Her comments come at the end of a week of debate following the launch of Accord, a coalition of religious and non-religious opinion which wants to see all publicly funded schools welcoming children from all backgrounds, and which believes the discriminatory exemptions granted to state-funded religious schools should be ended.

Speaking of her own upbringing in Glasgow, as the daughter of a Catholic mother and a Protestant father, Ms Kelly said: “I firmly believe that all children should be educated together and if they do have special religious needs these can easily be met with different morning assemblies.”

She added: “To split kids up from their pals at five years old only leads to conflict and suspicion. It gives bigots a chance to pollute the minds of impressionable youngsters and, until that stops, you will never stamp out the scandal of sectarianism and the deep divisions between all religions.”

Ms Kelly said that a compromise favoured by ministers and councillors of creating more shared campus schools would be a step in the right direction, but that fully integrated schooling represents the best solution. Her views are shared by some well-known politicians and academics, including Lord Steel, the former Liberal Democrat leader. But Alex Salmond’s SNP has defended current arrangements.

Accord’s call for a new debate on provisions inclusive schooling and the special provisions for faith schools has been welcomed by editorials in the evangelical Church of England Newspaper, the liberal Guardian, and the more conservative Economist.

But it was attacked by the Faith Schools Providers’ Group, the Catholic Education Service and the Jewish Chronicle before it was even launched on Monday 1 September, and has also been criticised by the National Secular Society because it seeks reform rather than abolition.

This did not stop the Catholic Herald from claiming that Accord “aims to abolish religious schools” – something the coalition points out is “blatantly untrue”.

Commented Simon Barrow, co-director of the religion and society think-tank Ekklesia, one of the founders of Accord: “Overall the response to Accord’s call for a fresh kind of debate on inclusive schooling and the problems of discrimination has been very positive, with some perhaps unexpected voices recognising the importance of the issues.”

“It is sad to see that some people immediately tried to dismiss or discredit Accord, or to sidestep the points it is making. This is a sign of nervousness. There are those who would rather have a polarised argument, because that is what makes them feel secure and ‘drums up the troops’. But we believe that the future is with positive debate and community-wide schooling.”

Opening a new academy school in Bristol sponsored by the Oasis Christian trust last week, the Rev Steve Chalke said that its values were not to require explicit faith but to be “person-centred, inclusive, service-minded” and to promote personal and social transformation.

Citing the Oasis example in an article for the Guardian newspaper today, commentator Madeleine Bunting, who backs religious schools but acknowledges the case for reform added: “My support for faith schools is not unqualified, and this is where the Oasis academies are so intriguing. They do not discriminate on grounds of religious faith in staff employment or pupil admission. * Chalke does not believe a school should be a holy huddle of the faithful. This radical innovation is what makes other faith schools very uneasy.”

She adds: “The Catholic hierarchy successfully fought off quotas of non-believers recently; it is still locked in its ghetto history of tightly-knit migrant communities in hostile host societies. It has used employment discrimination and tight admissions as barricades to defend against ‘dilution’ of the ethos.”

Accord, which has signed up both clergy and secular academics, and whose members include the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the Hindu Academy and the British Humanist Association, alongside others, says it believes that there is a large “middle ground” in the debate which is waiting to be persuaded that full inclusion is the way forward.

——-

* Oasis academies do reserve the power to choose a headteacher on religious grounds, however.

The post TV presenter wants to see inclusive schooling in Scotland appeared first on Ekklesia.

Britain is celebrated as increasingly diverse. At the same time there is a large and growing consensus that because shared bonds and values are important, our public institutions should be open to those from all backgrounds. It is far better to have schools that reflect the diversity of the areas that they serve than separate ones for different religious and non-religious groups.

That is a point acknowledged this week in a leading article in the evangelical Church of England Newspaper. It expresses concern about a “tribal” society and suggests that selective faith schools can “put pressure on minority lay people to toe a clerical hard line version of their inherited tradition.”

It is a sign of how far we have come that the very basis on which churches now attempt to defend their schools’ policies is in terms of promoting inclusion and social cohesion. Last week the Faith School Providers’ Group argued that one of the reasons that it believed in religiously sponsored schools is because they are ‘open to applications of other faiths and none’. Of course this has to be qualified in the next line, which tacitly admits that popular faith schools can and do restrict access to those of their denomination – the reality that Accord seeks to address. But it’s the thought that counts!

