Dear Mrs Villiers,
While your response to my queries as to your stance on Humanist questions is balanced and measured in tone and content, I must say it fails to address issues which are key to fairness and secularism in Britain.
Your response ignores that worship is compulsory in many schools and that implies that the practice of religious discrimination in Faith Schools is allowable provided extra places are fairly allocated. If you believe it is right to refuse a 3 year-old a school place on the grounds that their parents worship the wrong holy book, you are misguided at best and at worst, actively promote faith discrimination. Convention does not make these practices ethical or beneficial to society.
With time, your support and that of your party for these revolting practices will be compared with the historical backwaters of sexual, ethnic and religious discrimination they emanated from.
Your party's stance on Assisted Dying belongs to that same swamp of ill-concealed superstition. It is a well-researched principle which provides those who need it with a dignified plan for their own death and is practiced uncontroversially in countries such as Canada. People should have a right to die with dignity and medical practitioners ought to be able to offer this option (with correct safeguards) without the threat of prosecution. The only arguments left standing against Assisted dying are plainly attributed to religious convention and belief in the supernatural. Once again in this issue religious privilege trumps rationality.
This is hardly surprising when unelected Bishops hold seats in the House of Lords. As you rightly point out the Labour party is as guilty of the failure to reform this shadowy, anti-democratic system as your own.
Thank you nonetheless for making your position plain. Your Labour opponent did not even bother to do so. I will choose accordingly in tomorrow's ballot.
On 6 May 2015, at 10:54, Emily <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: