Contrary to the culture
From Edward Nugee QC
Sir: I have in the past felt a little guilty in my belief that an Islamic faith school falls into a different category altogether from an Anglican or Roman Catholic, or even Jewish, faith school. Rod Liddle (‘We are what the English Bible has made us’, 16/23 December) has expressed the reasons supporting my belief well. It is not discriminatory to support schools in which the faith that is taught is the faith that has contributed so much to what it means to be English, and at the same time to oppose schools in which the faith that is taught is contrary to the culture of this country. Nor is it inconsistent with the tolerance that the English rightly show to Muslims who choose to make their home here and, over time, to absorb much, if not all, of English culture. It would in my view be quite wrong for public funds to be spent on financing schools whose aims and whose teachers are fundamentally opposed to our culture; and that, I regret, is likely to be the case in any Islamic faith school that lives up to its name.
Edward Nugee QC
Lincoln’s Inn, London WC2
Dawkins misunderstands
From Dr Robert O.J. Weinzier
Sir: Rod Liddle’s recent article ‘A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God’ (9 December) summarises very neatly one of the main problems concerning the current debate about Darwinism.
The theory of natural selection, explaining the evolution of different life forms from a common ancestor, provides a consistent conceptual framework that is no longer controversial in scientific circles. Contrary to Mr Liddle’s assertion, the theory of natural selection will not have to be amended beyond recognition (or discarded altogether), because it reflects a fundamental principle to which any replicating entities are subjected.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in