Wednesday, 30 May 2012
But I now want to pose a different question: Why did Vilma sue only Goodell and not the NFL on a respondeat superior theory? The answer depends on two questions that I hope people can answer.
One possibility is that the NFL is a party to the CBA (Goodell is not), so suing the other contracting party makes the possible labor preemption more obvious. Is that possible?
A second possibility is that Vilma wants to be in federal court and was worried that the NFL might somehow destroy complete diversity and thus federal jurisdiction. That explanation depends on my second question: What is the precise organizational status of the National Football League? Is that an independent entity and, if so, what is its form and make-up? Or is it owned by some other entity and, if so, what is the form and make-up of that entity? While the league has its offices in New York, that only matters if it is a corporation; if it is a partnership or a limited liability company, its citizenship is based on the citizenship of all of its partners or members. And if some of those are from Florida (Vilma's home state), this case cannot be in federal court. So who, exactly, does Goodell work for and what is its nature and structure?
Update: Tom's comment gets us part way there, but only part way. A partnership's citizenship is determined by the citizenship of every partner. So we need to know about all the general and limited partner of Miami Dolphins Ltd. The general partner is "South Florida Football Associates LLC," which is headquartered in New York. Its managing member is Stephen Ross. Is Ross a Florida citizen? According to Wikipedia, he resides in New York. Of course, there also are the famous limited partners that Ross brought on, such as Gloria and Emilio Estefan, Marc Anthony, and the Williams sisters. Gloria for sure is a Florida citizen. Not sure if she and the others are partners in the partnership or members of the LLC. But either way, they make Miami Dolphins Ltd. a Florida citizen which makes the NFL a Florida citizen. So suing the NFL probably would have destroyed diversity and Vilma wanted to be in federal court. Of course, that is surprising, given the "local bias" rationales underlying diversity jurisdiction. I would have expected Vilma to want to be in state court in Louisiana.
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
The NFL likely worries that if a judge orders pretrial discovery, the league would have to reveal its informants, which could undermine the NFL's investigation and provoke other suspended players and coaches to challenge the commissioner. Keep in mind, informants talking to league investigators are not under oath, and can lie—including to protect themselves—without legal repercussion.To read the rest, click here.
For analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Federal Baseball, check out Kevin McDonald's 1998 article from the Journal of Supreme Court History, "Antitrust and Baseball: Stealing Holmes," as well as Justice Alito's 2008 commentary considering the case (also published in the Journal of Supreme Court History), along with the thoughts of Sports Law Blog's Ed Edmonds. Meanwhile, for more on the Federal League generally, be sure to read Daniel Levitt's excellent, recently-released history, The Battle that Forged Modern Baseball: The Federal League Challenge and Its Legacy.
Monday, 28 May 2012
- Should parents be able to"select" certain genes for their children so their kids have the greatest chance of becoming pro athletes?
- Should athletes be able to undergo gene therapy for rehabilitation of injury or enhancement of natural ability (was Bartolo Colon's stem cell treatment a sign of things to come)?
- Should bioethics matters be regulated by collective bargaining agreements, or should federal or state governments not allow players' associations and owners to agree to certain possibilities?
I'll be in attendance and am looking forward to hearing from some of best bioethicists around. Here is more information - hope you too consider attending:
Bioethics: A Legal, Medical and Theological Perspective
Hear from a wide range of experts
Our panelists will include doctors, clergy, academics and lawyers. Explore with them as they reflect, analyze and dialogue about:
- Bioethics – its meaning and sources
- Key documents that underlie bioethical decision-making
- Doctor/patient relationships and quality of care
- Public health issues and the role of physicians in state actions
- Reproductive rights and issues
- Organ transplants
- Death and dying
- Human subject research
- Eugenics, cloning and embryonic stem cell research
Come to investigate the current ethical issues
If you’re coming for answers, then this may not be the seminar for you. But if you’re coming to investigate current ethical issues and probe into the questions and dilemmas they pose for you, your clients, families, hospitals, governments and civilizations, then you’ll enjoy this program.
