Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on August 19, 2017, 12:18:19 PM
-
Oh ffs
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15483253.Kevin_McKenna__It_is_time_to_stand_up_to_those_who_wish_to_criminalise_faith/?ref=twtrec
-
That's a whole lot of idiot to put on display.
-
How sad and delusional that guy appears to be.
-
I'm getting hints of no true scotsman as in no secular humanist or fellow traveller could ever be beastly to the religious.
While this is believed and only non believers feelings and self perception counts British non theism will lack the necessary reflection.
I think that might qualify as self delusion.
-
Oh ffs
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15483253.Kevin_McKenna__It_is_time_to_stand_up_to_those_who_wish_to_criminalise_faith/?ref=twtrec
Clearly the section on the seasons demonstrates rank idiocy.
But there is a massive lack of self awareness and a huge dollop of hypocrisy in the whole article, the tenor of which is that society has no truck with orthodox catholic views on a range of matters and doesn't allow those views to be heard. Now I actually disagree that to be the case - quote the reverse - society and government bend over backwards to ensure that the views of religious leaders etc are front and centre on any ethical debate.
But what about the organisation this guy represents - the Roman Catholic Church - do they ensure that views from within their organisation which might not accord with the orthodox are heard and respected. Of course not. Survey after survey shows that the majority of rank and file catholics support abortion, contraception, think that same sex relationships are fine etc etc. Does the church welcome their view, provide a forum for those views to be aired and considered. Not at all - those views are simply silenced through organisational structures that refuse to hear them.
-
I'm getting hints of no true scotsman as in no secular humanist or fellow traveller could ever be beastly to the religious.
While this is believed and only non believers feelings and self perception counts British non theism will lack the necessary reflection.
I think that might qualify as self delusion.
Couldn't help noticing Vlad, your ignorance of what secularism is all about is showing yet again and it looks as though you have a very limited understanding of humanism too, they, secularism/humanism, mostly have a differing view to yourself about superstitious beliefs, neither of them are anti theist; anti privileges for theism/theists, well most of us, yes.
The R C's are very anti secular mainly because in the end where secularist principles are applied it will mostly effect their funding, other stuff as well, but the potential loss of funding is their main worry and I think they find it difficult to take in the very idea of having to live on a level playing field with the rest of us ordinary mortals.
Because of the above the R C church always misrepresents secularism with every chance it gets and it looks like you amongst the many have been taken in hook line and sinker with this anti secular propaganda of theirs.
Again Vlad try to find out what it is secularism actually stands for instead of showing your ignorance in this area, you're not that au fait with humanism either Vlad.
ippy
-
Couldn't help noticing Vlad, your ignorance of what secularism is all about is showing yet again and it looks as though you have a very limited understanding of humanism too, they, secularism/humanism, mostly have a differing view to yourself about superstitious beliefs, neither of them are anti theist; anti privileges for theism/theists, well most of us, yes.
The R C's are very anti secular mainly because in the end where secularist principles are applied it will mostly effect their funding, other stuff as well, but the potential loss of funding is their main worry and I think they find it difficult to take in the very idea of having to live on a level playing field with the rest of us ordinary mortals.
Because of the above the R C church always misrepresents secularism with every chance it gets and it looks like you amongst the many have been taken in hook line and sinker with this anti secular propaganda of theirs.
Again Vlad try to find out what it is secularism actually stands for instead of showing your ignorance in this area, you're not that au fait with humanism either Vlad.
ippy
I don't think I've mentioned the word ''secularist'' once in this thread. Can you show me where I used the word ''secularist''?
-
Actually Vlad your first reply here seemed to be responding to some entirely different thread altogether.
-
Actually if god really did order the seasons you think he'd mix it up a bit to keep it fresh, wouldn't you?
-
Actually if god really did order the seasons you think he'd mix it up a bit to keep it fresh, wouldn't you?
If the state of being mixed up is such a commodity God has more than made up for it in his providence of many of the people around here......No names , no packdrill.
-
If the state of being mixed up is such a commodity God has more than made up for it in his providence of many of the people around here......No names , no packdrill.
The belief in god you mean!
-
The belief in god you mean!
Pfwar, you wish.
-
I'm getting hints of no true scotsman as in no secular humanist or fellow traveller could ever be beastly to the religious.
While this is believed and only non believers feelings and self perception counts British non theism will lack the necessary reflection.
I think that might qualify as self delusion.
I'm getting hints of no true scotsman as in no secular humanist or fellow traveller could ever be beastly to the religious.
ippy
-
I'm getting hints of no true scotsman as in no secular humanist or fellow traveller could ever be beastly to the religious.
ippy
''secularist'' Ippy, not secular which in any case is attached to the word humanist to make Secular Humanist and they are not in favour of religion.
I am a secularist Ippy in at least the sense that a vicar should be able to take off his dog collar and have space not to have to carry out his ministry as opposed to a secularism which would have religion removed from the public forum.
-
Pfwar, you wish.
And where is your verifiable evidence god exists?
-
''secularist'' Ippy, not secular which in any case is attached to the word humanist to make Secular Humanist and they are not in favour of religion.
I am a secularist Ippy in at least the sense that a vicar should be able to take off his dog collar and have space not to have to carry out his ministry as opposed to a secularism which would have religion removed from the public forum.
Like I've said Vlad.
ippy
-
And where is your verifiable evidence god exists?
Floo. This has been gone over numerous times. If that which exists must be verifiable then you have a distinct definition of existence and how it is verified and that is your position. That position is in no way a 'default' position. In other words you have to have evidence for your definition of existence and verification.
That means we are both in the process of trying to assemble some. NPF as espoused by people like Gordon is a misunderstanding based on an incorrect assumption of the default position.
Any talk of methodology is not relevant since methodology does not establish that your definition of what exists is ''the default''.
-
Floo. This has been gone over numerous times. If that which exists must be verifiable then you have a distinct definition of existence and how it is verified and that is your position. That position is in no way a 'default' position. In other words you have to have evidence for your definition of existence and verification.
That means we are both in the process of trying to assemble some. NPF as espoused by people like Gordon is a misunderstanding based on an incorrect assumption of the default position.
Any talk of methodology is not relevant since methodology does not establish that your definition of what exists is ''the default''.
Gobbledegook. All you are trying to say is that you want to believe it to be true, but cannot substantiate your belief.
-
Gobbledegook. All you are trying to say is that you want to believe it to be true, but cannot substantiate your belief.
You are pretending to have the default position Floo and denying you are doing that.
Of course I believe it to be true because it is my experience and you do not believe it to be true because you prefer another position that also cannot be substantiated.
-
That means we are both in the process of trying to assemble some. NPF as espoused by people like Gordon is a misunderstanding based on an incorrect assumption of the default position.
Nope - the NPF is a fallacy whereby a reasoning error is committed: you gave us a textbook example just recently.
-
Nope - the NPF is a fallacy whereby a reasoning error is committed: you gave us a textbook example just recently.
No you thought I had but I never said that God exists because he can be disproved.
I think your tenure as ''Fallacyfinder general'' is looking increasingly tenuous.
-
No you thought I had but I never said that God exists because he can be disproved.
I think your tenure as Falacyfinder general is looking increasingly tenuous.
I think you need to re-read what you post.
-
I think you need to re-read what you post.
whoops.
I'll say that again.
You thought I had committed the NPF but I never said God must exist because he cannot be disproved.
-
Vlad the Mendacious,
...as opposed to a secularism which would have religion removed from the public forum.
Just out of interest, why have you just told that lie again?
-
Vlad the Mendacious,
Just out of interest, why have you just told that lie again?
Are you saying nobody has desired that or worked for it and that it never has been policy anywhere? Do you not wish for the eventual extinction of religion?
-
Vlad the Mendacious,
Are you saying nobody has desired that or worked for it and that it never has been policy anywhere? Do you not wish for the eventual extinction of religion?
A straw man doesn't get you off the hook. What you actually said was:
"......as opposed to a secularism which would have religion removed from the public forum." (Reply 13)
Secularism would have no such thing, as you well know because it's been explained to you so many times. That there might be some people who do want it is entirely irrelevant to the lie you told.
Why not for once man up and retract the untrue statement you made?
-
Because lying for Jesus makes Jesus love you.
-
whoops.
I'll say that again.
You thought I had committed the NPF but I never said God must exist because he cannot be disproved.
I didn't say you did on that basis, so yet another straw-man from you.
In the relevant exchange in the 'Where's the evidence' thread I never mentioned 'God', and neither did you in your post #100, which reads:
I cannot prove I am correct on this one but then you cannot prove I'm wrong.
I'll leave you to ponder on what you said.
-
Wiggs,
Because lying for Jesus makes Jesus love you.
Ah, that must be it. Thanks for clarifying.
-
Are you saying nobody has desired that or worked for it and that it never has been policy anywhere? Do you not wish for the eventual extinction of religion?
Having read through your posts since my umpteenth observation of your expansive ignorance of how secularism and humanism are and how they work, I couldn't see any response or or any kind of rebuttal.
Having said the above I suppose your ignorance and your lamentable demonstrations of your inability to even learn something about secularism and humanism would be inclined to limit any response.
ippy
-
Gordon,
I'll leave you to ponder on what you said.
And, more to the point, on why he said it. The give away in his, "I cannot prove I am correct on this one but then you cannot prove I'm wrong" is the "but then again". So what? He's clearly trying to imply some kind of equivalence - "OK, I have no proof but nor do you have disproof so, you know, we're even-stevens then aren't we?".
And then when you point out he's at least knocking on the door of the negative proof fallacy he goes all faux indignant, "Who me? – Never!". It's slipperier than an eel in a Swarfega jacuzzi, but as true to form as ever.
-
Gordon,
And, more to the point, on why he said it. The give away in his, "I cannot prove I am correct on this one but then you cannot prove I'm wrong" is the "but then again". So what? He's clearly trying to imply some kind of equivalence - "OK, I have no proof but nor do you have disproof so, you know, we're even-stevens then aren't we?".
Please feel free to explain a) how you have proof of your position or
b) How I can not have proof and you don't have proof and somehow we are NOT equivalent in terms of lacking proof.
-
Surely he's saying that some atheists pontificate about the sufficiency of science, but don't know much about it - not that the seasons are God's direct doing. The sentence is badly worded, certainly, but the rest of the article is intelligent, so it's unlikely that he meant what the thread title suggests.
-
Surely he's saying that some atheists pontificate about the sufficiency of science, but don't know much about it - not that the seasons are God's direct doing. The sentence is badly worded, certainly, but the rest of the article is intelligent
Which article are you referring to?
-
Gobbledegook. All you are trying to say is that you want to believe it to be true, but cannot substantiate your belief.
I agree with Floo, for once. Far too many people on this forum are far too fond of spouting polysyllabic pseudo-philosophy, and in particular of accusing everyone they disagree with of a logical fallacy.
-
Which article are you referring to?
The linked one in the opening post.
-
I agree with Floo, for once. Far too many people on this forum are far too fond of spouting polysyllabic pseudo-philosophy, and in particular of accusing everyone they disagree with of a logical fallacy.
No.
People are accused of committing a logical fallacy when they do so. Goodness knows we see them here day in and day out, without exception.
These things - once (or if) you understand them - are pretty clear. They're not, as Alan Burns would have you believe, one person's opinion against another; they're a natural outgrowth of the way that logic works ... or rather, in the case of fallacies, doesn't. That's not pseudo-philosophy but real and actual philosophy; and to me the oft-heard whine "Waaagh waaagh waaagh fallacy this fallacy that" and complaining about technical and possibly lengthy terminology is a bit of anti-intellectualism usually coming from those with a position they can't defend (and know it).
-
The linked one in the opening post.
And that's intelligent?
Seriously?
-
And that's intelligent?
Seriously?
I disagree strongly with a lot of what he says, but it's an intelligent article.
-
No.
People are accused of committing a logical fallacy when they do so. Goodness knows we see them here day in and day out, without exception.
These things - once (or if) you understand them - are pretty clear. They're not, as Alan Burns would have you believe, one person's opinion against another; they're a natural outgrowth of the way that logic works ... or rather, in the case of fallacies, doesn't. That's not pseudo-philosophy but real and actual philosophy; and to me the oft-heard whine "Waaagh waaagh waaagh fallacy this fallacy that" and complaining about technical and possibly lengthy terminology is a bit of anti-intellectualism usually coming from those with a position they can't defend (and know it).
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/fallacists/
-
I disagree strongly with a lot of what he says, but it's an intelligent article.
This is evidently some definition of intelligent with which I'm unacquainted. To me he comes across as somebody who thinks all the different foods in his fridge start whispering to each other as soon as he closes the door.
-
I disagree strongly with a lot of what he says, but it's an intelligent article.
What bits do you think are intelligent?
-
Surely he's saying that some atheists pontificate about the sufficiency of science, but don't know much about it - not that the seasons are God's direct doing. The sentence is badly worded, certainly, but the rest of the article is intelligent, so it's unlikely that he meant what the thread title suggests.