However, instead of arguing about the principle of inclusion, proponents of the current system are sometimes tempted to revert to scare tactics, by suggesting that what those calling for changes want is to shut down successful schools. But the fact is that Accord seeks the reform, not the abolition or take-over of faith schools. Moreover, arguments about achievement frequently confuse cause for consequence. Church schools, in particular, are on average more successful – because they attract more middle class families, not the other way around.

There is also evidence from the LSE and the Institute of Education that selection arrangements put off or discriminate against poorer families. It is true that part of the effect here may be because middle class parents are more attracted to religious schools, rather than that the poor are forcibly kept out. But in terms of effect, that does not make a difference. The key point is that if you put those same children into a school not religiously sponsored they would do just as well.

That this is so is backed up by a by the National Foundation for Educational Research. In the first ever large scale investigation comparing value-added scores in state-funded schools with and without a religious character, they found that the differences in attainment between church and community schools were ‘very slight’ and that ‘it seems likely therefore that the good “raw” results achieved by many church schools reflect the nature and quality of their intake’.

Many faith schools get good exam results, but there is no basis for claiming that this is because they discriminate in employment and admissions and teach their own curriculum of Religious Education.

If the government wants to open up the best schools to as many as possible, that is what they should do. The current restrictions point in the opposite direction, and towards less rather than more social mixing in a society that needs bridges rather than barriers.

———–

(c) Andrew Copson. The author is a member of the Accord steering group (http://tinyurl.com/5zt6jh), along with representatives of Ekklesia, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and others. He is is responsible for education and public affairs at the British Humanist Association (BHA).

The post Diversity, attainment and faith schools appeared first on Ekklesia.

Accord wants to see all schools, whoever their sponsors are, as open as possible. It is calling for non-discrimination in admissions and employment, a balanced curriculum, a common inspection regime, and assemblies that reflect the whole community.

The media construction of the discussion about faith schools that depicts it as a confrontation between ‘the religious’ and ‘secularists’ has always been dangerously simplistic. There are, of course, some lobbyists who want to keep it this way. We do not.

Accord (http://www.accordcoalition.org.uk/) provides an opportunity to show a different picture, and, we trust, to take the conversation away from ideological bickering and towards concrete practices and policies.

The Faith Schools’ Providers Group (FSPG) and the Catholic Education Service (CES) dismissed Accord’s concerns before it was even launched. Ekklesia does not think their characterisation of the issues reflects what is actually being raised – but conversation takes time, especially when passions run high. We are hopeful of some constructive engagements in the coming months.

Here we highlight some of the Christian voices for change involved in the debate:

“Churches should be championing social justice and equality for all in education, not privileging their own.” – Christopher Rowland, Dean Ireland Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford.

“The Church of England seems to me to delude itself, and to suffer from a dissonance between its words and its actions on church schools. We speak of serving the whole community, but actually serve our own interests. From within that church, I long for a more Christ-like engagement with education, in the service of all, and without a hidden agenda.” – the Rev Jeremy Chadd, Vicar of St Chad’s Church, Sunderland, in the Diocese of Durham. Regional Tutor for Practical Theology in the North-East Oecumenical Course.

“Christians have nothing to fear from equality and justice in schooling, because those practices are at the heart of the Gospel message. My experience in Northern Ireland during the troubles convinced me just how vital integrated education is, if potentially destructive barriers between people and communities are going to be overcome.” – Sarah Hill, Global relief and development worker. Founder member of Accepting Evangelicals.

“In addition to the discrimination that is inevitably involved, the current system also encourages hypocrisy. There are those who attend church in order that their children qualify for admission to a particular school and never set foot in the church again after the children have been accepted.” – the Rev Iain McDonald, Minister of Southernhay United Reformed Church, Exeter, Devon.

“Some in minority communities have not always been well served by ‘inclusive’ state schools. The answer however is to increase the quality of education for all in state-funded education, not an approach that ultimately further marginalises such communities.” – Savitri Hensman, equalities adviser in the care sector. Writer on Christian social ethics and theology.

“I believe that all children should have equal access to the best quality education. Schools that select on the basis of belief and background in effect put up barriers to that.” – Rev Chris Howson, Anglican priest, Bradford.

“The Church of England’s current educational policy is undermining its old claim to be the church of the entire community. It has to drop all selection on the basis of church attendance. Otherwise it remains a force for division not unity in the local community.” – Theo Hobson, theologian, commentator and author.