Leave with an understanding of why even well-informed people reasonably disagree about how to apply bioethics
Course Planner: Alan C. Milstein, Esq.
|Location||Start Time||End Time|| |
| ||Mon, 12:30P |
Jul 23, 2012
|Mon, 3:45P |
Jul 23, 2012
If you are considering a BA in philosophy, get in touch. I am tutor for admissions. think AT royalinstitutephilosophy.org
Look across the North Sea and you find Scandanavian countries doing well, economically, socially, artistically and in many other ways. They are riding out the economic storm much better than we. They also have excellent free-health care, maternity and paternity benefits, free university education, free schooling, and so on. Every child gets the same spent on its education in Sweden - you can't buy your kid a leg-up through private schooling. Finland has a fully comprehensive school system (no selection before age 16) which produces some of the best-educated children in the world. These countries have high rates of social mobility as a result (very much higher, ironically, than the "land of opportunity" USA, which should perhaps now be relabelled "land of least opportunity").
But Scandanavian taxes are very high.
We used to have some of these same State-funded benefits too, of course, but even what we had is being slowly dismantled by successive Tory regimes. And Labour too, to some extent. The current Government is accelerating the demolition job. At the same time as the dismantling has gone on, economic inequality has also increased enormously.
What I find interesting is the way in which the economic and social arguments in favour of continued movement in this direction pan out. The justification is almost always economic - we need to get real and recognize that the economy needs "rebalancing" (but not in the Swedish direction, of course!). Private good, public bad. Competition always improves services. Cut taxes on the rich and the wealth will "trickle down". Tax them more and talent will leave the country. There's a whole industry devoted to the production and dissemination of this kind of right-wing apologetic, and while there may be some truth to some of it, most of it appears to be cut-and-paste slogans people have learned to repeat without thinking too much about them.
What's really driving economic policies that endlessly erode tax-funded State provision? Apply the cui bono test. Ask - to whose benefit? Scratch below the surface and answer is almost always the same: the wealthiest top 1% and big business.
However, over the last few decades it has become hard to say these things in public, and even harder to say something "outrageous" like "Why not renationalize the railways?" (which cost taxpayers far than they did when nationalized) or "Why not tax 90% above £500Kpa?" The reason is that the right-wing have largely captured the cultural zeitgeist. Say something fairly left-wing and you'll find people roll their eyes and imply you're a silly, outdated, naive fool. And so we lefties self-censor. We don't dare say what we think anymore.
However, we now have a five- or ten-year window of opportunity. Across much of the country, the penny is beginning to drop that (i) the Tories are, in fact, little more than a machine for manipulating the economy to the benefit of the top 1% and Big Business, that (ii) these wealthy elites are to a very significant extent controlling our Governments - even Labour Governments - and our media in their own interests, and (to a lesser extent) that (iii) decent State pensions, free university education, decent State schools and excellent, free healthcare are, actually, affordable and compatible with a successful economy.
As a result we might, for a little while, be able to shift public opinion enough to reverse much of - no let's be ambitious: all of - what has happened over the last few decades and take Britain significantly in the direction of the successful and equitable Scandanavian model.
In France, Hollande was able to get elected with a promise to tax the rich significantly more (75%) only because another candidate, Melenchon, started saying out loud "Let's tax 100% above E473K". Given the price-anchoring effect, Melenchon's 100% figure suddenly made Hollande's 75% look quite reasonable, when previously it would have seemed outrageous.
So, in short, we lefties need to stop self-censoring. We need to take back the zeitgeist. Make a point of saying three "outrageous" left-wing things a day, out loud, in public. If we all start doing it, the country's cultural and political centre of gravity will start to shift, and the Labour party might eventually be prepared to stick its head above the parapet and take some effective action.
Takes some courage, though, doesn't it?
(Cue eye-rolling and poo-pooing...)
Saturday, 26 May 2012
Michael McCann has already shared his thoughts on the lawsuit in his recent column for Sports Illustrated. However, having written two law review articles on Major League Baseball's history of collusion (see here and here), I wanted to add a few points of importance:
1. The Recent Football Case is a Labor Case, Not an Antitrust Case: Generally when we think about collusion in professional sports, we think about violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which states that "[e]very contract, combination ... or conspiracy, in the restraint of trade or commerce ... is declared to be illegal." However, the recent lawsuit filed by the NFL Players Association is not based on Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Rather, it is filed under labor law, and argues that the NFL teams violated three distinct provisions of their last collective bargaining agreement that relate specifically to disallowing collusion. These provisions include:
- Article XIII(a) (Anti-Collusion): "No Club, its employees, or agents, shall enter into any agreement express or implied, with the NFL or any other Club .... to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making [with regards to] whether or not to negotiate with a player."