Is he? That makes it even dumber as it then becomes a god of the gaps of the knowledge of whomever he talks to.
-
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/fallacists/
And if people are arguing that because an argument is fallacious the position that a person has is necessarily wrong e.g. because X's argument in the existence of a god is fallacious, there is no such god, then that would be wrong but you are misrepresenting what people are generally doing on here which is saying that because the argument is fallacious it is a bad argument.
-
And if people are arguing that because an argument is fallacious the position that a person has is necessarily wring e.g. because X's argument in the existence of a god is fallacious, there is no such god, then that would be wrong but you are misrepresenting what people are generally doing on here which is saying that because the argument is fallacious it is a bad argument.
Exactly.
Once an argument (or a particular strand within an argument) has been correctly identfied as fallacious, that's it. Game over. It's a duff argument, a dud, exposed as resting on faulty logic, so you don't need to proceed any further.
The only remaining option is to reframe the fallacious argument in non-fallacious terms or come up with an entirely new argument again, but on past showing the prospects of that are dismal indeed.
-
Vlad the Diversionary,
Please feel free to explain a) how you have proof of your position or
b) How I can not have proof and you don't have proof and somehow we are NOT equivalent in terms of lacking proof.
This is easily dealt with. Let's not do that though until you address why you have completely ignored Reply 25. Here it is again, just to jog your memory:
"A straw man doesn't get you off the hook. What you actually said was:
"......as opposed to a secularism which would have religion removed from the public forum." (Reply 13)
Secularism would have no such thing, as you well know because it's been explained to you so many times. That there might be some people who do want it is entirely irrelevant to the lie you told.
Why not for once man up and retract the untrue statement you made?"
Should we take it that you do now retract, only you don't have the cojones to say so? That you persist in your misunderstanding of "secularism"? That you intend to continue to traduce it by lying about it or by damning it by association?
What?
-
SteveH,
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/fallacists/
That's called the Argument from Fallacy, but your referencing of it a red herring (another fallacy by the way). People here aren't saying, "You're argument is false, therefore your proposition is wrong". Rather they're saying only, "The argument you're attempting to validate your proposition is false". That though tells you nothing about whether it might be possible to validate the proposition by other means.
Vlad, AB et al rely on various fallacies in their attempts to validate their conjectures of a "true for you too" god. Those arguments are easy to falsify, but that doesn't mean that their god(s) necessarily doesn't exist, any more than it would mean that leprechauns necessarily don't exist if I tried the same bad arguments to validate them..
-
More polysyllabic gobbledegook in many post above.
-
SteveH,
More polysyllabic gobbledegook in many post above.
Which part don't you understand?
-
More polysyllabic gobbledegook in many post above.
Why does the use of accurate terminology intimidate you?
-
Couldn't help noticing Vlad, your ignorance of what secularism is all about is showing yet again and it looks as though you have a very limited understanding of humanism too, they, secularism/humanism, mostly have a differing view to yourself about superstitious beliefs, neither of them are anti theist; anti privileges for theism/theists, well most of us, yes.
The R C's are very anti secular mainly because in the end where secularist principles are applied it will mostly effect their funding, other stuff as well, but the potential loss of funding is their main worry and I think they find it difficult to take in the very idea of having to live on a level playing field with the rest of us ordinary mortals.
Because of the above the R C church always misrepresents secularism with every chance it gets and it looks like you amongst the many have been taken in hook line and sinker with this anti secular propaganda of theirs.
Again Vlad try to find out what it is secularism actually stands for instead of showing your ignorance in this area, you're not that au fait with humanism either Vlad.
ippy
You said the RC is anti-secular because secularist principles affect their funding. Where in the linked article is there a complaint about funding? It could be there and I missed it but all I took away from that article is a complaint that certain people and groups in society are increasingly vocal against certain views held by Catholics, and this increased vocalism has been labelled as robust secularism in the article. And that this robust secularism is trying to silence certain Catholic teachings e.g. against abortion by labeling these teachings as "hate" in order to silence those holding those views.
Presumably you are not disagreeing that some people who self-identify as secularists try to silence certain religious teachings by labeling them as hate and can become abusive to people they disagree with?
From the article:
"The Rev Robertson has been the victim of a sustained campaign of abuse for many years now simply for re-emphasising Christian teaching on the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage. One of the big lies that have been allowed to take shape in modern, diverse Scotland where all are apparently welcome is that failure to sign up to the mainstream view of society and what it means to be human is evidence of hate."
-
You said the RC is anti-secular because secularist principles affect their funding. Where in the linked article is there a complaint about funding? It could be there and I missed it but all I took away from that article is a complaint that certain people and groups in society are increasingly vocal against certain views held by Catholics, and this increased vocalism has been labelled as robust secularism in the article. And that this robust secularism is trying to silence certain Catholic teachings e.g. against abortion by labeling these teachings as "hate" in order to silence those holding those views.
Presumably you are not disagreeing that some people who self-identify as secularists try to silence certain religious teachings by labeling them as hate and can become abusive to people they disagree with?
From the article:
"The Rev Robertson has been the victim of a sustained campaign of abuse for many years now simply for re-emphasising Christian teaching on the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage. One of the big lies that have been allowed to take shape in modern, diverse Scotland where all are apparently welcome is that failure to sign up to the mainstream view of society and what it means to be human is evidence of hate."
Sorry, but the above post is a petitio principii, a tu quoque, a straw man argument and an appeal to consequences, so must be ignored by all right-thinking polysyllabicists on this forum.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic. The above post is the first sensible one, apart from mine, on this thread so far.
-
Sorry, but the above post is a petitio principii, a tu quoque, a straw man argument and an appeal to consequences, so must be ignored by all right-thinking polysyllabicists on this forum.
Not that that's actually the case, but what do you suggest people do with bad arguments when they encounter them?
Especially repeatedly from repeat offenders.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic. The above post is the first sensible one, apart from mine, on this thread so far.
Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to everybody but Gabriella.
-
Not that that's actually the case, but what do you suggest people do with bad arguments when they encounter them?
Consider that the point being argued for may be true, even though the argument is fallacious, and be a bit (well, a lot) less arrogant in your tone.
Especially repeatedly from repeat offenders.Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to everybody but Gabriella.
I leave feeling superior to all the amateur philosophers. Incidentally, "repeatedly from repeat offenders" is tautological.
-
Consider that the point being argued for may nevertheless be true, even though the argument is fallacious
If it may be true, then it falls to the one who made a fallacious argument in the first place to present one that isn't. Until and unless that happens there's literally nothing to go on - may be, might be, could be alone doesn't hack it.
and be a bit (well, a lot) less arrogant in your tone.
Come come, you jest.
I leave feeling superior to all the amateur philosophers.
Well no; clearly not:
The above post is the first sensible one, apart from mine, on this thread so far.
-
SteveH,
Consider that the point being argued for may be true, even though the argument is fallacious, and be a bit (well, a lot) less arrogant in your tone.
You're pushing at an open door – anything may be true: gods, leprechauns, the man in the moon. No-one has suggested otherwise.
Now what?
I leave feeling superior to all the amateur philosophers.
Logicians rather than philosophers perhaps, and why do you feel that?
-
I realise this goes with the territory of a message board - that some posters debate the underlying issues, which makes it interesting to find out other people's views, and some posters just focus on one or two words in a post and pick that to death. But what about the point I made?
-
I realise this goes with the territory of a message board - that some posters debate the underlying issues, which makes it interesting to find out other people's views, and some posters just focus on one or two words in a post and pick that to death.
Not only easy to do but vital when those couple of words bring down an argument like Del Boy falling through a bar.
-
"I leave feeling superior to all the amateur philosophers."
Well no; clearly not:
"The above post is the first sensible one, apart from mine, on this thread so far."
You might also try developing a sense of humour.
-
"I leave feeling superior to all the amateur philosophers."
Well no; clearly not:
"The above post is the first sensible one, apart from mine, on this thread so far."
You might also try developing a sense of humour.
I'm right out of developer at the moment.
-
You said the RC is anti-secular because secularist principles affect their funding. Where in the linked article is there a complaint about funding? It could be there and I missed it but all I took away from that article is a complaint that certain people and groups in society are increasingly vocal against certain views held by Catholics, and this increased vocalism has been labelled as robust secularism in the article. And that this robust secularism is trying to silence certain Catholic teachings e.g. against abortion by labeling these teachings as "hate" in order to silence those holding those views.
Presumably you are not disagreeing that some people who self-identify as secularists try to silence certain religious teachings by labeling them as hate and can become abusive to people they disagree with?
From the article:
"The Rev Robertson has been the victim of a sustained campaign of abuse for many years now simply for re-emphasising Christian teaching on the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage. One of the big lies that have been allowed to take shape in modern, diverse Scotland where all are apparently welcome is that failure to sign up to the mainstream view of society and what it means to be human is evidence of hate."
I'm unaware of any evidence that this man has been the victim of hate crime, except his own assertion of such. Is there a police statement to back this up?
I do not support hate crime but I do support the right to speak out against the campaigns by the RC church to prevent legal abortion for those who need it - even victims of rape and incest - and their desire to reverse marriage equality and the damage that would do. If you hold abhorrent views and try to foist them on others then you have to expect to find that society does not much care for what you stand for.
And it's not 'mainstream' to support abortion rights and marriage equality, as if this man is taking some courageous stand against liking the X Factor or Pizza Hut. It is still risky to be openly gay. We still judge women for abortion - it's still taboo to talk about having one. It's not 'mainstream', it's humane to want a society that allows both, its humane and compassionate. It's no surprise that Catholicism fails drastically in this regard, but then its made-up god of guilt and vengeance is created in its image.
-
I'm unaware of any evidence that this man has been the victim of hate crime, except his own assertion of such. Is there a police statement to back this up?
From what relatively little I know of the wretched little dweeb I think I'm on safe ground in saying that what the Wee Flea thinks of as "a sustained campaign of abuse" is actually "being made fun of".
As for the rest: brilliant post.
-
Gabriella,
From the article:
"The Rev Robertson has been the victim of a sustained campaign of abuse for many years now simply for re-emphasising Christian teaching on the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage.
Just out of interest, what makes you think that some or all of that is true? What did this "sustained campaign of abuse" consist of, and how would you know that it was "simply for re-emphasising Christian teaching on the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage" in any case?
-
"I leave feeling superior to all the amateur philosophers."
Well no; clearly not:
"The above post is the first sensible one, apart from mine, on this thread so far."
You might also try developing a sense of humour.
You are also being logically fallacious (I leave it to the fallacy nerds to decide which fallacy it is): there is nothing intrinsically arrogant or superior in assuming that one's own posts are sensible; everyone must do that, or they wouldn't make the post in the first place.
-
You said the RC is anti-secular because secularist principles affect their funding. Where in the linked article is there a complaint about funding? It could be there and I missed it but all I took away from that article is a complaint that certain people and groups in society are increasingly vocal against certain views held by Catholics, and this increased vocalism has been labelled as robust secularism in the article. And that this robust secularism is trying to silence certain Catholic teachings e.g. against abortion by labeling these teachings as "hate" in order to silence those holding those views.
Presumably you are not disagreeing that some people who self-identify as secularists try to silence certain religious teachings by labeling them as hate and can become abusive to people they disagree with?
From the article:
"The Rev Robertson has been the victim of a sustained campaign of abuse for many years now simply for re-emphasising Christian teaching on the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage. One of the big lies that have been allowed to take shape in modern, diverse Scotland where all are apparently welcome is that failure to sign up to the mainstream view of society and what it means to be human is evidence of hate."
Your post is slightly off key nothing that bad and mainly probably due to not being familiar with the history of how Vlad finds it beyond him to understand secularism and our conversations on this.
Robust secularism? Secularism only aims to end religious extra say/privileged position in events to no more or any less of a say than anyone else, a level playing field that would also be no more of a privileged say for secularism or humanism as well.
I like most secularists are very much against the many religious privileges that remain from times past, the one of the most obvious privilege is the one given to the C of E it has 26 seats for the bishops in the house of Lords as of right and rubbing in the salt when they retire guess what, they're given a title that enables them to have a seat in the House of Lords, anyway there's loads more than that single example.
As you can see it has nothing to do with being anti religious or as Vlad mistakenly thinks anti theist, anti religious privilege yes.
ippy
-
You are also being logically fallacious (I leave it to the fallacy nerds to decide which fallacy it is): there is nothing intrinsically arrogant or superior in assuming that one's own posts are sensible
But there is in regarding those who can correctly identify bad arguments as nerds, which is generally not a complimentary term.
-
... all I took away from that article is a complaint that certain people and groups in society are increasingly vocal against certain views held by Catholics, and this increased vocalism has been labelled as robust secularism in the article. And that this robust secularism is trying to silence certain Catholic teachings e.g. against abortion by labeling these teachings as "hate" in order to silence those holding those views.