“Faith schools have become a tarnished brand as within the majority of them stalks the unacceptable side of faith – unchecked homophobia. No public money should be used to condone covert discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.” – the Rev Richard Kirker, Christian campaigner for equal rights.

“I am convinced that the perceived privilege afforded to church goers together with the hypocrisy encouraged by those who make the required number of attendances at the Parish Church until admission is achieved, is damaging to community relationships and casts doubt on the integrity of religious faith.” – the Rev Marie Dove, Methodist minister in West Yorkshire and former Religious Studies teacher.

Comments from and to Ekklesia

“The Church of England has said that many of its schools allow those of all backgrounds in, promoting fairness and inclusion. One has a head teacher who happens to be Muslim, and others on the staff are not necessarily practicing Christians. In which case, why is there any objection to ensuring that such fairness is always the case? The answer is that, regrettably, it isn’t always the case, or there would be no problem or disagreement. The attempt to mask poor practice in some places with good practice elsewhere will not wash.

“This week I have had anguished notes from several clergy about people attending church in order to get a note supporting their child’s school admission application – and then disappearing. All have said the same thing to me. “We don’t blame the parents, we blame the system that means people have to lie, and which selects kids on the basis of belief.” Is dishonesty part of a Christian ethos? I think not.

“If Accord’s modest proposals were adopted, publicly-funded schools – whether they are supported by bankers, humanists, Christians, Muslims, philanthropists or other civic groups – could all get on with their real business, which is offering the best education for all in a way that respects and involves all.

“From a Christian point of view, this would be a very welcome development. Schools should be in the business of building bridges, not barriers. Archbishop William Temple once described the church as a body that exists ‘primarily for the benefit of those who are not in it’, contrasting this with a self-serving religious club.” – Simon Barrow, co-director.

“The Good News that many church schools seem to proclaim is “do as I say” rather than “say as I do”. One cannot preach the gospel by using means that are clearly at odds with the gospel one proclaims. If one does, it is a false gospel. A truly Christian school will surely seek a level playing field in admissions and in its employment practices, and will follow Jesus Christ’s example of servant leadership?” – Jonathan Bartley, co-director.

“Segregation in education cannot aid social cohesion at any stage of life. Equally, children who are not of that faith group cannot be prepared adequately to live alongside children (and later as adults) with those whom they cannot understand in terms of culture of religion, and whose knowledge is based upon media and mistrust rather than upon years of working together in a welcoming and open school environment… Education in a predominantly secular society should not be publicly funded to isolate and to restrict children to any particular faith group. The purpose of State funded education cannot be about making children into members of a faith group first and then citizens of the nation second. State funded education should be about encouraging social cohesion and giving children and young people the tools first, to prepare them to contribute positively to meet the future social and economic needs of [society] and the local community; second, to enable them to decide for themselves about matters of faith.” – the Rev John Churcher, Hertfordshire.

The post Faith in schools, fairness in the system appeared first on Ekklesia.

Commentator Cristina Odone has called such reforms “a compromise too far”. Spokespersons for faith schools immediately dismissed Accord’s appeal for them on Friday 29 August 2008, before they had even been launched. The chief of the Church of England’s Board of Education says current restrictions maintain a church school’s “ethos”. The Catholic Education Service mistakenly construes them as an attack on the sector. And the Independent on Sunday’s Melanie MacDonagh extraordinarily contends that discrimination is “what makes a faith school a faith school.”

Two questions immediately arise. First, in terms of the benefits of inclusivity and hospitality – what on earth are we afraid of? Second, what kind of faith is it that says that we should put our own tribe before others and that our ethos is that it’s OK to exclude and discriminate against those from different backgrounds? (And let’s be clear, this is what is happening if they can’t get in or apply.)

It certainly isn’t the Christian faith that I know and seek to practice, which talks instead of sacrificial love, of giving priority to the poorest not privilege to “our own”, and which believes in the power of God’s indiscriminate love enfleshed for us in Christ, not the kind of love of power which puts “us” in positions of control.

I hope those of other faith and of no faith (“good faith”, we might say) who are part of this public debate will understand why I feel compelled to speak in overtly Christian terms here. For it seems to me that a major part of the church’s inability to imagine a better way forward in the schools debate results from being tempted by a language of temporary convenience, rather a language of abiding principle, as what defines how it should behave institutionally.

