THEY ARE ANGRY THAT THE GIRLS ARE NOT TAUGHT ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY.

Old Testament). There was never the faintest chance that a school with that name would not live by its interpretations of those laws. These include conservative views of sexual behaviour, and of what and when children should be taught about it.

A further clue can be found on the school’s website. It says “Our core values and ethos ... discourage the use of online communication and internet use wher- of state support, what does that imply for the other 38 Jewish Orthodox schools currently in that situation? What does it imply, come to that, for our thousands of state-supported church schools if there comes a moment when their interpretation of their religion conflicts with the dogma of the state? Unlike, say, France, this country has for centuries supported the idea that education is one of the prime tasks of religion, and that for the state to stamp on this would endanger liberty and educational quality.

So there is a battle between the Equality Act’s “Protected Characteristic” of religion and that of sexuality. Must religion always lose? If secularists are allowed to sit in judgment in a kangaroo court, as appears to be happening in this case, the answer will always be yes.

Of course it is true — history shows it repeatedly — that religious fanaticism can produce violence and bigotry. But to understand religion’s evils correctly, it is necessary to understand religion itself. I wonder how many modern bureaucrats do. They show little evidence of it. I can imagine them hearing of Christians eating “the body and blood of Christ” and panicking, in their ignorance, that they are dealing with a bunch of cannibals.

Religion is, among other things, a belief-centred way of life. As such, it will — and sometimes ought to — come into conflict with the current notions of the powerful. Throughout their history, all mainstream religions have exalted heterosexual mar- ried sex over all other forms. The modern state is entitled to disagree, but it is most unwise — not to say intolerant — to turn disagreement into a showdown in the name of upholding “British values.” All it is upholding is the right-on orthodoxy of about 30 years’ standing.

Besides, such rows are a huge diversion. The real purpose of teaching “British values” is to squeeze out the tendencies that drive the young to want to destroy the country in which they live. Age-old force of circumstance has ensured that Jews have developed the most careful ways of living peacefully in host countries that do not share their faith. If pupils emerge from Yesodey Hatorah and start trying to bomb London, I will eat my kippah (or would, if I had one). Why make enemies of worthy fellow-citizens? Ofsted is spoiling for a fight the government does not want.

There is a massive — almost absolute — distinction between conservatism and extremism in religion. That is the battle that needs to be fought and won, not least in schools.