And here lies the hypocrisy. Survey after survey has found that a majority of catholics in the UK support abortion and their view are not heard within the church - so in effect he wants his cake and east it. In other words to have the orthodox catholic teaching on abortion to be heard, debated and respected within wider society (which of course they are) while not permitting the views of the majority of catholics on abortion (which isn't in agreement with orthodox catholic teaching)to be heard, debated and respected within the RCC.
-
You said the RC is anti-secular because secularist principles affect their funding. Where in the linked article is there a complaint about funding?
I think the issue of funding is there, albeit obliquely. Specifically faith school - which are run by the catholic church but are funded from general taxation.
'When some foolish but influential voices in Labour also began to question the continued existence of Catholic schools it became clear that while the party boasted of being a broad church it was having trouble accommodating some of its members who were confessing Christians.'
I think the RCC in the UK are terrified that some future government might abolish faith schools (or rather may no longer fund them from the tax payer), as they are massively important in maintaining numbers of practicing catholics (or rather slowing the decline).
-
Not only easy to do but vital when those couple of words bring down an argument like Del Boy falling through a bar.
I prefer posts where someone actually makes an argument about the issue but like I said goes with the territory that some posters seem to amuse themselves by responding to posts without addressing the interesting stuff - the ethical or moral issues.
-
I don't see how you can debate an argument that's fallacious to start with.
-
Gabriella,
I prefer posts where someone actually makes an argument about the issue but like I said goes with the territory that some posters seem to amuse themselves by responding to posts without addressing the interesting stuff - the ethical or moral issues.
I really think you’re missing the point here. When someone says, “I validate my claim of a true for you too god with the following argument” and that argument is falsified, then that becomes “the issue”. When the validating argument has collapsed, what else is there to discuss?
-
Gabriella,
I really think you’re missing the point here. When someone says, “I validate my claim of a true for you too god with the following argument” and that argument is falsified, then that becomes “the issue”. When the validating argument has collapsed, what else is there to discuss?
Whether or not the claim that the argument has been falsified is true for one. What properties of truth apply that allows that claim to be valid, or verified, for example?
-
I disagree strongly with a lot of what he says, but it's an intelligent article.
Let's see.
He claims I ought to respect his opinions on abortion and equal marriage for all even though his main reason for them is that his imaginary friend told him. It's also a bit hard to stomach the Catholic claim of sanctity for human life when they cover up child abuse on the part of their employees. See here:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/08/15/break-confessional-seal-over-crimes-says-pedophile-priest
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/14/clergy-who-fail-to-report-child-abuse-heard-in-confession-should-be-charged-royal-commission
Children have suffered sexual abuse because priests who heard confessions by child molestors and their victims did not go to the police. That's not sanctifying human life, it's holding it in contempt.
Also, the paragraph referred to in the thread title is risible. Does he honestly think we don't know why the seasons are always in the same order? He's going to blow his mind when he finds out that, in most parts of the world there aren't four seasons, but we can explain that too.
The reason why a lot of people don't take his arguments about things like abortion and gay marriage seriously is because we are adults and "my invisible friend said so" is not considered to be a good argument.
-
Sword,
Whether or not the claim that the argument has been falsified is true for one. What properties of truth apply that allows that claim to be valid, or verified, for example?
Logic.
A logically fallacious argument is always a wrong argument.
-
I'm unaware of any evidence that this man has been the victim of hate crime, except his own assertion of such. Is there a police statement to back this up?
I do not support hate crime but I do support the right to speak out against the campaigns by the RC church to prevent legal abortion for those who need it - even victims of rape and incest - and their desire to reverse marriage equality and the damage that would do. If you hold abhorrent views and try to foist them on others then you have to expect to find that society does not much care for what you stand for.
And it's not 'mainstream' to support abortion rights and marriage equality, as if this man is taking some courageous stand against liking the X Factor or Pizza Hut. It is still risky to be openly gay. We still judge women for abortion - it's still taboo to talk about having one. It's not 'mainstream', it's humane to want a society that allows both, its humane and compassionate. It's no surprise that Catholicism fails drastically in this regard, but then its made-up god of guilt and vengeance is created in its image.
I think you misread the article. Robertson did not say he was the victim of hate. The article seems to be saying that stuff Robertson says is mis-labelled as "hate" by certain people who presumably self-identify as secularists, in order to silence him from voicing his opinions. And the article seems to be saying this happens to other Catholics, expressing their views on various matters.
So for example, despite attacks on Muslims and mosques, he would object to people who try to silence his opinion of Islam e.g. in the article below by labelling him Islamaphobic or someone who hates Muslims.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/568999/Free-Church-minister-sounds-alarm-over-rise-of-Islam
The article says
"At least, though, you could still have a debate about these things in the old Labour Party. Those who supported a woman’s right to choose to abort her baby might disagree intensely with your pro-life sentiments but they would appreciate the sincerity of your position. In modern Scotland though, which strives to be the world’s most enlightened and inclusive wee country there is a campaign afoot to shut down all debate on those issues which Scotland’s social Sanhedrin considers sacrosanct and beyond dispute.
Thus, if you sincerely believe that a human life in the womb is deserving of as much protection as any other human life you are considered an extremist and obviously (if you are male) a sexist who is guilty of crimes against feminism."
I won't copy and paste any more - as the rest of it is right there in the link.
So it seems the main point of the article is an objection to shutting down of debate. Given there will be hate crimes sometimes committed on gays, women, Muslims etc are some people saying it is ok to shut down debate on sincerely held positions? This is a recurring theme - and seems to have played a part in voting for Brexit and Trump. I think the article has a valid point about the danger of shutting down debate by mis-labelling some views as "hate".
-
Gabriella,
I think you misread the article. Robertson did not say he was the victim of hate. The article seems to be saying that stuff Robertson says is mis-labelled as "hate" by certain people who presumably self-identify as secularists, in order to silence him from voicing his opinions. And the article seems to be saying this happens to other Catholics, expressing their views on various matters.
So for example, despite attacks on Muslims and mosques, he would object to people who try to silence his opinion of Islam e.g. in the article below by labelling him Islamaphobic or someone who hates Muslims.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/568999/Free-Church-minister-sounds-alarm-over-rise-of-Islam
The article says
"At least, though, you could still have a debate about these things in the old Labour Party. Those who supported a woman’s right to choose to abort her baby might disagree intensely with your pro-life sentiments but they would appreciate the sincerity of your position. In modern Scotland though, which strives to be the world’s most enlightened and inclusive wee country there is a campaign afoot to shut down all debate on those issues which Scotland’s social Sanhedrin considers sacrosanct and beyond dispute.
Thus, if you sincerely believe that a human life in the womb is deserving of as much protection as any other human life you are considered an extremist and obviously (if you are male) a sexist who is guilty of crimes against feminism."
I won't copy and paste any more - as the rest of it is right there in the link.
So it seems the main point of the article is an objection to shutting down of debate. Given there will be hate crimes sometimes committed on gays, women, Muslims etc are some people saying it is ok to shut down debate on sincerely held positions? This is a recurring theme - and seems to have played a part in voting for Brexit and Trump. I think the article has a valid point about the danger of shutting down debate by mis-labelling some views as "hate".
Yes, but apart from taking this (very poor thinker's) word for it, what makes you think that there is, "a campaign afoot to shut down all debate on those issues" or even just a lessening in appreciating "the sincerity of your position"?
-
Gabriella,
Just out of interest, what makes you think that some or all of that is true? What did this "sustained campaign of abuse" consist of, and how would you know that it was "simply for re-emphasising Christian teaching on the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage" in any case?
BHS
I could not find a lot on the internet about "a sustained campaign of abuse" but admittedly I didn't look very hard, as I was more interested in the issues raised. Robertson is presumably referring to stuff mentioned in this article in the Herald by him - he says he has received hate mail over LGBT issues, and given all the claims that people campaigning for or against Brexit received hate mail and were called names, I am inclined to believe that he did receive hate mail:
https://tinyurl.com/y8ftelbd
-
Gabriella,
BHS
I could not find a lot on the internet about "a sustained campaign of abuse" but admittedly I didn't look very hard, as I was more interested in the issues raised. Robertson is presumably referring to stuff mentioned in this article by him - he says he has received hate mail, and given all the claims that people campaigning for or against Brexit received hate mail and were called names, I am inclined to believe that he did receive hate mail:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14609460.Scotland__39_s_new___39_Section_28__39__Culture_War_Battle_breaks_out_between_Christians_and_Progressives_over_teaching_of_LBGTI_issues_in_schools/
No doubt, but it's quite a jump from receiving hate mail (which I deplore by the way) to a "sustained campaign of abuse", which was the claim he made. Some too by the way might think that the positions some clerics advocate and the behaviours they exhibit underpinned by the authority of the pulpit are themselves pretty "abusive" of the lives of the people they harm.
-
Your post is slightly off key nothing that bad and mainly probably due to not being familiar with the history of how Vlad finds it beyond him to understand secularism and our conversations on this.
Robust secularism? Secularism only aims to end religious extra say/privileged position in events to no more or any less of a say than anyone else, a level playing field that would also be no more of a privileged say for secularism or humanism as well.
I like most secularists are very much against the many religious privileges that remain from times past, the one of the most obvious privilege is the one given to the C of E it has 26 seats for the bishops in the house of Lords as of right and rubbing in the salt when they retire guess what, they're given a title that enables them to have a seat in the House of Lords, anyway there's loads more than that single example.
As you can see it has nothing to do with being anti religious or as Vlad mistakenly thinks anti theist, anti religious privilege yes.
ippy
I read Vlad's point as saying that some people who self-identify as secularists can be abusive towards people they disagree with who hold certain sincerely held religious faith positions. That doesn't necessarily mean that this is part of secularism.
Presumably one of the ideas of secularism is that freedom of expression within the law means we should not shut down debate by labelling it "blasphemy" or by labelling it "hate".
-
Gabriella,
No doubt, but it's quite a jump from receiving hate mail (which I deplore by the way) to a "sustained campaign of abuse", which was the claim he made. Some too by the way might think that the positions some clerics advocate and the behaviours they exhibit underpinned by the authority of the pulpit are themselves pretty "abusive" of the lives of the people they harm.
BHS
There is no objective definition of a "sustained campaign of hate" so it seems pointless for me to pursue this particular angle. We can agree that you disagree with the author of the article that Robertson was subjected to "a sustained campaign of hate".
What do you think is the difference between disagreeing with a lifestyle and abuse? What language do you think someone would employ if they wanted to express disagreement with an LGBT issue without it being seen as abusive?
-
Gabriella,
I read Vlad's point as saying that some people who self-identify as secularists can be abusive towards people they disagree with who hold certain sincerely held religious faith positions. That doesn't necessarily mean that this is part of secularism.
Presumably one of the ideas of secularism is that freedom of expression within the law means we should not shut down debate by labelling it "blasphemy" or by labelling it "hate".
But he referred (and consistently refers) to secularism, rather than to some people who may happen to self-identify as secularists. Having does so, he then uses his personal re-definition to make claims for it that it doesn't in fact entail, or to damn it by association with (for example) Stalin.
He's been corrected on the issue many times, but repeats the mistake/lie nonetheless.
-
BHS
Not sure about the rest of Vlad's posts but on this thread #3 he said "I'm getting hints of no true scotsman as in no secular humanist or fellow traveller could ever be beastly to the religious."
-
Gabriella,
There is no objective definition of a "sustained campaign of hate" so it seems pointless for me to pursue this particular angle.
But it was the claim the author made, presumably to engender a response. Whether this “sustained campaign” was in fact two green-inked letters from Mrs Doris Bonkers on the Isle of Skye or something worse though seems to me to be quite an important distinction.
We can agree that you disagree with the author of the article that Robertson was subjected to "a sustained campaign of hate".
No, I have no information either way. I’m just saying that I wouldn’t necessarily take his word for it is all.
What do you think is the difference between disagreeing with a lifestyle and abuse?
Being gay (as an example) isn’t a “lifestyle”, it’s an orientation
What language do you think someone would employ if they wanted to express disagreement with an LGBT issue without it being seen as abusive?
Perhaps a good place to start would be not to suggest with all the authority of your position in the clergy that an omniscient deity thought so too, and that you’ll meet a fiery end if you carry on as you are?
-
Gabriella,
Not sure about the rest of Vlad's posts but on this thread #3 he said "I'm getting hints of no true scotsman as in no secular humanist or fellow traveller could ever be beastly to the religious."
Yes, it's one of the dodges he tries to get off the hook of being challenged on what he actually said. He can "get all the hints" he likes, but that says nothing to the false claims he made about secularism. You'll notice for example that when I challenged him a few posts back he resorted immediately to the irrelevance of "are you saying that no people ever....?" etc, thereby avoiding entirely the lie he'd attempted about secularism as a principle and policy.
-
Gabriella,
But it was the claim the author made, presumably to engender a response. Whether this “sustained campaign” was in fact two green-inked letters from Mrs Doris Bonkers on the Isle of Skye or something worse though seems to me to be quite an important distinction.
BHS, it's not important enough to me to pursue it as I do not plan on writing to Robertson and reporting back.