This weekend the Church of England has said that many of its schools allow those of all backgrounds in, promoting fairness and inclusion. One has a head teacher who happens to be Muslim, and others on the staff are not necessarily practicing Christians. In which case, why is there any objection to ensuring that such fairness is always the case? The answer is that, regrettably, it isn’t always the case, or there would be no problem or disagreement. The attempt to mask poor practice in some places with good practice elsewhere will not wash.

This week I have had anguished notes from several clergy about people attending church in order to get a note supporting their child’s school admission application – and then disappearing. All have said the same thing to me. “We don’t blame the parents, we blame the system that means people have to lie, and which selects kids on the basis of belief.” Is dishonesty part of a Christian ethos? I think not.

If Accord’s modest proposals were adopted, publicly-funded schools – whether they are supported by bankers, humanists, Christians, Muslims, philanthropists or other civic groups – could all get on with their real business, which is offering the best education for all in a way that respects and involves all.

From a Christian point of view, this would be a very welcome development. Schools should be in the business of building bridges, not barriers. Archbishop William Temple once described the church as a body that exists “primarily for the benefit of those who are not in it”, contrasting this with a self-serving religious club. The Christian message calls on the followers of Christ to speak and live justly (to “say as I do”) not imperiously to demand of others, “do as I say.”

If church schools are overwhelmingly funded by the general taxpayer, as they are, then the public as a whole has a reason to expect that they will be run for all by all. To reject discrimination and a narrow approach, to seek equal opportunities, and to be sensitive to those of other faiths and none, is no threat to a “Christian ethos”; it is its truest exemplification. The task of those of us in Accord who start from a position of faith is to persuade our fellow believers in positions of influence that a change of heart, mind and policy is needed.

In that spirit, I believe that the Accord coalition is a major step forward. The debate about the future of schooling, when it touches on issues of belief, has often been presented as a “pro” or “anti” religion issue or a “pro” or “anti” issue about certain kinds of schools (as the Catholic Education Service has misconstrued Accord). This is nonsense. The real issue is how we can all aspire to believe in children and create open, community-wide schools.

————

This article is adapted from material prepared for the launch of Accord on 1 September 2008.

(c) Simon Barrow is co-director of Ekklesia. He blogs at http://faithinsociety.blogspot.com and his website is at http://www.simonbarrow.net. The new book he has edited, Fear or Freedom? Why a warring church must change is published by Shoving Leopard.

The post A Christian case for Accord appeared first on Ekklesia.

A new coalition involving a teaching union, religious groups, humanists, clergy, rabbis, academics and leading public figures is calling for fairer admissions policies in faith schools and equal employment rights for staff, regardless of their beliefs. It also wants to see a balanced curriculum, a consistent inspection regime and assemblies which reflect the true diversity of belief and culture.

The coalition, named Accord, will be officially launched in London on Monday. It is launched as new rules come into force which that make it legal for voluntary controlled schools to reserve the headship for those of one belief only, and for voluntary aided schools to discriminate against non-teaching staff on the basis of their beliefs.

Jonathan Bartley, co-director of the Christian think-tank Ekklesia, a member of the new coalition said: “Reforming admissions policies would be a good place to start in stopping discrimination. There are some faith schools that are 90% or even 100% funded by the tax payer and yet they only cater for, or prioritise, 5 per cent of the population.”

Accord stresses that it is not a campaign against faith schools, but a coalition for inclusive education and the same rules and standards for all in publicly-funded schooling.

Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers said: “We need schools which embrace the diversity in our communities, not schools which divide pupils and staff by faith. All children – regardless of their religion, culture, and family income – should have equal access to the best possible education in a good local school.

“Allowing schools to pick and choose pupils is not the best way to achieve this or to create young adults with the confidence and personal skills to live and work in our vibrant multi-cultural society.”

But the Faith Schools’ Providers Group, a network representing the interests of state-funded Church of England and Catholic schools (the great majority) plus Methodist, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu schools, says that their schools do not discriminate and that they have “signed up to a shared vision for promoting community cohesion through schools with a religious character.”

Critics say that if this is the case, there would be no objection to removing provisions that allow discrimination.

Children’s minister, Kevin Brennan, has defended the government’s stance, saying: “Parents should be able to choose the type of education and ethos they want for their children. Faith schools are here to stay.”

But Simon Barrow, Ekklesia co-director and an Accord steering group member, said: “The fact of faith schools is precisely what makes policies to promote fairness and inclusion vital. By practicing selection on grounds of belief in admissions and employment, some are given advantage over others. This cannot be right. Nor is it what the public want, according to polling.”

