In the battle between equality and religion, must religion always lose?

A conservative, belief centred way of life may not meet ‘British values’, but it is far from rabid extremism

At any one time, we are supposed to live by certain public doctrines. In our secular age, you might expect these to fade away, but actually the opposite is happening. We live in a swirl of public doctrine, expressed in words such as “inclusion”, “diversity” and “tolerance”. These are commingled into something called “British values”.

To the untutored eye – by which I mean the eye of almost anyone – the meaning of these words is obscure. Where is the “diversity”, for example, in banning a male-voice choir in the police? Where is the “tolerance” in classifying a speech against homosexual acts as a “hate-crime”?

Talk of “British values” is an attempt to synthesise all this stuff, and to enforce it. In a way, it is an admirable endeavour to fill a public vacuum. For too long, groups who hate our country, its history and culture, have been allowed to grab the microphone. The aim of “British values” is to wrest it back from the maniacs and start talking about what binds us together. Unfortunately, confusion can result.

Take schools. After long dispute, it has at last rightly been recognised that you cannot prevent violent extremism without tackling the non-violent extremism that legitimates it. This means scrutinising what the young are taught. In the modern West, it overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, means what young Muslims are taught.

Some of this is what used to be called “civics” – the basics of democracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech – with particular applications such as knowing the National Anthem. On top of this get piled the doctrines that are expressed in the nine “Protected Characteristics” of the Equality Act 2010. These prevent discrimination on grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation and so on.

Once this medicine has been mixed in the laboratories of power, it is then administered. The job falls to Ofsted, the schools inspectorate.

Last month, Ofsted descended on the Yesodey Hatorah girls’ school in Stamford Hill, north London. The school has always been rated “good” by the inspectorate. Its results put it in the top 2 per cent of the country for maths and the top 10 per cent for English. There is no disciplinary problem either. The Haredic Jewish community from which the pupils come is almost completely free from gang violence, drugs and teenage pregnancy. If all schools maintained Yesodey Hatorah’s standards of conduct, there would be virtually no teenage crime in the country.

The inspectors do not seem interested in this, however. What they want to know about is sex. They worry that the pupils are not taught about sex. It is alleged – though also denied – that they stopped girls in the corridors and asked them intrusive questions about things like internet dating sites. They raided the library, and discovered that some of the books have passages about sex blacked out. They are angry that the girls are not taught about homosexuality.

Ofsted’s final verdict has not yet been pronounced, but the school has received signals that it will be punished solely because of the above.

If so, the case will matter in several ways. First, it will damage the beloved concepts of “diversity” and “inclusion”. It was a great breakthrough when Yesodey Hatorah became voluntary-aided (ie, mainly state-funded) in 2005, because it represented a move, controversial among orthodox Jews, away from the very separate life they had until then lived. If they could co-operate with the state to produce what most would recognise as a good education, this meant that both sides were opening up. For a refugee people like the Jews, this sent out a cheering message that they were accepted in British public culture. If this message is reversed, fear replaces trust.

Second, it will damage freedom of religion. Ofsted cannot now allege that the Government did not know what it was taking on. The clue lies in the school’s name. Yesodey Hatorah means “the Laws which are the Foundations of the Torah” (the Torah is the first five books of the Jewish Bible that Christians call the 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 wherever possible. This site therefore holds only statutory and other basic information about the school.” It was never likely that many girls at such a school would have to navigate the problems of Facebook, Tinder or of internet pornography. School, synagogue and parents combine against this.

If it is being said that such a school is not worthy 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 statesupported 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 married 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. Within modern Islam, the difference is literally a matter of life and death. That is the battle that needs to be fought and won, not least in schools.

read more at telegraph.co.uk/opinion