No, I have no information either way. I’m just saying that I wouldn’t necessarily take his word for it is all.
Given, what I have seen of human nature in the Brexit debate, I'm going with taking his word for it.
Being gay (as an example) isn’t a “lifestyle”, it’s an orientation
I'm not talking about orientation. I was talking about behaviours and lifestyle - which are choices. Moral choices are usually about addressing behaviours.
Perhaps a good place to start would be not to suggest with all the authority of your position in the clergy that an omniscient deity thought so too, and that you’ll meet a fiery end if you carry on as you are?
Are you saying if people say, the Church teaches XYZ belief they are being abusive to others. Or is it only the "fiery end" that tips it over into abuse, in your opinion. Is using the word "sin" in a debate abusive in your opinion?
-
Gabriella,
Yes, it's one of the dodges he tries to get off the hook of being challenged on what he actually said. He can "get all the hints" he likes, but that says nothing to the false claims he made about secularism. You'll notice for example that when I challenged him a few posts back he resorted immediately to the irrelevance of "are you saying that no people ever....?" etc, thereby avoiding entirely the lie he'd attempted about secularism as a principle and policy.
In #3 he used the words "secular humanist" - a description of a person, not an -ism. Are you agreeing that he made no claim about an -ism in #3? I haven't read the other posts between you and Vlad as not sure what their relevance was to the article in the OP. If they are relevant to the OP I will have a read now.
-
And here lies the hypocrisy. Survey after survey has found that a majority of catholics in the UK support abortion and their view are not heard within the church - so in effect he wants his cake and east it. In other words to have the orthodox catholic teaching on abortion to be heard, debated and respected within wider society (which of course they are) while not permitting the views of the majority of catholics on abortion (which isn't in agreement with orthodox catholic teaching)to be heard, debated and respected within the RCC.
Yes I would agree that arguing against stifling debate in wider society and then stifling debate in the Catholic church is hypocrisy. I think debate should not be stifled in both arenas.
-
Gabriella,
BHS, it's not important enough to me to pursue it as I do not plan on writing to Robertson and reporting back.
Nor do I. I merely suggest that the author’s polemical intention and tenuous grip on reason make me cautious.
Given, what I have seen of human nature in the Brexit debate, I'm going with taking his word for it.
If that’s where you set the evidence bar, so be it.
I'm not talking about orientation. I was talking about behaviours and lifestyle - which are choices. Moral choices are usually about addressing behaviours.
What behaviours? Is going to bed with someone of the same gender a behaviour for example?
Are you saying if people say, the Church teaches XYZ belief they are being abusive to others. Or is it only the "fiery end" that tips it over into abuse, in your opinion. Is using the word "sin" in a debate abusive in your opinion?
I’m saying that it’s an abuse of position when they claim divine authority for "sinfulness", especially when done to people without the critical faculties to see through it – children for example.
In #3 he used the words "secular humanist" - a description of a person, not an -ism. Are you agreeing that he made no claim about an -ism in #3? I haven't read the other posts between you and Vlad as not sure what their relevance was to the article in the OP. If they are relevant to the OP I will have a read now.
In Reply 13 he said perfectly plainly, “......as opposed to a secularism which would have religion removed from the public forum."
If he didn’t mean what he said, he was quite at liberty to say so. What he actually did when challenged on this falsehood though was to attempt a diversion with, “Are you saying nobody has desired that or worked for it and that it never has been policy anywhere? Do you not wish for the eventual extinction of religion?”(Reply 20).
QED
In other words, your'e flogging a dead horse here Gabriella. Really.
-
Gabriella,
I really think you’re missing the point here. When someone says, “I validate my claim of a true for you too god with the following argument” and that argument is falsified, then that becomes “the issue”. When the validating argument has collapsed, what else is there to discuss?
The OP seemed to be about an article on stifling debate and focused on the claims that some of the Catholic Church teachings were being labelled as hate in order to try to shut down debate or not allow certain opinions to be expressed, as once you pull the "hate" word, it's not very nuanced or reasoned and is a bit like bringing Hitler into the debate. Having said that, the point the article was making was kind of lost once the article brought Communism into the mix.
The article did not seem to be about promoting a "true for you" God, but about whether the Catholic Church in Scotland was allowed free expression of its teachings and if these teachings could be debated without it turning to accusations of "hate" to prevent debate of people's positions.
-
What underlies the article - and trust me, I've been around Christian circles long enough to know this - is that God's rules are true for everyone regardless of their beliefs. So it is that a society that allowed abortion and marriage equality is by Christian definition a sinful one.
Perhaps it is worth remembering that the Scottish Anglicans recently voted to allow equal marriage.
-
Gabriella,
What behaviours? Is going to bed with someone of the same gender a behaviour for example?
I think going to bed with anyone is a behaviour, regardless of the gender, unless it was done against your will. I don't think orientation is a behaviour though.
I’m saying that it’s an abuse of position when they claim divine authority for "sinfulness", especially when done to people without the critical faculties to see through it – children for example.
Yes I agree in relation to children - I am not bothered by being labelled sinful, but a child probably would be.
In Reply 13 he said perfectly plainly, “......as opposed to a secularism which would have religion removed from the public forum."
If he didn’t mean what he said, he was quite at liberty to say so. What he actually did when challenged on this falsehood though was to attempt a diversion with, “Are you saying nobody has desired that or worked for it and that it never has been policy anywhere? Do you not wish for the eventual extinction of religion?”(Reply 20).
QED
In other words, your'e flogging a dead horse here Gabriella. Really.
Ok. I responded to Ippy's post, which was in response to #3. I skimmed past the other stuff about secularism to see if there was a post about the issue of stifling debate.
-
Gabriella,
The OP seemed to be about an article on stifling debate and focused on the claims that some of the Catholic Church teachings were being labelled as hate in order to try to shut down debate or not allow certain opinions to be expressed, as once you pull the "hate" word, it's not very nuanced or reasoned and is a bit like bringing Hitler into the debate. Having said that, the point the article was making was kind of lost once the article brought Communism into the mix.
The article did not seem to be about promoting a "true for you" God, but about whether the Catholic Church in Scotland was allowed free expression of its teachings and if these teachings could be debated without it turning to accusations of "hate" to prevent debate of people's positions.
No doubt you think that, but what I was actually responding to was your Reply 68:
"I prefer posts where someone actually makes an argument about the issue but like I said goes with the territory that some posters seem to amuse themselves by responding to posts without addressing the interesting stuff - the ethical or moral issues."
Which was your response to some posts about logical fallacies.
-
What underlies the article - and trust me, I've been around Christian circles long enough to know this - is that God's rules are true for everyone regardless of their beliefs. So it is that a society that allowed abortion and marriage equality is by Christian definition a sinful one.
Perhaps it is worth remembering that the Scottish Anglicans recently voted to allow equal marriage.
You might well be right about some of the Christians you have encountered.
The article seemed to be promoting debate, not just a Catholic voice to the exclusion of other voices, and I saw no mention of a sinful society. It seemed to be saying that if Scotland was striving to be inclusive, it did not seem compatible with the idea of inclusiveness to exclude Catholic voices by trying to label their voices as hate.
From the article:
"In modern Scotland though, which strives to be the world’s most enlightened and inclusive wee country there is a campaign afoot to shut down all debate on those issues which Scotland’s social Sanhedrin considers sacrosanct and beyond dispute."
-
Gabriella,
...it did not seem compatible with the idea of inclusiveness to exclude Catholic voices by trying to label their voices as hate.
I find that curious. If someone finds something to be hateful, should they not describe (or "label") it as such for fear of being though not inclusive? Would you extend the principle to any situation (neo-nazis in Charlottesville for example) or just to the RCs in Scotland?
Also why does calling something "hateful" "exclude voices" rather than describe what those voices are saying? If someone said, "that's hateful so you're not allowed to say it" I'd agree with you (subject to the law of the land). Has anyone done that though?
-
It's ironic that in the same article the Archbishop of Glasgow is quoted as berating Catholics who have become 'wishy washy' about their faith. Linking that to secularism presumably means that they have taken on liberal ideas. So presumably debating such matters within Catholicism is something that McKenna doesn't support.
-
You might well be right about some of the Christians you have encountered.
The article seemed to be promoting debate, not just a Catholic voice to the exclusion of other voices, and I saw no mention of a sinful society. It seemed to be saying that if Scotland was striving to be inclusive, it did not seem compatible with the idea of inclusiveness to exclude Catholic voices by trying to label their voices as hate.
From the article:
"In modern Scotland though, which strives to be the world’s most enlightened and inclusive wee country there is a campaign afoot to shut down all debate on those issues which Scotland’s social Sanhedrin considers sacrosanct and beyond dispute."
Well let's be honest, there's a whole heap of assertion in that article. The idea that someone who opposes some of the hateful things that some Christians say about marriage equality and abortion must therefore resent religion is one. In fact it is an outright lie. There are plenty of people like myself who don't resent religion but who do get angry about what is often done by its adherents; more to the point, plenty of Christians oppose such hateful ideas. The more I read this article the more it seems to be wanting to foster a feeling of 'them and us' and to actively stifle the debate within the churches themselves on these issues.
I was very involved in the CofE around the time of the Jeffrey John debacle and it contains a huge amount of spite against gay people. I left the church because of its poison long before I lost my faith.
-
You might well be right about some of the Christians you have encountered.
The article seemed to be promoting debate, not just a Catholic voice to the exclusion of other voices, and I saw no mention of a sinful society. It seemed to be saying that if Scotland was striving to be inclusive, it did not seem compatible with the idea of inclusiveness to exclude Catholic voices by trying to label their voices as hate.
From the article:
"In modern Scotland though, which strives to be the world’s most enlightened and inclusive wee country there is a campaign afoot to shut down all debate on those issues which Scotland’s social Sanhedrin considers sacrosanct and beyond dispute."
Speaking as a Scot who lives in Scotland I'm blissfully unaware of any such campaign: talk of the Steamie it is not.
It is possibly more the case that increasing numbers of those in Scotland are simply opting out of organised religion, much to the chagrin of those who still regard their religious perspective/preferred organisation as being especially important: it may be for them on a personal basis, but it clearly isn't for many others (like me), and I think they struggle with this reality.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39613631
-
Speaking as a Scot who lives in Scotland I'm blissfully unaware of any such campaign: talk of the Steamie it is not.
It is possibly more the case that increasing numbers of those in Scotland are simply opting out of organised religion, much to the chagrin of those who still regard their religious perspective/preferred organisation as being especially important: it may be for them on a personal basis, but it clearly isn't for many others (like me), and I think they struggle with this reality.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39613631
Which is a big reason to keep hold of those that remain by ensuring that they toe the party line. Creating the impression of unkind persecution and hate fuels tribalism which in turn makes it more likely that they will stay. Could that be what we are seeing here?
-
Gabriella,
I find that curious. If someone finds something to be hateful, should they not describe (or "label") it as such for fear of being though not inclusive? Would you extend the principle to any situation (neo-nazis in Charlottesville for example) or just to the RCs in Scotland?
Also why does calling something "hateful" "exclude voices" rather than describe what those voices are saying? If someone said, "that's hateful so you're not allowed to say it" I'd agree with you (subject to the law of the land). Has anyone done that though?
For me personally, I take the position that it would depend on what Neo-Nazis were saying -
(1)If they were advocating violence against a particular group of people as a generalisation, then I would label it "hate".
(2)If they weren't advocating violence, it would depend on what they were saying e.g. if they were calling them "dirty" or comparing them to animals in a derogatory way.
(3)If they were arguing a case for discrimination - I would not label that "hate" but I would debate the issue with them.
But that's just my position on "hate". I can't cover every scenario but I am assuming the first two is not the kind of thing Robertson was saying in relation to LGBT people.
I don't have a problem with an opinion being labelled "hateful" if the debate of the actual issues continues - because "hateful" is also an opinion. I think it only becomes problematic from a freedom of expression stand point (within the law) if people stop the debate of actual points raised and their contribution to the debate consists of labelling opinions "hateful".
-
I read Vlad's point as saying that some people who self-identify as secularists can be abusive towards people they disagree with who hold certain sincerely held religious faith positions. That doesn't necessarily mean that this is part of secularism.
Presumably one of the ideas of secularism is that freedom of expression within the law means we should not shut down debate by labelling it "blasphemy" or by labelling it "hate".
I've only been describing secularism to him, along with quite a few others, which no matter how many times the principles are explained to Vlad, he makes it obvious, invariably in his very next post, that it's an idea that is totally beyond him to be able to understand.
Various secularists that are mostly atheists do have many differences with Vlad, even so most of us wouldn't want to brake away from the principles of secularism, which as I described in my earlier post, the overall aim of secularism is to achieve a level playing field for all without privilege for any one or group, poor old Vlad he can't get his head around it.
ippy
-
He's also not got that plenty of believers are also secularists too, in the sense that they want religion taken out of the state and no privileges afforded to any one group.
-
He's also not got that plenty of believers are also secularists too, in the sense that they want religion taken out of the state and no privileges afforded to any one group.
