Sir, We are concerned about provisions in the Education and Inspections Bill which may compel faith schools to admit a large quota of children of other faiths or no faith. Rather than increasing social cohesion we believe the amendment will undermine relationships between minority groups and the State.

Imposing admissions quotas on voluntary aided faith schools will restrict minority students’ access to state education, discriminating against families from disadvantaged backgrounds and forcing those seeking a faith education into less regulated private schooling. We also question how the test of adherence or otherwise to a particular faith would be applied. What would be the approach to those who are nominally of a particular faith, but non-practising, or those of different denominations? Are parents, or indeed their children, to be questioned as to the nature and strength of their faith?

We believe there are better ways of achieving intercommunal relations. Faith communities and others should be encouraged to continue to develop practical proposals to enhance social cohesion and cultural interaction in and between our schools. This will go a long way towards ensuring that children from our communities learn to value both their own and others’ heritage, thereby fostering a truly multicultural Britain.

HENRY GRUNWALD, QC
President
Board of Deputies of British Jews

INDARJIK SINGH
Director, Network of Sikh Organisations UK

RAMESH KALLIDAI
Director, Hindu Forum

TAHIR ALAM
Vice-Chairman, Association of Muslim Schools

THE MOST REVEREND VINCENT NICHOLS
Archbishop of Birmingham
Chairman, Catholic Education Service for England & Wales

Sir, The Minister for Local Government and Community Cohesion, Phil Woolas, says Aishah Azmi should be sacked for deciding to wear a veil while teaching. What is needed is a moral framework to address these issues, not macho language.

Jack Straw asserts that a veil is “a visible statement of separation and difference” but does not query the wearer’s right to be veiled. He deliberately reignites the most important debate for Britain: how we should handle issues of religion and ethnicity, and to what extent each group should be allowed to impinge on others.

NIGEL GODFREY
London SE1

Sir, I note the Bishop of Bolton’s defence of Muslim women, and his remark about wearing his pectoral cross (report, Oct 14), but is it not important for Muslims to appreciate that it is impolite in our society to address another while concealing your own identity?

N. P. HUDD
Tenterden, Kent

Sir, How can any responsible employer allow an employee whose identity cannot readily be verified to enter the workplace, when that workplace is a school? I can see no fundamental difference between admitting a woman wearing a veil and admitting a man wearing a balaclava. Would many people be happy having their children taught by the latter?

S. RICHARDS
Rugby

Sir, It would be hard to imagine anything more stupid than the banning by BA of the wearing of a cross. However, the BBC achieved this by equating this cross with the veil worn by a teacher.

Hijabs emphasise stark differences from other citizens of this country as well as hindering communication, and it is to be hoped that reasonable Muslims will recognise this and discard them.

JOHN HODGKIN
Steyning, W Sussex

Sir, Do demands to display one’s religion take precedence over an employer’s dress or uniform regulations?

JAMES MACDONALD
Taunton, Somerset

Sir, Presumably BA aircraft will now have to veil the three religious symbols (of saints Patrick, George and Andrew) on their tails?

H. G. R. TAGGART
Powick, Worcs

Explore Letters

• Feedback