He added: “What we need is not the same old tired pro- and anti-faith schools debate, but a fresh approach based on actual practices rather than dogma or favouritism – a voice concerned with the needs of pupils, schools and communities, with community cohesion and inclusive schooling. This is what the broad Accord coalition is wanting to create.”

More information about Accord will be unveiled on Monday 1 September 2008.

The post Coalition to issue challenge on faith schools policy appeared first on Ekklesia.

This report is the result of a project initiated in 2004 by the Conference and carried out by the Equalities and Diversity Project, a representative group including members who have experienced oppression due to race, gender, sexuality and disability. The report shows the journey the Church has taken in considering these issues since 2004 and indicates the direction of future developments.

The report was presented for exploration by the wider Church, offering an opportunity for the Church to engage in its first comprehensive dialogue about the broad agenda of equalities and diversity. It addresses the many different kinds of discrimination faced by groups both with the churches but also in wider society including, sexism, racism, disablism and homophobia. It also outlines some of the stories that people in these situations have shared with the group.

The stories will be collected into a series of booklets to accompany a further report in 2009.

Alison Parker, Equalities and Diversity Project Worker for the Methodist Church, said: “This is a major step on the road to creating a more inclusive, welcoming and credible Church. The Church as the Body of Christ is an expression of unity in the great variety of God’s creation. This report has offered a challenging and exciting opportunity to hear the voices of the marginalised and those working for change in the Church.”

The report identifies areas for further work on equalities and diversity in the Church including a theological exploration of the issues and the formulation of an equal opportunities policy for adoption by the Church in 2009.

Conference received the report and commended Equally Different?, a new equalities and diversity campaign resource for use in local churches, circuits and districts. This includes worship and Bible study materials for use by individuals and groups, resources for children and young people considering the issues and display materials such as posters and postcards.

A supporting website, http://www.methodistchurch.org.uk/equallydifferent, also offers the chance for people to share their own experiences and ideas.

The post Church challenged to eliminate discrimination appeared first on Ekklesia.

“We are protecting the rights of millions of Americans. This is truly a historic day,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from California declared to her colleagues.

She added: “Discrimination has no place in America.” The measure passed 235-184, falling short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto by President George W. Bush.

But the move is still being hailed as “a giant step forward” by equalities campaigners, which includes a signficant number of people within the churches.

However, backers of fair treatment for all face stiff opposition from the religious right and others in what has been a 30-year effort to enact such legislation.

However, while bill drew praise from civil rights groups, it has been criticised by some lesbian and gay organizations for not being broad and diverse enough in its remit, because it does not cover transgender men and women, whose gender identity now differs from what it was registered as when they were born.

The bill will now be sent to the Senate for concurrence. If it finally succeeds, it will prohibit employers from considering sexual orientation in deciding whether to hire, fire or promote someone.

In a letter to House members, however, a coalition of nearly 400 gay, lesbian and transgender groups wrote that they werer unhappy with the legislation because it “leaves some of us behind.”

Democrats had initially sought transgender protection. But many backed off when they realized they did not have the votes, and feared transgender coverage could sink the protection being offered to others.

They argue that once the principle of non-discrimination on sexual orientation is written into law, the finalisation of the process will only be a matter of time.

The post Religious right defeated on lesbian and gay equality in the US appeared first on Ekklesia.

But critics say many important questions remain to be fully explored about the agendas of both parties and the overall shape of what is being created in social and educational policy.

Speaking at a Faithworks Conference on Friday 2 November 2007, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Hazel Blears outlined a clear commitment on behalf of the government to include and value faith groups in tackling the problems communities face.

She explained that despite some mutual mistrust, the last ten years had brought a new maturity to the relationship between government and faith groups.

This is a settlement which has alarmed some secular groups, and raised tough theological and practical questions within faith communities about what the Christian think-tank Ekklesia has critically termed “the new deal” between the two.

Ekklesia argues that there are dangers for both churches and government in too cosy an accommodation between the two on service provision – namely, the loss of a radical, prophetic edge in Christian practice; a dilution of equalities and the elevation of some providers over others; and the propping up of a paternalistic status quo.

But Ms Blears saw a positive future. She declared: “In the past faith groups have found doors closed: little recognition of their role, little willingness to debate it. And it was a real missed opportunity that we chose not to make more of their enthusiasm and expertise.”