Yes Rhi, I am careful to point it out that, 'mostly', secularists are atheists when I address him on this subject.
A good example there's a Rabbi chap, often on the BBC's 'Big Questions' prog he's very much a secularist, I'm sure you will know who I mean, a really pleasant man, can't think of his name and it's late.
ippy
-
Well let's be honest, there's a whole heap of assertion in that article. The idea that someone who opposes some of the hateful things that some Christians say about marriage equality and abortion must therefore resent religion is one. In fact it is an outright lie.
To which bit of the article are you referring? I did not spot this generalisation about "someone who opposes some of the hateful things that some Christians say about marriage equality and abortion must therefore resent religion". I did spot the article saying this:
"One of the big lies that have been allowed to take shape in modern, diverse Scotland where all are apparently welcome is that failure to sign up to the mainstream view of society and what it means to be human is evidence of hate.
If you are anti-abortion you must hate women; if you are against same-sex marriage then you must be homophobic. It’s a falsehood and a pernicious one at that. Hatred of gay, lesbian and trans-gender people and hate crimes against women are serious and ugly issues. But knowingly to manipulate ignorance around these issues to make false accusations against people whose religion you resent is an equally serious and ugly matter."
My understanding of that was that the article was concerned about people who make false accusations of hate against people who do not hold certain mainstream views, and whose religion they resent. That doesn't read to me like a generalisation that every accusation is false or that every person making an accusation of hate resents religion, so not sure where you are seeing a lie. If Robertson states he is against bullying of LGBT people, presumably he feels his views on marriage and LGBT issues are not evidence of "hate" and wants to be able to have a debate on political issues such as the beliefs around LGBT issues taught in primary schools.
There are plenty of people like myself who don't resent religion but who do get angry about what is often done by its adherents; more to the point, plenty of Christians oppose such hateful ideas. The more I read this article the more it seems to be wanting to foster a feeling of 'them and us' and to actively stifle the debate within the churches themselves on these issues.
I was very involved in the CofE around the time of the Jeffrey John debacle and it contains a huge amount of spite against gay people. I left the church because of its poison long before I lost my faith.
Undoubtedly some religious people in Scotland can be spiteful against gay people - there is evidence of homophobic bullying in Scottish schools. I think the article was just focusing on pointing out that there are some people who resent religion and who are trying to influence social issues by trying to smear religious people who have not expressed "hate" but who do oppose a particular political ideology or social policy with false accusations of "hate".
-
If you don't allow this:
and wants to be able to have a debate on political issues such as the beliefs around LGBT issues taught in primary schools.
(In my experience people of this type who want to have a 'debate' around LGBT issues are generally only interested in limiting or stifling the teaching of the issue completely)
How do you solve this:
there is evidence of homophobic bullying in Scottish schools
-
You are pretending to have the default position Floo and denying you are doing that.
Of course I believe it to be true because it is my experience and you do not believe it to be true because you prefer another position that also cannot be substantiated.
The experience of your imagination.
ippy
-
The experience of your imagination.
ippy
The imagination can be very convincing.
-
Gabriella,
"One of the big lies that have been allowed to take shape in modern, diverse Scotland where all are apparently welcome is that failure to sign up to the mainstream view of society and what it means to be human is evidence of hate.”
But again, why do you believe this? Where is this supposed lie expressed, and who exactly is saying it? Is anyone actually making the accusation “hate” just because some don’t “sign up to the mainstream view of society”, or are they rather identifying specific examples of statements they find to be hateful and explaining why?
”If you are anti-abortion you must hate women; if you are against same-sex marriage then you must be homophobic. It’s a falsehood and a pernicious one at that. Hatred of gay, lesbian and trans-gender people and hate crimes against women are serious and ugly issues.”
And the people uttering this “falsehood” are who exactly? Does he provide any evidence at all, or just assertions?
“But knowingly to manipulate ignorance around these issues to make false accusations against people whose religion you resent is an equally serious and ugly matter."
Perhaps it would be if he could actually giving us some examples of people “knowingly manipulating ignorance around these issue”.
What is this “ignorance”, who is “manipulating” it and how are they doing it?
The article reads to me like one long expression of personal prejudice validated only by un-evidenced assertions.
-
Trent,
Reply #103 - good question. I would argue (minus accusations of hate) that it is possible to teach Primary school children about not bullying other children or not using certain terms based on the following article.
https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/feb/05/homophobic-bullying-children-gay-primary-schools
Presumably the concern is that children are at different stages of awareness about sex and parents want to have a say in terms of input from people of authority such as teachers, as they currently still have the right to decide the age at which they introduce certain information, values and beliefs that will affect the emotional well-being or outlook of their children or influence their behaviour. But absolutely there is a requirement for primary schools to counter ideas coming from other children in the playground that lead to bullying.
-
Gabriella,
Reply #103 - good question. I would argue (minus accusations of hate) that it is possible to teach Primary school children about not bullying other children or not using certain terms based on the following article.
Even while telling them that acting on their orientation is "sinful"?
-
Trent,
Reply #103 - good question. I would argue (minus accusations of hate) that it is possible to teach Primary school children about not bullying other children or not using certain terms based on the following article.
https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/feb/05/homophobic-bullying-children-gay-primary-schools
Presumably the concern is that children are at different stages of awareness about sex and parents want to have a say in terms of input from people of authority such as teachers, as they currently still have the right to decide the age at which they introduce certain information, values and beliefs that will affect the emotional well-being or outlook of their children or influence their behaviour. But absolutely there is a requirement for primary schools to counter ideas coming from other children in the playground that lead to bullying.
That all gets so unremittingly messy though. Different parents will have different ideas about what is appropriate or not depending on their particular biases & sadly, prejudices.
And I personally cannot subscribe to a system as advocated by some religious people that they can teach respect for gay people whilst at the same time undermining that by teaching that homosexuality is sinful or considered lesser in some way.
-
Gabriella,
Even while telling them that acting on their orientation is "sinful"?
That's the contradiction that McKenna is in, which he doesn't seem to recognize. He wants respect for pro-life people and anti-gay people, yet these people hardly respect people who have abortions and are gay, respectively.
Prof. D. has already made the point that Abp Tartaglia, whom McKenna cites approvingly, criticizes those Catholics who accept abortion and gay marriage. So we should not criticize him?
-
BHS
Your reply #106 - I think you may want to focus on different issues from me, which is fine. I have no interest in picking apart the opinion piece of Kevin McKenna , as I understand the gist of the opinion he is trying to express, but am sure there will be other posters who will probably want to respond to picking apart the statements made in the article.
I prefer to focus on whether Catholics feel it is possible to have a debate on these issues without false accusations, and I am also interested in Prof Davey's point that debate is difficult within the Catholic Church - and am interested to know if there have been accusations that similar methods are used to shut down debate within the Catholic Church against Catholics who do not hold "mainstream" Church views.Trent also raised an interesting point on how to protect vulnerable people as well as take into account that a blanket policy might create emotional harm for children who are more "sheltered" is the best way I can think of putting it for now.
It's the issue of how debates can be had - my impression from the vitriol and no-platforming and Twitter storms and people having to resign for expressing certain opinions is that it has become more difficult to just debate an issue and agree to disagree.
Regarding why Robertson feels he has been on the receiving end of abuse - you can read his blog I suppose if you want to get his take on it.
https://theweeflea.com/2016/07/11/what-price-for-a-herald-the-debate-over-compulsory-lbgti-education-in-schools/
-
That's the contradiction that McKenna is in, which he doesn't seem to recognize. He wants respect for pro-life people and anti-gay people, yet these people hardly respect people who have abortions and are gay, respectively.
Prof. D. has already made the point that Abp Tartaglia, whom McKenna cites approvingly, criticizes those Catholics who accept abortion and gay marriage. So we should not criticize him?
I have to go - so will have to come back to this point. I skimmed through Tartaglia's opinion piece (linked below) - and what I get from it is that it doesn't seem to be a similar style to the Herald piece against Robertson that he objected to, but like I said only skim read it.
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2017/08/08/scottish-lessons-church-united-states/
-
I prefer to focus on whether Catholics feel it is possible to have a debate on these issues without false accusations, and I am also interested in Prof Davey's point that debate is difficult within the Catholic Church - and am interested to know if there have been accusations that similar methods are used to shut down debate within the Catholic Church against Catholics who do not hold "mainstream" Church views.
I don't think any opportunity for debate is allowed within the church organisation. My wife is a 'from the cradle' practicing catholic closely involved in church activities - specifically providing the music for one mass each Sunday. She doesn't agree with the orthodox RCC position on a range of issues. We have talked this over, with me being perplexed as to why she (and many others like her who disagree with the church) don't raise the issues. Her view is that there is simply no forum or opportunity for this to be raised and that is deliberate. The church takes a position and you are expected to agree - if not you are expected to keep your views to yourself.
So you may have a priest preaching about the evils of abortion or gay relationships to a congregation, 70% of whom disagree (to take fairly standard poll findings), yet that massive level of dissent is simply ignored.
-
This brief article on Lavinia Byrne is informative. I followed the story at the time and she was treated shamefully.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/600437.stm
-
This brief article on Lavinia Byrne is informative. I followed the story at the time and she was treated shamefully.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/600437.stm
That is a fairly extreme example and probably more associated this people in the clergy and religious orders.
I think in the rank and file the approach is more 'don't ask, don't tell'.
Effectively that the church never provides an opportunity for individual catholics to indicate whether they agree (or crucially disagree) with orthodox teaching, and individual catholics know that they should keep quiet if they dissent.
So you have the bizarre situation where the church overtly organises campaigns (e.g. to oppose gay marriage) - providing pre-written post-cards, directly linking to wording to be used in letter to write to your MP etc opposing something that probably most sitting on the pews support.
-
Dermott O'Leary did a very good programme on what rank and file Catholics believe compared to what they are supposed to believe.
-
Dermott O'Leary did a very good programme on what rank and file Catholics believe compared to what they are supposed to believe.
Now if the church and rank and file catholics want to engage in a dance of dishonesty as an internal matter, well I guess that's up to them.
What I find more concerning is where the hierarchy of the church express opinions, implying that they are speaking on behalf of millions of ordinary catholics, when in fact a majority of those ordinary catholics probably don't agree with that opinion.
-
I suspect many Catholics use contraceptives these days.
-
I suspect many Catholics use contraceptives these days.
Possibly not the case any more but it was only a few years ago that IIRC the world's number one country for contraceptive use was Italy.
-
Now if the church and rank and file catholics want to engage in a dance of dishonesty as an internal matter, well I guess that's up to them.
What I find more concerning is where the hierarchy of the church express opinions, implying that they are speaking on behalf of millions of ordinary catholics, when in fact a majority of those ordinary catholics probably don't agree with that opinion.
It does matter, because if the likes of Byrne can't have a voice then the lay Catholics who want reform can't either.
-
The imagination can be very convincing.
Is this what has led to you to claim continually that religious believers have no evidence for their claims?
If you say 'No', how can you be sure?
-
Is this what has led to you to claim continually that religious believers have no evidence for their claims?
If you say 'No', how can you be sure?
If they had convincing verifiable evidence surely they would have presented it, but they never have.
-
Gabriella,
Even while telling them that acting on their orientation is "sinful"?
BHS
It's difficult to get me worried about being labelled "sinful". As a theist, someone considering me as "sinful" or considering myself "sinful" goes hand in hand with religion. I don't find it disrespectful to be considered "sinful". I don't remember finding it disrespectful even when I was a Hindu or an atheist - but that's me. I think it is possible to teach children not to bully regardless of their opinions on sinfulness.
-
Yes but thats really not what its about Gabriella. Its about what that definition of simful empowers and emboldens others to do. If it made no difference then religious people wouldnt use it. But they do. And they have used to justify all manner of ill treatment.
If people want to consider me sinful. Go ahead knock yoursellves out. But if as aresult of that definition they want to deny rights or make my life worse then no. They can just politely fuck off.
Im actually surprised that you cant see this. It is in essense what Trump is doing in the USA. He is empowering certain groups to feel as if they can behave in discriminatory ways against other hroups because they are superior. It isnt exactly the same as the sinful situation. But close enough. Ive heard as much smug superiority in some preachers as Ive hesrd from neo nazis.
-
Trent
It's not that I don't get the empowering or slippery slope argument - I am not sure it is a strong enough argument for me to shut down Trump or the religious from expressing their views using the language that has meaning for them.
I can either take the view that the word "sinful" has no power until someone decides to bully someone whom they consider "sinful" and then have processes in place to deal with bullying or I can be more cautious and say certain words empower others to act violently so those words should not be used.
-
The Christian concept of sinfulness is that people *are* inherently sinful, not just that they do sinful things. Inevitably this had led to all men are sinners, but some are more sinful than others (historically women, today gay people).
-
That's the contradiction that McKenna is in, which he doesn't seem to recognize. He wants respect for pro-life people and anti-gay people, yet these people hardly respect people who have abortions and are gay, respectively.
