionally starved citizens + countless political murders hell-bent on eliminating the thinking classes).
You can actually provide a causal warrant to show that he openly helped bring down the USSR? Impressive.
The guy had more important things on his mind, like saving the friggin' world, where he had some ground-breaking achievements. You want to judge JPII? You must be out of your mind.
Again, I presume you can justify this. Its an assertion I have seen a number of times, but I have never seen anything that would count as justification. As for "judging" him, this is the wrong word. "Criticising" would be better.