I regularly  – on a daily basis – get bother for being an anti-theist; from my friends and from some of my followers – on my political following, Saving Great Britain.

Now… While I respect everybody’s right to believe in a deity, or to follow any religion that they so wish; I, myself, find a great grievance in the notion, thus, I feel obligated to speak out against the negative aspects of religion and its ideologies.

On the 29th of September – of this year – new, dangerously anti-free-speech regulations were introduced by the Independent School Standard regulatory body – these changes were pushed by religious minorities, who cry for the equality that they – supposedly – have not been given, in Britain.

(v) further tolerance and harmony between different cultural traditions by enabling pupils to acquire an appreciation of and respect for their own and other cultures;

(vi) encourage respect for other people, paying particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010′.

In theory, the former rule is very good – if we weren’t aware of the ‘tolerance’ and ‘respect’ not being mutual, but one-directional, at the expense of British culture. As for the latter, the new standards will only be met if a school in England ‘actively promotes’ the rights enshrined in the Equality Act.

The Campaign Director of the Coalition for Marriage, Colin Hart, explains what this innocent-sounding regulation means in practice:

As a result, schools will undoubtedly be put under pressure to promote same-sex marriage’.

The above statement is confirmed, here.

The Government Consultation Documents are certainly specific about what these ‘protected characteristics’ are. Off the top of your heads, I am sure you could think of at least one word which is often used in conjunction with the suffix ‘phobia’. A small hint… A particular religion.

a. Para 3.2.2 b. ‘The new requirement for schools to actively promote principles which encourage respect for persons that protects characteristics (as set out in the Equality Act 2010) is intended to allow the Secretary of State to take regulatory action in various situations: for example… failure to address homophobia; or where prejudice against those of other faiths is encouraged or not adequately challenged by the school’.

Currently, the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010 (section 4) are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

Colin Hart elaborates:

This all conflicts directly with previous good guidance issued by the Government. But earlier reassurances can’t disguise the fact that schools will now have to comply with the new minimum standards …

If schools were required to promote respect for people as people there would be no problem. But the additional requirement of ‘paying particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010’ transforms the duty in an alarming way.

One of the “protected characteristics” in the Equality Act is sexual orientation. It could easily be alleged that a teacher who says “I believe same-sex marriage is not real marriage” has shown a lack of respect for people of a same-sex sexual orientation.

Schools will come under immense pressure to endorse same-sex marriage in order to comply with these regulations. Since the equality rights must be “actively promoted”, they will undoubtedly change what is taught in schools.

Under existing equality law, schools cannot discriminate against pupils but governments have carefully excluded the school curriculum from the Equality Act. The regulations break the seal around the curriculum for the first time. Now activists could launch a discrimination claim over the content of lessons.

This is why the Association of School and College Leaders has warned about the harmful implications for freedom of expression in schools.

The Government keeps talking about “British values” but seems to think this means promoting political correctness.

In its alarming consultation document, the Government lets slip some of its thinking’.

3.2.2 PART 2 – Spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of students

‘… Schools will be expected to focus on, and be able to show how their work with pupils is effective in embedding fundamental British values. “Actively promote” also means challenging pupils, staff or parents expressing opinions contrary to fundamental British values.

It’s astonishing that the Government thinks schools should challenge the personal beliefs of parents for being contrary to political correctness. This could lead a head teacher to reprimand a parent who tells their child that marriage is for a man and a woman.

The new requirement for schools to actively promote principles which encourage respect for persons with protected characteristics (as set out in the Equality Act 2010) is intended to allow the Secretary of State to take regulatory action in various situations: for example where girls are disadvantaged on the grounds of their gender; failure to address homophobia; or where prejudice against those of other faiths is encouraged or not adequately challenged by the school.

As we know from recent history, reasonable opposition to same-sex marriage is routinely described as “homophobia”. Does the new equality requirement mean a school must discipline or dismiss a teacher who voices support for traditional marriage? Will parents of prospective pupils be interrogated about their beliefs before their child is granted a place at school?

The plans also slip in another attack on parents by demanding that in future private schools must conform to “national norms” rather than the expectations of parents.

Any school with a religious ethos which upholds traditional marriage will now have to defend itself against the new rules. Schools could be harassed by inspectors or even have their governors removed by the Secretary of State.

The regulations are a fundamental change of approach in our education system, which have been slipped out under the radar. It is vital that these dangerous plans are opposed and exposed’.

Hastily summarised, the new regulations have been written in such ambiguous terms that any opinion about an institution – same-sex marriage being a good example, as it is a recent achievement – may be taken as a lack of respect for some people – homosexuals.

Over the last ten years, many acts have been passed, which strip Britons of their cultural and traditional values for the sake of those who have joined our society, from abroad – our Prime-Minister, David Cameron and his fellow Conservatives promote this as, ‘cultural diversity’. In truth, many of the minority groups create cultural segregation, instead, because they do not wish to adapt to British culture and our own traditional values – they wish to have their own put in place, ahead of others – and, as one can see, laws/acts are being enforced due to their desires.

My personal fear, is that we may be living in the last few years, where you can complain about it and speak out against it; the fundamentalist followers of religion really mean what they say. They are not just joking – they really mean to abolish everything you care about, take away everything that you love, destroy everything that you have, and to replace it all with a stone-age ideology, derived from the desert of Palestine, during a very bad time in human history.

Just because their religion was there first, they think they have a divine warrant to everything; they think that they have the right to tell you what to think, who you can sleep with, what you can eat, what you can read, and they even dare to claim the right to make you afraid – even to read – in the year 2014.

Anybody who says, ‘don’t judge religion by its extremes’, is ignorant; look at the Middle East and study the effects of religion on British and European laws.