Prof. D. has already made the point that Abp Tartaglia, whom McKenna cites approvingly, criticizes those Catholics who accept abortion and gay marriage. So we should not criticize him?
I think McKenna was expressing the opinion that it is possible to be on opposing sides of a debate on an education policy issue and challenge your opponent's view without trying to demonise or inaccurately discredit your opponent. And he was also making the point that Catholics need to stand up to people who do more than just criticise their beliefs e.g. who over-exaggerate statements about them or try to criminalise certain religious expressions or practices by labelling them homophobic hate crimes.
For example, he mentioned Robertson, who not surprisingly objected to the way the Sunday Herald disagreed with his position on an LGBT issue by describing Robertson as a religious extremist "obsessed with gay s*x. Hardly a day goes by when he is not making some foamy-mouthed condemnation of a subject he has an extraordinary interest in"
-
The Christian concept of sinfulness is that people *are* inherently sinful, not just that they do sinful things. Inevitably this had led to all men are sinners, but some are more sinful than others (historically women, today gay people).
A Muslim woman would presumably be considered to be more sinful than some others by some Catholics - it's a view to debate, without permitting bullying of Muslims or Catholics.
-
I think it is possible to teach children not to bully regardless of their opinions on sinfulness.
I think it is possible, but it is a difficult one to reconcile and fraught with danger.
Most significantly you aren't in control of how others take that teaching. So while you might teach that even though you consider gay people to be sinful, but that you don't condone bullying, it legitimises the actions of those who do bully. It creates a culture where gay people are considered different and lesser, and it is an easy step to take from that view to deciding it is therefore OK to give a gay person a good kicking.
-
A Muslim woman would presumably be considered to be more sinful than some others by some Catholics - it's a view to debate, without permitting bullying of Muslims or Catholics.
It's a pretty unpleasant debate and leads to places you don't want to go.
How much better to accept that none of catholics, muslims, gay people etc are inherently sinful simply by virtue of being catholics, muslims, gay people etc.
-
Why is it a good idea to debate a policy that would have some kids in schools being told that their parents are 'sinful' just for loving each other?
-
Why is it a good idea to debate a policy that would have some kids in schools being told that their parents are 'sinful' just for loving each other?
Or being told that they themselves are sinful - it is appalling.
-
Or being told that they themselves are sinful - it is appalling.
Quite.
-
Quite.
And this comes back to the problem with Garbriella's notion that 'it is possible to teach children not to bully regardless of their opinions on sinfulness'.
As a school how can you credibly condemn bullying if you teach that some kids in a class are sinful because they are gay. To be honest - that in itself is bullying - not of the physical violence type, but bullying nonetheless in my view.
-
I think it is possible, but it is a difficult one to reconcile and fraught with danger.
Most significantly you aren't in control of how others take that teaching. So while you might teach that even though you consider gay people to be sinful, but that you don't condone bullying, it legitimises the actions of those who do bully. It creates a culture where gay people are considered different and lesser, and it is an easy step to take from that view to deciding it is therefore OK to give a gay person a good kicking.
Yes - permitting judgemental language could lead to some people deciding they have a licence to give someone a good-kicking. I see the danger but still think I prefer a world where the risk is addressed in a way that doesn't involve shutting down debate.
-
Yes - permitting judgemental language could lead to some people deciding they have a licence to give someone a good-kicking. I see the danger but still think I prefer a world where the risk is addressed in a way that doesn't involve shutting down debate.
So I assume you are happy with teaching that some people are inferior because they are black - because you don't want to shut down debate.
Completely comfortable with children being taught that you are inferior because you are a woman - because you don't want to shut down debate.
I'm sorry none of this prejudicial, discriminatory rhetoric has any place in a classroom, or indeed in any 'teaching'. This isn't 'debate' - it is nasty bigotry.
-
It's a pretty unpleasant debate and leads to places you don't want to go.
How much better to accept that none of catholics, muslims, gay people etc are inherently sinful simply by virtue of being catholics, muslims, gay people etc.
It might well be better to accept that but as I am not really seeing the problem with someone calling me sinful, I am finding it hard to share your view.
-
Why is it a good idea to debate a policy that would have some kids in schools being told that their parents are 'sinful' just for loving each other?
The debate would be about what the education policy would teach children about LGBT. I am not sure which education policy you are referring to where children would be told their parents are sinful? I do not think this was an education policy Robertson was arguing for?
-
It might well be better to accept that but as I am not really seeing the problem with someone calling me sinful, I am finding it hard to share your view.
But it isn't just you - what about others.
And how about my earlier point. To reiterate - are you happy with children being taught that you are inferior because you are a woman?
-
I am not sure which education policy you are referring to where children would be told their parents are sinful?
It is happening right now in faith schools and Sunday school classes up and down the country. And it wouldn't be just the parents - children who are gay are being taught they are sinful simply because they are gay. I'm sorry but that is disgraceful.
-
Or being told that they themselves are sinful - it is appalling.
I am not aware that this was what Robertson was asking children to be taught by the school when he objected to the proposals for teaching about LGBT. I don't see a problem with debating what will and won't be included in Primary School teaching about LGBT issues.
-
So I assume you are happy with teaching that some people are inferior because they are black - because you don't want to shut down debate.
Completely comfortable with children being taught that you are inferior because you are a woman - because you don't want to shut down debate.
I'm sorry none of this prejudicial, discriminatory rhetoric has any place in a classroom, or indeed in any 'teaching'. This isn't 'debate' - it is nasty bigotry.
Why would you assume I am happy for children to be taught that from my words that I am happy to debate what should be included and not included in teaching children about a particular topic? My point was that it should be possible for opposing sides to debate what should and should not be included in material being taught to children.
-
It's clear that both McKenna and Robertson believe that marriage is between male and female only. What are they likely to want schools to teach about marriage equality?
-
Why would you assume I am happy for children to be taught that from my words that I am happy to debate what should be included and not included in teaching children about a particular topic? My point was that it should be possible for opposing sides to debate what should and should not be included in material being taught to children.
I am not assuming it, I was making a point about consistency in use or derogatory terms toward some people simply on the basis of attributes (e.g. race, gender, sexuality) which they can't choose.
So lets broaden the discussion - two question that I'd be grateful that you answer.
1. Are you happy with children being taught that women are inferior to men in schools?
2. Are you happy to have a debate about whether children should be taught that women are inferior to men in schools?
-
It is happening right now in faith schools and Sunday school classes up and down the country. And it wouldn't be just the parents - children who are gay are being taught they are sinful simply because they are gay. I'm sorry but that is disgraceful.
I was under the impression that many Christians hold the position that being gay wasn't considered sinful - other than the point Rhiannon made that everyone regardless of orientation was considered sinful - and that various behaviours were considered sinful. And specifically the Catholic Church official position was that SSM was not allowed as part of Catholic beliefs about marriage.
-
I was under the impression that many Christians hold the position that being gay wasn't considered sinful ... and that various behaviours were considered sinful.
But that is mealy mouthed nonsense - you cannot say that being gay is fine but expressing your sexuality through a consensual and loving relationship is wrong. It is an untenable position.
-
It's clear that both McKenna and Robertson believe that marriage is between male and female only. What are they likely to want schools to teach about marriage equality?
I don't know. Has the issue been debated as to what they did not want or did want the Education policy to include - as far as I am aware they are opposed to what they think is a particular political ideology being taught to children, but not sure what if any ideology they want to be taught instead of that particular political ideology.
-
I am not assuming it, I was making a point about consistency in use or derogatory terms toward some people simply on the basis of attributes (e.g. race, gender, sexuality) which they can't choose.
So lets broaden the discussion - two question that I'd be grateful that you answer.
1. Are you happy with children being taught that women are inferior to men in schools?
2. Are you happy to have a debate about whether children should be taught that women are inferior to men in schools?
Let's not broaden the discussion.
Question 1 is irrelevant to a debate between adults on education policy.
Question 2 is irrelevant unless the proposed education policy was going to include a section where children are taught gay people are inferior. I am not aware that Robertson was proposing such an Education policy to be taught in schools.
-
I don't know. Has the issue been debated as to what they did not want or did want the Education policy to include - as far as I am aware they are opposed to what they think is a particular political ideology being taught to children, but not sure what if any ideology they want to be taught instead of that particular political ideology.
Marriage equality isn't a political ideology.
-
But that is mealy mouthed nonsense - you cannot say that being gay is fine but expressing your sexuality through a consensual and loving relationship is wrong. It is an untenable position.
Well, technically a person is free to hold that position if they want - since any behaviour can be considered wrong in someone's opinion.
But this is getting off-topic. The issue the OP seemed to be highlighting was McKenna stating that it should be possible for Catholics to lobby the government or express views over inclusion and exclusion of certain material in education policy, without people attempting to shut down the debate.
-
Marriage equality isn't a political ideology.
You are free to assert that the ethics being proposed to be taught to children about LGBT issues is not part of a political ideology and clearly someone else is asserting that they are part of a political ideology.
-
Let's not broaden the discussion.
Question 1 is irrelevant to a debate between adults on education policy.
Question 2 is irrelevant unless the proposed education policy was going to include a section where children are taught gay people are inferior. I am not aware that Robertson was proposing such an Education policy to be taught in schools.
The only difference is the nature of the derogatory term aimed a certain people on the basis of attributes they have no control over.
So it make no difference whether it is describing gay people as sinful, for women as inferior, or black people as unclean. It is the same issue.
And your evasion in refusing to answer the question is noted - so lets cut the 'it's irrelevant' evasion tactic, please answer the question:
Are you happy with children being taught that women are inferior to men in schools?
-
The only difference is the nature of the derogatory term aimed a certain people on the basis of attributes they have no control over.
So it make no difference whether it is describing gay people as sinful, for women as inferior, or black people as unclean. It is the same issue.
And your evasion in refusing to answer the question is noted - so lets cut the 'it's irrelevant' evasion tactic, please answer the question:
Are you happy with children being taught that women are inferior to men in schools?
Feel free to note whatever you wish to note.
I, in turn, will note that your questions are not relevant to the issue for the reasons already stated. And you can note that I have noted your note.
-
Feel free to note whatever you wish to note.
Hmm - refusal to answer - very telling.
For the record I think it is completely unacceptable for children to be taught in schools that:
Women are inferior
Black people are unclear
Gay people are sinful
-
Hmm - refusal to answer - very telling.
Ok.
For the record I think it is completely unacceptable for children to be taught in schools that:
Women are inferior
Black people are unclear
Gay people are sinful
Ok.
-
Feel free to note whatever you wish to note.
I, in turn, will note that your questions are not relevant to the issue for the reasons already stated. And you can note that I have noted your note.
I note you still haven't answered his question Gabriella, is it it problematic for you in some way?
ippy
-
I note you still haven't answered his question Gabriella, is it it problematic for you in some way?
ippy
Clearly - it is not a hard question is it really.
You'd think that Gabriella is having some problems because she is appalled by the idea the children being taught that women are inferior, but recognises that if she indicates as such then she can't credibly hold the line that it's OK to teach children that gay people are sinful without being guilty of full-on double standards.
-
I note you still haven't answered his question Gabriella, is it it problematic for you in some way?
ippy
No - it's just irrelevant for the reasons stated.
-
Clearly - it is not a hard question is it really.
You'd think that Gabriella is having some problems because she is appalled by the idea the children being taught that women are inferior, but recognises that if she indicates as such then she can't credibly hold the line that it's OK to teach children that gay people are sinful without being guilty of full-on double standards.
You can assert that if you want - I am all for freedom of belief in situations like this.
-
No - it's just irrelevant for the reasons stated.
That doesn't stop you from answering the question, though does it - claiming something to be irrelevant is classic evasion tactic.
Just answer the question - it isn't hard is it ... or perhaps it is for you.
-
That doesn't stop you from answering the question, though does it - claiming something to be irrelevant is classic evasion tactic.
Just answer the question - it isn't hard is it ... or perhaps it is for you.
I could just answer the question but I choose not to - what can I say, I'm difficult that way.
It's an irrelevant question and you are free to form a judgement about my behaviour - you thinking I am evasive affects me about as much as a Catholic thinking I am sinful i.e. not very much at all.
But what I will say is that if I had a problem with debates about whether someone is inferior because they are not a man, or because they are not an atheist, I would not be a Muslim woman on a R&E debating forum or a Muslim woman debating issues in real life.
-
you thinking I am evasive affects me about as much as a Catholic thinking I am sinful i.e. not very much at all.
But clearly the issue of teaching children in schools that women are inferior touches a nerve.
-
But what I will say is that if I had a problem with debates about whether someone is inferior because they are not a man, or because they are not an atheist, I would not be a Muslim woman on a R&E debating forum or a Muslim woman debating issues in real life.
I'm not talking about the debate, but about the practice - in other words teaching a class of children (some of whom will be female) that women are inferior.
By the way on the debate issue - nope there should be a debate - schools are regulated and most are funded by the tax payer and therefore the government has an right to set certain standards, and those should accord with the basic equality rights shrined in our laws. So that means that no school should be permitted to teach that:
1. Women are inferior
2. Black people are unclear
3. Gay people are sinful
There are times when you have to draw a line within a society and hold the moral high ground.