- Article XV, Sect. 2: "Neither the parties hereto, nor any Club or player shall enter into an agreement .... to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties reflected by [aspects of the agreement related to] Total Revenues, Salary Cap, Entering Player Pool, and Minimum Team Salary ..."
- Article XIX, Sect. 6: "Defendants ... each pledge their best efforts and cooperation ... to implement the provisions of the [collective bargaining agreement] in a manner consistent with good faith and fair dealing."
3. Nevertheless, the NFLPA Claims are Not Identical to Baseball Collusion in the 1980s: Yet, there are at least three important differences between the Football Collusion claims filed this week and the Baseball claims from the 1980s. First, the baseball cases alleged salary suppression on the individual level, whereas the NFL Players Association alleges salary suppression on the team-wide level. In addition, in the baseball cases of the 1980s all teams to some extent participated in the conspiracy (the only team in doubt was the New York Yankees that made a contract offer to White Sox catcher Carlton Fisk); whereas the National Football Players Association alleges in its claim that "the Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders and Saints .... refused, at least to some extent to abide by their collusive conspiracy." Finally, whereas the Major League Baseball collusion cases were decided upon by an arbitrator, the National Football League Players Association has filed its claim in federal court.
4. For the NFL Players, Proving a Conspiracy will be the Biggest Challenge: Most likely, the most difficult part of this case for the NFLPA will be proving that there really was a conspiracy among the NFL teams to enforce a secret salary cap. Presuming a court adopts antitrust law's standard of proving an agreement (even though this is technically not an antitrust case), the NFL Players would have to show sufficient facts to exclude the possibility that defendants were acting independently or in a consciously parallel manner. To prove such an agreement, the NFL Players would not necessarily need a "smoking gun" memo, such as the one that Major League Baseball's Director of the Player Relations Leland S. MacPhail distributed during baseball's 1985 off-season that encouraged teams to “exercise more self-discipline in making their operating decisions and to resist the temptation to give in to the unreasonable demands of ... players." But the NFL Players would still need evidence -- either through documents, testimony or evidence of radical departure from past behavior -- that the NFL teams (or at least 28 of the NFL teams) had a "meeting of the minds" or a "unity of purpose" in refusing to exceed a purported salary cap.
5. Mike Florio's Use of a Confidential Source in his March 12 Article Might Cause Chaos: Finally, although most evidence of collusion emerges in the discovery process of a claim, the NFL Players' initial complaint cites three public statements that they believe help to show collusion. Two of these statements are made by NY Giants owner John Mara and refer to the lack of 2010 salary cap as a "loophole" that has come up several times in owners' meetings. Meanwhile, the third statement comes from Mike Florio's Pro Football Talk website (owned by NBC Sports) in which he cites "a source with knowledge of the situation" as saying that NFL teams were told “at least six times” during ownership meetings that taking advantage of the lack of the salary cap would lead to “serious consequences.” The nature of Florio's source here is critically important; however, he refuses to divulge his source's identity. If the case moves forward, I would fully expect both Florio and NBC Sports to receive a subpoena from the NFL Players Association seeking disclosure of this secret source.
As the White v. National Football League case progresses, I will continue to share my thoughts on Sports Law Blog. You can also follow me via Twitter at MarcEdelman. (Note: this post has been cross-posted on Above the Law).
Gove adds "To suggest that antisemitism can ever be explained, rather than condemned, is insensitive and frankly bizarre. AQA needs to explain how and why this question was included in an exam paper."
Personally, I find Gove's reaction bizarre.
I believe all children should gain some understanding of how such prejudices arise. Surely, that's one of the best defences against such prejudices. If you don't know why they arise, you are much more likely to be vulnerable.
In this case, it seems to me, it is particularly important that we understand how this violent prejudice arose. Many millions of people were killed as a result of it. And it's still around. Suppressing such questions for fear of being "insensitive" and causing offence seems to me, in this context, to be absurd (in fact, isn't this the sort of "political correctness gone mad" that right-wing hacks love attacking?).
Many Jewish websites offer explanations. And of course, most of us are aware what the explanations are. So why can't we discuss them openly with young people?
