The Richmond & Twickenham Times goes on to say that concerns about the Catholic Children's Society have been raised by Councillor Stephen Knight, leader of Richmond’s Liberal Democrat group. It seems that Stephen Knight told a meeting on Tuesday that school pupils wanting advice on issues such as homosexuality or sexual health may be reluctant to ask a group that “requires counsellors to uphold the Catholic ethos”.
Richmond-upon-Thames emerged as one of the favoured meeting places of the anti-Catholic drum-beaters during the hysterical lead-up to the Papal visit last year. Many so-called Humanists and members of the National Secular Society seem to live in the Borough, and often raise their voices in protest whenever they think "the Catholics" are coming! One recent example of this was seen when local LibDems, atheists and secularists began foaming at the mouth last month as plans for a possible Catholic secondary school for Richmond were drawn up (Richmond & Twickenham Times). The fact that the Borough has numerous Catholic primaries but not one Catholic secondary school seemed irrelevant to the atheists. Their main concerns then (as always) appeared to centre on some imaginary popish plot that seeks to undermine British society through the promotion of traditional morality!
Fortunately, though, Richmond Borough Council is now Conservative controlled, even if the LibDems are well-represented in the area (Vince Cable is the local MP). The Richmond and Twickenham Times ended today's report by pointing out that "Councillor Christine Percival, cabinet member for education, youth and children’s services at Richmond Council, said [that the Catholic Children's Society's] staff were accredited by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy and its application for the job was 'way better than anyone else’s'". Thank goodness for this Councillor's common sense and reason, and for her objectivity in wanting the best for local children.
I have a funny feeling that the atheist extremists of Richmond-upon-Thames are not in the habit of letting go of rage and anger that easily, though. I'm sure they will be banging on about this for some time, yet. On the bright side, though, at least the children and young people of Richmond will now be served by one of the best children's counselling services in the country!
6 comments:
Very good news, Deo Gratias.
Vince Cable is one of the two MPs representing the area covered by Richmond Council. The other is a Tory, Zac Goldsmith. Mr Cable is a ‘moderate’ on many issues of concern to Catholics. For example some years ago the Lib Dem MPs put forward an amendment to an Education Bill. Their amendment was designed to stop the Church employing only Catholics for certain positions in Catholic schools. Vince Cable was one of the few Lib Dem MPs who voted against this amendment.
The Lib Dems in Richmond seem to be very similar to the Lib Dems over in Islington. When the Lib Dems controlled Islington Council they tried to stop a new Church of England school being named after a saint. The reason they gave was that usual lame excuse that it might offend non-Christians.
The good news is in May that half of all all Liberal Democrat councillors are up for election in district, unitary and metropolitan councils across most of England. Hopefully the national swing against the Lib Dems will remove many of them although the Lib Dems have a good track record of defying national trends. The bad news is that there are no elections for London Boroughs and so there will be no opportunity to remove lots of Lib Dem councillors in Richmond and other London Boroughs where they have a strong presence. Richmond Council has swung backwards and forwards between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems and the Tories only won with a majority of 6 seats at the 2010 elections.
There is quite clearly a very strong antipathy towards Christians, and Catholics especially, among many Lib Dems. In 1998, for example, the Scottish Lib Dems passed a Conference Motion which declared that “the existence of separate schools for different religious groups is a major cause of religious and racial intolerance”. There is little doubt that they have long decided that they will gain far more votes by being pro-Stonewall than they might lose by being anti-Christian/Catholic.
You always present us with some very interesting subject matter. I like to visit because I always learn something new!
@ Priest's Housekeeper
Thank you for visiting and for your kind words :-)
If "Humanists" are 'so-called', are "Roman Catholics" 'so-called' as well?
If the intention is to convert people, perhaps start by using some respectful language.
If it wasn't for nice secularists like me, you'd all be at each others' throats.
Those who know no history are bound to repeat it, as the wise man said.
@ Anonymous
It is right to say "so-called" when talking of those who describe themselves as "Humanists", for it is a word that has had completely different meanings over the centuries. Real humanists, the first ones and all others up until the 20th century, understood humanity in its fullest sense - which can only be in relation to God, its creator. Modern-day "Humanists" have stolen this term, and now view humanity in a truncated way - devoid of spirituality and purely materialistic.
You can say "so-called" Roman Catholics if you want - though I have no idea what your point would be? Seeing you're such a fine historian, you will know that the term Roman Catholic only began to be used during and after the Protestant Reformation. Until that time all Christians in the West were Catholic, in communion with Rome - although this particular qualification wasn't needed (for communion with Rome was a given). The term was mainly used by Protestants so as to vilify Catholics - by making them sound foreign. Why you would say "so-called" Roman Catholic is therefore strange - for it is not a term that they chose for themselves.
LOL... Nice to see that atheists are as self-righteous as ever! You accuse me of not using "respectful language" (whatever that may be) and then pronounce yourself to be a "nice secularist"... Hilariously, though, you then go on to suggest that I (or others like me) "know no history" - which is a sweeping, misinformed, nasty and prejudiced statement!
Seeing that you did not appear to know the background to the term "Humanist" or to the definition "Roman Catholic", it would seem that many a "wise man" would assume that it was you who lacked basic knowledge in history!
To paraphrase another wise man, the wisest of all men, "By your own words will condemn yourself."
Post a Comment