-
But clearly the issue of teaching children in schools that women are inferior touches a nerve.
I could probably save you some time if I just said you are of course free to believe evasive, touched a nerve, any other variation on that same theme.
-
I could probably save you some time if I just said you are of course free to believe evasive, touched a nerve, any other variation on that same theme.
Your refusal to answer the simplest of question probably tells us far more than had you actually answered it.
Shame on you.
-
I'm not talking about the debate, but about the practice - in other words teaching a class of children (some of whom will be female) that women are inferior.
Ok but I was talking about the debate on what should be included when teaching primary school children about LGBT issues. And I did not want to get the issue muddied by something that didn't seem relevant.
If Robertson was arguing that the education policy should be that schools should be teaching children that gay people are inferior then your questions about teaching them that women are inferior would be relevant.
But as far as I am aware, Robertson was not suggesting that children should be taught in schools that gay people are inferior.
The McKenna article in the OP referenced Robertson being asked by the Sunday Herald for his response to proposals by the campaign group "Time for Inclusive Teaching" being put to the Scottish parliament, and Robertson's objections to the accusations made against him in the subsequent Herald article.
-
Your refusal to answer the simplest of question probably tells us far more than had you actually answered it.
Shame on you.
That's about as effective as a Catholic calling me sinful. Just saying. But if it's something you felt you needed to say - ok.
-
But that is mealy mouthed nonsense
Which is Gabriella on pretty much anything and everything, anytime, ever.
-
Which is Gabriella on pretty much anything and everything, anytime, ever.
You felt you needed to make that contribution - and now you feel better for it, same as Prof D. I get it - sometimes people like to feel their judgements are being heard.
-
It's not that I don't get the empowering or slippery slope argument - I am not sure it is a strong enough argument for me to shut down Trump or the religious from expressing their views using the language that has meaning for them.
Well we will have to disagree. It is not a slippery slope argument. Some churches in the USA are still promoting damaging gay conversion therapy. That is not a slippery slope argument. That is a fact. People are being damaged by other people who are being empowered by language that has "meaning for them".
The "meaning" being an ability to express and act on their hatred in such disgusting ways.
-
The Rev Robertson wants an outright ban on LGBT issues being taught at primary level. He thinks it is 'social engineering'.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14595000.Scotland_s_new__Section_28__Culture_War_breaks_out_over_mandatory_teaching_of_LGBT_issues_in_school/
-
Robertson is an extremely nasty piece of the proverbial whose preaching has done a lot of harm over the years! >:(
-
The Rev Robertson wants an outright ban on LGBT issues being taught at primary level. He thinks it is 'social engineering'.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14595000.Scotland_s_new__Section_28__Culture_War_breaks_out_over_mandatory_teaching_of_LGBT_issues_in_school/
I referenced that article in my reply #111 on page 5 - that was the article Robertson objected to as being inaccurate in his blog and the article was reproduced in his blog, along with his response and the response to the response..
-
Robertson is an extremely nasty piece of the proverbial who preaching has done a lot of harm over the years! >:(
Have you met David?
Been to St Peter's?
Have you asked those to whom he is called to minister their view?
No?
Well, David is a personal friend of mine, floo.
I don't share all his ideas - but he is actually a very caring person, and, in his tradition (The Free Church of Scotland) something of a maverick.
Considering his background (Strict Plymouth Bretheren) he has come a very long way.
To say that he is 'nasty' is something of a sweeping generalisation.
You may well dispute his position -as, in some instances, do I - but the man is by no means nasty.
-
Well we will have to disagree. It is not a slippery slope argument. Some churches in the USA are still promoting damaging gay conversion therapy. That is not a slippery slope argument. That is a fact. People are being damaged by other people who are being empowered by language that has "meaning for them".
The "meaning" being an ability to express and act on their hatred in such disgusting ways.
Yes - agree to disagree. My view is that part of the reason Trump was elected was because he was able to voice political opinions on policies or ideologies that people wanted to be able to talk about but felt that their voices were not being heard in the debate or were being inaccurately portrayed, whether it was about Jews, Muslims, gays, immigration or ethnic minorities. My opinion therefore is that shutting down voices leads to an unsatisfactory outcome and I would rather have a situation where discussions can take place amongst people with opposing policy ideas on the detail of how to combat bullying, without superficial hyperbole, in order that people who feel they are not being heard do not resort to electing a Trump to get their voices heard. There must be quite a few of them for Trump to get elected so you can't ignore them or shout them down - an alternative option is detailed debate to try to persuade them to your beliefs.
-
Yes - agree to disagree. My view is that part of the reason Trump was elected was because he was able to voice political opinions on policies or ideologies that people wanted to be able to talk about but felt that their voices were not being heard in the debate or were being inaccurately portrayed, whether it was about Jews, Muslims, gays, immigration or ethnic minorities. My opinion therefore is that shutting down voices leads to an unsatisfactory outcome and I would rather have a situation where discussions can take place amongst people with opposing policy ideas on the detail of how to combat bullying, without superficial hyperbole, in order that people who feel they are not being heard do not resort to electing a Trump to get their voices heard. There must be quite a few of them for Trump to get elected so you can't ignore them or shout them down - an alternative option is detailed debate to try to persuade them to your beliefs.
Whilst I understand your analysis of Trump's 'victory' - I think you are downplaying the appeal to prejudice that took part.
My point is that for gay children to be able to withstand bullying they need the tools to do that. They need to be told that they are OK. They need to be told that they can go to someone in authority and they will be taken seriously and treated fairly. They can't do that if that is denied by the likes of the Rev Robertson.
I am talking from experience here. My childhood, and particularly my teenage years would have been much happier and I think more balanced, had I been afforded that sort of treatment.
-
Whilst I understand your analysis of Trump's 'victory' - I think you are downplaying the appeal to prejudice that took part.
My point is that for gay children to be able to withstand bullying they need the tools to do that. They need to be told that they are OK. They need to be told that they can go to someone in authority and they will be taken seriously and treated fairly. They can't do that if that is denied by the likes of the Rev Robertson.
I am talking from experience here. My childhood, and particularly my teenage years would have been much happier and I think more balanced, had I been afforded that sort of treatment.
Trent - sorry to hear about your childhood.
I agree there was an appeal to prejudice with Trump - I do think that that tactic would not have worked so well for Trump if politics had been more about respectful engagement and policy debate with those you disagreed with. It seems to tend more towards abusive identity wars rather than policy debates these days.
I agree with your view that gay children, or indeed any children who are being bullied, need the tools to withstand it. I would think that if Robertson was asked for his opinion on the proposed tools put forward by TIE, and he opposed those tools for Primary school children, the next step would be to ask which particular aspects he opposed, why, and what alternative tools he proposed to safeguard LGBT Primary school children, or Primary school children of LGBT parents, from bullying. I linked to Shaun Dellenty's article in the Guardian (he is the founder of the organisation, Inclusion For All) where he has details of what he considers appropriate tools to give schools to combat homophobic bullying at a Primary school level.
In other words, having discussions on the issues without exaggerated accusations from any side would be a better plan IMO for persuading people to agree on a way forward rather than remaining entrenched in opposing political positions on LGBT issues.
-
The first step in stopping homophobic bullying is to stop 'othering' people who are LGBT. That is easily done in primary schools by making it very matter-of-fact that some people have relationships with others of the same gender, and some people have parents that are of the same gender. It's not a big deal.
-
The first step in stopping homophobic bullying is to stop 'othering' people who are LGBT. That is easily done in primary schools by making it very matter-of-fact that some people have relationships with others of the same gender, and some people have parents that are of the same gender. It's not a big deal.
Yes - Shaun Dellenty seems to have suggested something similar for Primary schools - I linked to it earlier.
https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/feb/05/homophobic-bullying-children-gay-primary-schools
-
Yes - Shaun Dellenty seems to have suggested something similar for Primary schools - I linked to it earlier.
https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/feb/05/homophobic-bullying-children-gay-primary-schools
And this is what Robertson doesn't want in schools.
-
Trent - sorry to hear about your childhood.
Well I wouldn't want you to think that it was awful or anything - it wasn't. But I still think things could have been different for me it I hadn't worried so much about the matter (although maybe I was born a worrier!), and an openness by the education establishment would have been very welcome. But they were very different times in the 60's and 70's.
I agree there was an appeal to prejudice with Trump - I do think that that tactic would not have worked so well for Trump if politics had been more about respectful engagement and policy debate with those you disagreed with. It seems to tend more towards abusive identity wars rather than policy debates these days.
Yes but (and I realize this is a digression here) it was Trump who did that. Whenever Clinton tried to get onto policy debate he'd drag it off into rhetoric of the most prejudiced kind. I really don't think it was for the lack of trying on Clinton's side - however much one liked or disliked her (more of a Bernie man myself).
-
And this is what Robertson doesn't want in schools.
I think you missed my edit in #177. I said:
I would think that if Robertson was asked for his opinion on the proposed tools put forward by TIE, and he opposed those tools for Primary school children, the next step would be to ask which particular aspects he opposed, why, and what alternative tools he proposed to safeguard LGBT Primary school children, or Primary school children of LGBT parents, from bullying. I linked to Shaun Dellenty's article in the Guardian (he is the founder of the organisation, Inclusion For All) where he has details of what he considers appropriate tools to give schools to combat homophobic bullying at a Primary school level.
In other words, having discussions on the issues without exaggerated accusations from any side would be a better plan IMO for persuading people to agree on a way forward rather than remaining entrenched in opposing political positions on LGBT issues.
-
Well I wouldn't want you to think that it was awful or anything - it wasn't. But I still think things could have been different for me it I hadn't worried so much about the matter (although maybe I was born a worrier!), and an openness by the education establishment would have been very welcome. But they were very different times in the 60's and 70's.
Yes but (and I realize this is a digression here) it was Trump who did that. Whenever Clinton tried to get onto policy debate he'd drag it off into rhetoric of the most prejudiced kind. I really don't think it was for the lack of trying on Clinton's side - however much one liked or disliked her (more of a Bernie man myself).
I agree Clinton tried to debate policy. But a lot of damage had already been done as Trump was able to tap into people's frustration at being derided by the "educated liberal elite" and present himself as a maverick who would say the things his supporters felt they were not allowed to say. I think deriding people is more likely to result in them becoming more entrenched in their position - so I think there are more effective ways to pursue political aims.
-
Robertson says quite clearly he doesn't want LGBT issues taught in schools. The only way to teach that LGBT people are the same as everyone else is to have them visibly represented in society, including in literature in schools. 'Tools' to prevent bullying are only effective when used alongside education that stops othering people in the first place.
-
Robertson says quite clearly he doesn't want LGBT issues taught in schools. The only way to teach that LGBT people are the same as everyone else is to have them visibly represented in society, including in literature in schools. 'Tools' to prevent bullying are only effective when used alongside education that stops othering people in the first place.
All good points that can be put to Robertson in any discussions when identifying his or others' concerns to do with the TIE proposal of mandatory teaching of LGBT issues in schools.
Apparently Robertson's opinion was of interest to the Herald, since he was asked by the Herald for his opinion on the TIE proposals that was put to the Scottish Parliament. More discussions may shift some or all of his opinions, once there is greater clarity on the details of what's being proposed to be taught to children - Robertson seemed to have a concern that moral beliefs were being imposed. In his blog on the LGBT issue he said "For those who don’t [believe in a Maker] they can choose to get their rules and principles from elsewhere but in reality that means that the rich and powerful will just make up their own morality and impose it on the rest of us. Morality just becomes the fashion of the rich and powerful."
McKenna's article in the OP was about constructive ways to debate and deal with opposing opinions and concerns on political issues, such as education policies.
-
Morality just becomes the fashion of the rich and powerful."
Ermm....isn't that a description of most Churches?
-
All good points that can be put to Robertson in any discussions when identifying his or others' concerns to do with the TIE proposal of mandatory teaching of LGBT issues in schools.
Apparently Robertson's opinion was of interest to the Herald, since he was asked by the Herald for his opinion on the TIE proposals that was put to the Scottish Parliament. More discussions may shift some or all of his opinions, once there is greater clarity on the details of what's being proposed to be taught to children - Robertson seemed to have a concern that moral beliefs were being imposed. In his blog on the LGBT issue he said "For those who don’t [believe in a Maker] they can choose to get their rules and principles from elsewhere but in reality that means that the rich and powerful will just make up their own morality and impose it on the rest of us. Morality just becomes the fashion of the rich and powerful."
McKenna's article in the OP was about constructive ways to debate and deal with opposing opinions and concerns on political issues, such as education policies.
That's rather a selective understanding you have there.
-
Ermm....isn't that a description of most Churches?
Quite.
I dislike the idea that 'ordinary' people are too thick and too weak to form moral ideas withoutbthe church to shield them from the ecstasies of 'the rich and powerful'. Talk about a desire for a dependency culture.