The minister continued: “There were concerns, such as whether faith groups could deliver services unconditionally to people who held different views to their own. These were legitimate questions, but they have not gone unanswered, and we now have a more mature understanding of the contribution that faith communities can make. It’s never been clearer that faith groups must be part of the response to the problems we face.”

However critics say that the implications of the stance of the Catholic and Anglican churches on adoption and the widespread religious opposition to gay rights among religious groups is not being properly acknowledged by government, which is over eager to fill gaps in public provision by voluntary and private means.

They point to exemptions on equal opportunities practice in admissions and employment with regard to faith schools.

However the minister felt progress was being made: “As government attitude has developed, so has that of faith groups. We have seen faith groups accept and show how they can live up to that: a promise not to use public funds to proselytise, a promise to serve those with whom you may fundamentally disagree.”

Ms Blears said the Faithworks Charter, a framework of rights and responsibilities for Christian groups involved in delivering services, demonstrated this commitment to unconditional service.

Faithworks, unlike many other church organisations, has signed up to the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs), which ensure fair treatment for lesbian and gay people in public services. But this in itself raises question, critics will say, about whether most faith groups really have signed up to the full equalities agenda.

The minister sought to allay these fears by promising that the government will be developing a model for the relationship along similar lines in the future.

She said: “The Faithworks Charter is an excellent example of how the big questions can be answered. We want government to deliver something similar, and for that to come to life in how people serve and respond to those they serve. If you can achieve that, it will give strong reassurance to government at all levels that faith groups can and should be a partner in a whole range of things they do.”

“Ten years ago it would have been unusual to see a government minister at an event like this… just think where we could be ten years from now,” said Ms Blears

She also celebrated and paid tribute to the work being done by churches on the ground in local communities: “I’ve visited churches that have been the first to step in and provide practical support to neighbourhoods facing huge and complex social challenges – from poverty, to alcohol, to guns and gangs… Faith is what drives them. People go the extra mile and get strength from their faith. It’s that commitment and belief in what you’re doing that means you’re still there at the end of the day when you probably should have gone home. If we don’t harness that energy, we’re all missing out.”

Elsewhere in the Faithworks Conference, Minister for Competitiveness Stephen Timms MP, who is a member of the Christian Socialist Movement, congratulated Faithworks members on their commitment to localism and activism, and called on churches to remain committed to their faith and to the poor.

The Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Rev James Jones challenged the church on its commitment to the poor, declaring: “Church without the poor is not an authentic church.”

Dr Patrick Dixon, a leading futurist, said there was a pressing need for businesses and the church to learn lessons from each other. Meanwhile, Shane Claiborne, founder of the Simple Way Community in Philadelphia, USA, shared his experiences of living simply in a consumerist world.

The Rev Steve Chalke, founder of Faithworks, called for a new kind of church leadership for the post-Christendom age, and said that this should involve new models and patterns of leadership.

Ekklesia has suggested that the main opportunity of post-Christendom is for the churches to recognise that privilege from, and accommodation to, governing authority compromises a more critical contribution alongside those at the margins of society in line with the Gospel’s radicalism.

The post Communities minister fuels debate about churches and public service provision appeared first on Ekklesia.

Andrew McClintock says he will fight on, and is backed by a range of people critical of the gay rights agenda. But Christians who say the Gospel message is opposed to discrimination are welcoming the decision.

Mr McClintock told an employment appeal tribunal earlier in October 2007 that he felt he had suffered discrimination because the courts refused to allow him to opt out of cases involving gay adoptions.

He also contended that placing children with non-heterosexual parents was a “social experiment” against their best interests.

However, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which is responsible for the administration of magistrates courts, said that judges could not pick and choose which cases they heard.

This, they argued, would inhibit fulfilment of the law and lead to unevenness in service provision, which would be detrimental to those seeking to adopt, and to the children concerned.

Mr McClintock, who is aged 63 and comes from Sheffield, said that he was “deeply disappointed” with the tribunal’s decision, and vowed go to the Court of Appeal.

“When the Civil Partnerships Act enabled same-sex couples to adopt and become foster carers, I [needed] some form of recusal from cases where I would be forced to act contrary to my conscience,” the magistrate said, citing his Christian faith.

However, equalities campaigners point out that other Christians are perfectly willing to comply with the regulations, and that no discrimination is implied on grounds of faith in the law.

However if Mr McClintock was to be granted an exemption it would lead to discrimination against others, they say.

The post Tribunal rules against magistrate opposed to gay adoptions appeared first on Ekklesia.