Perhaps part of the problem here is that Gove is, remember, a journalist by trade, and it is in the blood of hacks of his reactionary stripe to insist that anyone who offers e.g. an explanation of rioting, criminal behaviour, etc. in terms of social, psychological, or other factors is just "excusing" it.
It seems Gove doesn't understand the difference between explaining and excusing. Hence, on Gove's view, the AQA exam board were in effect inviting children to excuse antisemitism when they should have been condemning it.
Here's another illustration of the distinction between explaining and excusing: by explaining Gove's silly comment, I am not excusing it.
(P.S. There is another reason why people can be coy about discussing the root causes of the Holocaust, which is that a significant role was played by Christian anti-semitism. A Christian school teaching GCSE Religious Studies might prefer not to have to address this embarrassing fact, though again I think that would be a mistake. Once discussion of the causes of the Holocaust and antisemitism gets onto the syllabus of Religious Studies, the role played by religion rears its controversial head. So Gove, like some misguided religious folk, might prefer it if that topic was placed out of bounds.)
(P.P.S. I remember as a child finding out about the Holocaust, and wondering why it happened. I also remember, even then, sensing that it was in very bad taste to ask - that it was a question one wasn't supposed to pursue, other perhaps than to say that some mindbogglingly terrible people came to power and did unspeakable things. As if that were an explanation. The "terrible people" explanation creates the impression that the Holocaust could never be engaged in by ordinary people - like us. Again, a dangerous myth that we should bust early on.)
If children are old enough to know that the Holocaust happened, why aren't they old enough to think about why it happened?)
Friday, 25 May 2012
Wednesday, 23 May 2012
Tuesday, 22 May 2012
Re posting this, for your information. We are still accepting applications. Recent news is our very good score for student satisfaction, again, on the National Student Survey.
I happen to be tutor for admission for the BA in philosophy at Heythrop College University of London. If you want to find about more about our BA programme, or an evening MA in philosophy, get in touch (email address is in the header to this page). Obviously with the new fees system, all colleges are focusing on recruitiment, and so are we of course. Obviously we're not as well known as some other colleges. But we are quite exceptional.
So here are a few facts about Heythrop you might be interested in, if you're thinking about pursuing a degree in Philosophy or Theology.
(1) Heythrop is the University of London college that specializes in just Philosophy and Theology. It's all we do.
(2) Heythrop students achieve remarkably good results, despite our comparatively modest entry requirements. We have outperformed other better known colleges in terms of number of first class hons degrees achieved, for example
(3) This is because, astonishingly, Heythrop runs a one-to-one tutorial system. Students receive individual one-to-one tutorials on all their second and third year essays. This is unheard outside of Oxbridge, of course, and is one of the main reasons are students are so academically successful.
(4) Heythrop is a Jesuit foundation (in fact it's the oldest college of the University of London, being founded by the Jesuits in 1614, though one of the most recent member colleges of the University). However, despite its religious foundation, it is highly diverse in its membership. (I'm there, for goodness sake. And I'm made to feel very welcome too.) We just ask that you think and question with an open mind.
(5) Heythrop is small, friendly, and located in beautiful, leafy Kensington Square, very close to Kensington High Street tube station.
(6) Heythrop has some excellent philosophy research going on. Tom Crowther is doing cutting edge work in the Philosophy of Perception, for example (recent paper in Philosophical Review). But our greatest strength is in Philosophy of Religion. We have Professors Keith Ward and John Cottingham working in this area as part of Heythrop's Centre for The Philosophy of Religion. And of course I am regularly publishing in philosophy of religion too (and other areas).
Here's a recent letter of mine published in the Independent:
Dominic Lawson ("A Private Sector Oxbridge? Not Exactly" 7th June) rightly celebrates the one-to-one tutorial system, offered by Oxford and Cambridge, which he describes as "the single most valuable aspect of their educational offering". But Lawson is wrong to say the system is only offered by Oxford and Cambridge. It is also offered by Heythrop College, University of London for undergraduate degrees in philosophy and theology.
If you want to know more, get in touch with me directly. Our website is here. Open days and student conferences availabl.
Senior Lecturer in Philosophy and Tutor for Admissions BA Hons Philosophy, Heythrop College, University of London.
Monday, 21 May 2012
I suspect a real problem question for a Craig type Christian is, if the atheist knows God exists, and knows the penalty for denying God exists is infinite punishment, and the reward for acknowledging belief is infinite bliss, why does the atheist "suppress" their knowledge of, and deny, God's existence?