-
Ermm....isn't that a description of most Churches?
Absolutely. Maybe his point is that where there are conflicting beliefs from different sources, he wants to argue for his beliefs not to be replaced by other people's beliefs, while recognising that other people will argue that their beliefs should take precedence over his beliefs. McKenna's point was that there are better ways to have these discussions rather than employing sensational headlines, accusations, and hate mail.
-
In his blog on the LGBT issue he said "For those who don’t [believe in a Maker] they can choose to get their rules and principles from elsewhere
The weal and welfare of actually existing people rather than appeasing the deities of ancient desert superstitions, perhaps.
-
That's rather a selective understanding you have there.
Did you want me to replace it with your selective understanding?
-
The weal and welfare of actually existing people rather than appeasing the deities of ancient desert superstitions, perhaps.
Sure
-
Absolutely. Maybe his point is that where there are conflicting beliefs from different sources, he wants to argue for his beliefs not to be replaced by other people's beliefs, while recognising that other people will argue that their beliefs should take precedence over his beliefs. McKenna's point was that there are better ways to have these discussions rather than employing sensational headlines, accusations, and hate mail.
Hang on, let's wind this back. Why *should* there be any discussion between the education policy makers and the churches about LGBT issues being taught in schools? There is nothing inherently immoral about them and it seems ludicrous that churches should be included and have a voice against equality education 'because god says so.'
The last I knew RC schools were free to set their own policies btw.
-
Hang on, let's wind this back. Why *should* there be any discussion between the education policy makers and the churches about LGBT issues being taught in schools? There is nothing inherently immoral about them and it seems ludicrous that churches should be included and have a voice against equality education 'because god says so.'
Isn't that ultimately what it all boils down to with these types, in the end? Anybody who says "I think ... " can be reasoned with, at least in principle; anybody who makes their "I think ... " into "God says/wants ... " has put themselves outside of the tent of reasoning.
-
Hang on, let's wind this back. Why *should* there be any discussion between the education policy makers and the churches about LGBT issues being taught in schools? There is nothing inherently immoral about them and it seems ludicrous that churches should be included and have a voice against equality education 'because god says so.'
The last I knew RC schools were free to set their own policies btw.
There doesn't have to be discussions between education policy makers and the churches.
TIE had put forward some proposals to the Scottish Parliament to discuss, concerning education policy on LGBT issues. The Sunday Herald asked Robertson for his opinion on the proposals, he gave it, and he objected to the sensationalist tone of the subsequent article in the Sunday Herald and the hate mail and what he called "abuse" that he received as a result of the article.
McKenna referenced this incident in his general opinion piece on it having become a more difficult environment for Catholics to stand up for their beliefs e.g. against people who want to silence their beliefs through hate mail, abuse or by accusing them of crimes for holding certain opinions on SSM.
And I commented on his views on whether reasoned debate was becoming more difficult.
-
Isn't that ultimately what it all boils down to with these types, in the end? Anybody who says "I think ... " can be reasoned with, at least in principle; anybody who makes their "I think ... " into "God says/wants ... " has put themselves outside of the tent of reasoning.
There will always be conflict between people who want change and people who want to maintain traditions, regardless of the basis for that emotional connection to tradition e.g. whether the attachment is based on culture, politics, philosophy, religion etc
-
There is no reasonable debate to be had with 'because God says so.' All that can be done is concessions put in place - exemptions for some church schools and the parental right to withdraw children from sex ed. It's already been noted that the churches themselves aren't open to debate within their urn ranks and that liberal Catholics are dismissed as 'wishy washy'. And McKenna thinks this a good thing.
-
I disagree with your chosen form of "otherness" and think it is possible to have a reasonable debate with people with an emotional attachment to abstract concepts, regardless of whether they are religious, political, cultural or philosophical concepts.
McKenna's point about wishy washy Catholics was to do with being too sensitive to criticism rather than standing up for one's beliefs and related to this point made by Haldane and quoted by Tartaglia that too many Catholics are "preoccupied with means of forestalling secular criticism, rather than engaging confidently with it, in part by means of ingratiating ourselves with dominant groups and classes.”
Tartaglia goes on to say "We accommodate. We compromise. We avoid conflict - even when conflict is the only proper course. We are too wishy-washy, as we would say in Scotland."
ETA - I agree with your point that there should be a means of debate within the Catholic Church so liberal Catholics can express and stand up for their beliefs.
-
To render one section of our community invisible in primary schools is to 'other' them.
The Catholic church really needs to have debate within its own ranks before it can say what Catholics actually want. At least that does happen within Anglicanism, however badly.
-
To render one section of our community invisible in primary schools is to 'other' them.
The Catholic church really needs to have debate within its own ranks before it can say what Catholics actually want. At least that does happen within Anglicanism, however badly.
i agree the Catholic Church is not really representative without a debate. I don't think justice is modelled by the Church leaders preferring it to remain an hierarchy where they decide the Church position, and people are left to decide if they want to stay or leave the Church.
But given, the diverse views thereisn't really a Catholic position , anymore than there is s Muslim position.
I think it's worth discussing proposed policy details with Catholic parents and leaders who voice concerns that the proposals are for mandatory beliefs on LGBT to be taught to their children in Primary school, in order to figure out the detail of how not to render LGBT issues invisible in Primary schools.
-
i agree the Catholic Church is not really representative without a debate. I don't think justice is modelled by the Church leaders preferring it to remain an hierarchy where they decide the Church position, and people are left to decide if they want to stay or leave the Church.
But given, the diverse views thereisn't really a Catholic position , anymore than there is s Muslim position.
I think it's worth discussing proposed policy details with Catholic parents and leaders who voice concerns that the proposals are for mandatory beliefs on LGBT to be taught to their children in Primary school, in order to figure out the detail of how not to render LGBT issues invisible in Primary schools.
It's true that there's no such thing as a Christian position. However the Catholic Church still has that its teachings and traditions are infallible and I don't see that changing any time soon, if ever. So although debate within the church should happen, it won't.
Nobody wants 'beliefs' about LGBT issues taught - there are facts that can and should figure in schools. There's no detail to figure out unless the idea is for facts to be ignored.
-
It's true that there's no such thing as a Christian position. However the Catholic Church still has that its teachings and traditions are infallible and I don't see that changing any time soon, if ever. So although debate within the church should happen, it won't.
Nobody wants 'beliefs' about LGBT issues taught - there are facts that can and should figure in schools. There's no detail to figure out unless the idea is for facts to be ignored.
Sure - in which case a discussion on the proposed policy and material to be taught is a good way of allaying Robertson's concerns about beliefs being taught rather than facts.
The Herald article you linked to quoted Robertson as saying "“We are concerned that what is being proposed is not teaching children facts but indoctrinating them with a particular political/sexual philosophy.”
-
In practice does that happen? Kids are growing up accepting & hardly noticing that some have two same sex parents. Most will have one of each, a few don't, pretty soon it won't be worth a mention. That's not indoctrinating, it's just living peaceably alongside others. There are other issues about which to take umbrage like war, poverty and famine.
As far as I know the state Catholic schools near to me have much the same ethos & if kids want to debate they will do so while the teachers try to keep everything moderate. Vast majority of pupils and staff will have liberal or moderate views as will some of the clergy. (I don't know about independent schools.)
-
Hang on, let's wind this back. Why *should* there be any discussion between the education policy makers and the churches about LGBT issues being taught in schools? There is nothing inherently immoral about them and it seems ludicrous that churches should be included and have a voice against equality education 'because god says so.'
The last I knew RC schools were free to set their own policies btw.
Even more so when you consider that these schools are effectively 100% state funded.
-
Even more so when you consider that these schools are effectively 100% state funded.
I assume the government is interested in the Catholic Church's position because sufficient numbers of tax payers and voters want to send their children to faith schools, faith communities have political influence, and lobbying on policy issues is part of being in a democracy so the Church lobbies on issues that it has an interest in such as education and ethics.
-
Sure - in which case a discussion on the proposed policy and material to be taught is a good way of allaying Robertson's concerns about beliefs being taught rather than facts.
The Herald article you linked to quoted Robertson as saying "“We are concerned that what is being proposed is not teaching children facts but indoctrinating them with a particular political/sexual philosophy.”
To him the 'facts' are that gay relationships and marriage equality are sinful, as is abortion. If schools teach anything differently then to him this will not be 'factual', but 'indoctrination'.
-
To him the 'facts' are that gay relationships and marriage equality are sinful, as is abortion. If schools teach anything differently then to him this will not be 'factual', but 'indoctrination'.
What are you basing that opinion on? Robertson's blog says "I gave my considered opinion and whilst I do not expect every one to agree with me, I do expect that in a democracy my views are entitled to be heard without being subject to the kind of irrational and prejudiced abuse demonstrated in the article. "
Robertson also said other people who do not share his beliefs, including his beliefs on SSM, are free to choose to get their rules and principles from sources other than the Bible. So based on his blog, it appears that his concern is about indoctrination of children with the beliefs, rules and principles from other sources as opposed to facts.
Morals and ethics about SSM and bullying are not facts. That SSM exists in society and that children at school might be from diverse family backgrounds is a fact. That bullying people because they seem different from the majority - whether it is because of race or to whom they are naturally attracted or their religious beliefs or their atheism or their moral or ethical beliefs or how they self-identify in some other way - can cause harm is also a fact.
I say "can cause harm" as there are many children who can shrug it off. I had kids spit in my face and call me a Paki at school during the 70s and some adults were less welcoming of my brown face or cultural differences but it just seemed part of the rough and tumble of navigating Life. Lots of people were nice to me too so I didn't dwell on the ones who weren't and just made street-wise choices about where I walked or went by myself in the playground and park and walking home from school.
-
Bullying needs to be cracked down upon, it shouldn't be treated as a fact of life. I was bullied at my primary school because I came from a better home than that of some of the other kids, so I know how horrible it is to be afraid to go to school. :o
-
Sorry about your childhood experiences Floo.
I think most people want to stop bullying, including Robertson.
I was making the point that bullying is hard to define as different people have different tolerance levels before they feel they are being bullied, and also whereby it's a problem for them. I didn't want to generalise about harm as it's a fact that some people don't feel harmed by what others would define as bullying - it probably depends on the severity and the individual's circumstances.
-
Is it all a bit like if someone punches me hard in the face. If I can shrug it off then it's not really assault?
-
Is it all a bit like if someone punches me hard in the face. If I can shrug it off then it's not really assault?
Depends on the circumstances - if I was in a fight and punching back, I might shrug it off. I kick-box so being punched in the face is not that big of a deal for me - depends on the damage,
Also bullying can be verbal or physical. A spit or a punch in the face is physical - it can be established objectively- either it happened or it didn't.
Verbal bullying can depend on perception. Having said that, most people would agree that calling people names is bullying. I didn't say I didn't experience bullying but I am not aware of feeling harmed by it. My point was about whether people always feel harmed.
-
Depends on the circumstances - if I was in a fight and punching back, I might shrug it off. I kick-box so being punched in the face is not that big of a deal for me - depends on the damage,
Also bullying can be verbal or physical. A spit or a punch in the face is physical - it can be established objectively- either it happened or it didn't.
Verbal bullying can depend on perception. Having said that, most people would agree that calling people names is bullying. I didn't say I didn't experience bullying but I am not aware of feeling harmed by it. My point was about whether people always feel harmed.
Nevertheless, regardless of level of harm, they have actually been bullied, yes?
-
Nevertheless, regardless of level of harm, they have actually been bullied, yes?
If it was accusations of verbal bullying I genuinely don't know - who decides when something is verbal bullying unless it is obvious name-calling?
-
Is it all a bit like if someone punches me hard in the face. If I can shrug it off then it's not really assault?
Good analogy.
-
Good analogy.
It's a bad analogy for non-physical bullying. What do you do if someone alleges they have been subjected to non-physical bullying? Who decides whether they have been bullied or not?
-
Emotional bullying, like emotional and mental domestic abuse, can be harder to prove and harder to deal with.
-
It's a bad analogy for non-physical bullying. What do you do if someone alleges they have been subjected to non-physical bullying? Who decides whether they have been bullied or not?
Its a bit like asking who decides if you have been slandered or not.
Also a physical assault cannot necessarily be easily determined it could be dependent on when the alleged assault took place.
-
True. So I can't say if someone has been bullied or not.
Incidentally, Pride March happening outside my hotel in Cardiff. Kids excited to join in - there is a funfair starting soon and bands playing after 6pm so we'll probably go early evening.
-
True. So I can't say if someone has been bullied or not.
Incidentally, Pride March happening outside my hotel in Cardiff. Kids excited to join in - there is a funfair starting soon and bands playing after 6pm so we'll probably go early evening.
As they sing in the Flintstones....
Have a yabba dabba doo time
A dabba doo time
We'll have a gay old time!
Gabriella!(shouty Fred smiley).
-
Thanks. Looks pretty good - thete are actually tribute bands playing now - I can hear Abba songs and I am standing outside the hotel and can see a guy in drag belting out Queen hits.