Sure, Craig thinks the atheist's denial is born of "wickedness". But that's not a motive. A wickedly selfish and self-serving person, when given an "offer they can't refuse" by a mafia boss, will take the offer, not refuse it.
Craig's God gives us atheists a choice - admit what we clearly see and know to be true, and get a pass to heaven, or deny what we know, and receive infinite torment.
Why do we freely and knowingly choose that latter? How does Craig make sense of that choice? Surely, a selfish, self-serving person would choose the former?
I'm genuinely interested.... when it comes to my freely choosing infinite torment, what do I think is in it for me?
Here by the way is another piece by Craig in which he maintains that atheists know God exists and, by the end of their lifetime, also the great truths of the Gospels.
Notice that Craig talks below about how God reveals himself in nature, but also that nature provides "evidence".
Is the idea that atheists can just see that God exists, as they look upon nature? Or is it that they should merely infer God's existence on the basis of evidence that nature furnishes? If the latter, then they don't necessarily know God exists - they may fail to spot the evidence or make the inference. And why is infinite punishment an appropriate penalty for failing to spot evidence or draw the right conclusions? Inattentiveness and logical error don't merit infinite punishment, surely?
Craig appears to endorse Paul, who says that God's existence is manifest in nature, even to the atheist, who thus does know God exists, and thus is without excuse. Plus there is the inner witness of the Holy Spirit drawing the atheist to knowledge of God (though this suggests the Holy Spirit might fail in this project, and thus the atheist might not come to know God exists by that route).
Craig posts a letter in which he is asked:
Dear Dr. Craig,
I am a brazilian Christian. Your work for the kingdom has been a tremendous help to me in my spiritual life.
I believe God exists, but I am troubled with a question.
Christians are supposed to think that God will punish atheists for choosing not to believe. But how can an sincere atheist be blamed for not believing?
I find that contemporary atheists take great umbrage at the biblical claim that God holds people to be morally culpable for their unbelief. They want to maintain their unbelief in God without accepting the responsibility for it. This attitude enables them to reject God with impunity.
Now we can agree that a person cannot be held morally responsible for failing to discharge a duty of which he is uninformed. So the entire question is: are people sufficiently informed to be held morally responsible for failing to believe in God? The biblical answer to that question is unequivocal. First, God has provided a revelation of Himself in nature that is sufficiently clear for all cognitively normal persons to know that God exists. Paul writes to the Roman church:
Second, wholly apart from God’s revelation in nature is the inner witness which the Holy Spirit bears to the great truths of the Gospel, including, I should say, the fact that God exists. Anyone who fails to believe in God by the end of his lifetime does so only by a stubborn resistance to the work of the Holy Spirit in drawing that person to a knowledge of God. On the biblical view people are not like
innocent, lost lambs wandering helplessly without a guide. Rather they are determined rebels whose wills are set against God and who must be subdued by God’s Spirit.
Sunday, 20 May 2012
Moreover, if sending the atheist to hell is justified given their denial of what they know to be true (that God exists), it must be the case that the atheist's lack of knowledge of what they know does not exonerate them (they must be "without excuse"). Yet in many cases, not knowing you know does seem to exonerate you for not acting on what you know (if reliabilism is true and I "just know" by psychic means that Fred will die if I don't persuade him not to board that train, but I don't know I know this (having no clue that I am psychic and every reason to suppose I'm not), it's not clear I can be blamed for not trying to persuade Fred not to board the train. (Yes, I find myself stuck with the belief he'll die, but I can't understand why I hold this belief, and indeed have every reason to suppose it's both irrational and false. As a result, I don't act on the belief. Am I culpable? I think not...).
Saturday, 19 May 2012
You are invited to the 2nd Annual Sports Law for Rookies and Veterans on June 14, 2012 at the Minneapolis Club in Minneapolis. This premier sports law seminar includes the following confirmed speakers: NFL sports agents Drew and Jason Rosenhaus, Minnesota Vikings CAO and General Counsel Kevin Warren, Minnesota Timberwolves CMO Ted Johnson, former Minnesota Wild GM and current hockey agent Tom Lynn, MLB agent Charisse Dash, the Honorable David Doty, who presided over every major sports labor dispute over the last 25 years, numerous inside and outside sports lawyers, media professionals, law professors and sport franchise executives. In addition, Ross Bernstein, best selling author of over 50 sports books, will give his signature presentation on "The Champion’s Code." The current agenda with confirmed speakers is at http://www.hinshawlaw.com/2nd-
This interesting and compelling seminar will be submitted for 8 continuing legal education credits in the jurisdiction of all attendees, and includes 1 ethics credit and 1 elimination of bias (diversity) credit. The cost of the seminar is only $199.00 and includes breakfast and lunch. Employees of professional sports franchises or university athletic departments can attend without charge. Anyone who works directly or indirectly with sports teams or professionals or is interested in sports law should attend this event. You should be able to follow the attached link on the PDF to sign up or you can follow the link on the event page of our firm website at http://www.hinshawlaw.com/2nd-
Please direct any registration issues to Marie Pocock at firstname.lastname@example.org and contact me or Steve Silton at email@example.com with any questions regarding the seminar.
If you are wondering what kind of degree programme is likely to boost your general smarts, consider these figures.
Go here. This is one of several graphs from the above article. Based on GRE test performance (Graduate Record Examination) of graduate programme applicants. Quantitative (math) skills on the vertical axis, verbal skills on the horizontal (other graphs include the third component - "analytical writing", at which philosophers also excel, dramatically outperforming all others).
Philosophy graduates are pretty damn smart, the various figures suggest, compared to graduates with other degrees, including most - perhaps even all - sciences (though were they smarter to begin with, or did their degree programme make them smarter, compared to other degrees?). Check the article. Here's the original table of GRE scores of US students completing a variety of degrees.
Notice religion also does very well.
This data suggests (but falls a long way short of establishing) that if we want to produce graduates with general, across-the-board smarts, physics and philosophy are disciplines to encourage [and possibly also that accountancy and business administration should be discouraged (this confirms all my prejudices, I am pleased to say!)].
Note some very weird stats on this graph, such as business administration's woeful performance, doing less well than even "art and performance" on quantitative skills and verbal skills (which is staggering). And accountancy grads less good on quantitative skills than philosophy grads (!) and the worst performers of all on verbal skills. Both business and accountancy are also weak on the analytic writing component.
Of course, as the new business-friendly, market-led Tory vision of degree provision kicks in, we'll probably see philosophy departments up and down the country closing and business administration degrees expanding. Brilliant.
Friday, 18 May 2012
This is an interesting announcement from the University of Birmingham.
The Professor in charge of this Templeton-funded project, James Arthur, says he wants to influence policy in this country, and is clearly being taken seriously already (he mention that DEMOS have expressed interest in his research).
Character education can be a very good thing - and there's much of interest to say about it (going all the way back to Aristotle, in fact - see below) - but whenever you see the phrase, approach with caution. In the United States, "Character Education" has been used as cover for the promotion of fairly conservative (usually conservatively religious) educational methods. It was part of the No Child Left Behind policy funded under George W. Bush.
Here's a chapter from my book "The War For Children's Minds" on character education which explain how some (certainly not all) of those who have promoted "character education" in the U.S. have had a rather illiberal agenda. Of course, research done at Birmingham may very well be squeaky clean and of real value.
(PS This article is an example of how "character education" tends to be set up in opposition to the kind of liberal approach I recommend in my book. If this is the direction "character education" takes in this country, we should all be very worried
This article on Character Education is interesting on how "character education" has developed in the US. Here is a quote:
Character education rests on three ideological legs: behaviorism, conservatism, and religion. Of these, the third raises the most delicate issues for a critic; it is here that the charge of ad hominem argument is most likely to be raised. So let us be clear: it is of no relevance that almost all of the leading proponents of character education are devout Catholics. But it is entirely relevant that, in the shadows of their writings, there lurks the assumption that only religion can serve as the foundation for good character. (William Bennett, for example, has flatly asserted that the difference between right and wrong cannot be taught "without reference to religion.") It is appropriate to consider the personal beliefs of these individuals if those beliefs are ensconced in the movement they have defined and directed. What they do on Sundays is their own business, but if they are trying to turn our public schools into Sunday schools, that becomes everybody's business.
Hopefully, turning British state-funded schools into Sunday schools won't be the recommendation of this particular research project.
Chapter of my book The War For Children's Minds below...