Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on April 16, 2019, 11:02:34 PM
-
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/apr/16/school-assistant-loses-job-over-petition-against-lgbt-teaching.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/apr/16/school-assistant-loses-job-over-petition-against-lgbt-teaching.
Nope
-
Don't worry Phyllis. That bastion of fairness towards LGBT people called the Christian Legal Centre will be sure to support another martyr.
Anyway in other news I studied the Second World War in history at school. I've not invaded Poland (yet).
-
That horrible woman was persecuting gays with her behaviour and deserved to be sacked,
-
So no persecution at all then. Frankly, if I had a child struggling with issues of sexual orientation she's not someone I'd want as his/her "pastoral assistant" in any case.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/apr/16/school-assistant-loses-job-over-petition-against-lgbt-teaching.
I think there are disturbing facets to this case but I don't understand why you are framing it as persecution of a Christian, or why the article makes "Christian" the second word.
-
That horrible woman was persecuting gays with her behaviour and deserved to be sacked,
No she wasn't. She was objecting to "age appropriate" sex education in her son's primary school (not the school from which she was sacked). She may have been wrong (I'm actually not sure whether she is or not), but it is not persecution to be wrong.
-
I think there are disturbing facets to this case but I don't understand why you are framing it as persecution of a Christian, or why the article makes "Christian" the second word.
We tend to see these stories via the prism of media reporting, which is often editorially slanted and in any case tends to be one sided as the purportedly 'wronged' person tends to go to the media in the first place and has their side told unencombered - by contrast the organisation (the school in this case) typically will not provide full details on the basis of appropriate HR practice of confidentiality.
We tend not to see the full picture until (or unless) the case goes to court in which case both sides come out.
All I am saying is that there may be rather more to this than is seen at first glance from the media reports.
-
We tend to see these stories via the prism of media reporting, which is often editorially slanted and in any case tends to be one sided as the purportedly 'wronged' person tends to go to the media in the first place and has their side told unencombered - by contrast the organisation (the school in this case) typically will not provide full details on the basis of appropriate HR practice of confidentiality.
We tend not to see the full picture until (or unless) the case goes to court in which case both sides come out.
All I am saying is that there may be rather more to this than is seen at first glance from the media reports.
Yes, quite often in these cases, the complainant omits details. So it's possible that she is claiming she was fired for campaigning against sex education in her son's school, but in reality, there were incidents at her school that are more serious. Not saying it is true in this case, but it wouldn't be the first time.
-
Yes, quite often in these cases, the complainant omits details. So it's possible that she is claiming she was fired for campaigning against sex education in her son's school, but in reality, there were incidents at her school that are more serious. Not saying it is true in this case, but it wouldn't be the first time.
It is also likely that the school has clear (and possibly quite strict) policies on staff use of social media. This is very common and the teachers I know are extremely careful about what they post and who they link to. So the key issue might not have been what she posted, but who she posted it to, e.g. kids and parents at the school where she worked. If there was a clear policy and she clearly breached it then the school is entirely within its rights to take action. Whether this action (not that we are quite sure what it is) is proportionate is another matter.
Anyhow I find it galling when christians cry 'persecution' over something like this when christian schools have been adoption draconian (and highly subjective) meeting the values of the school policies for years. Good example being a catholic school that offered a job to a person and then revoked the offer when they discovered the person was separated from their wife.
-
I personally know a catholic school head teacher who was sacked, he'd recently gone through a divorce.
He had also misappropriated school funds which didn't come out until he stupidly took the LEA to court .
-
Anyhow I find it galling when christians cry 'persecution' over something like this when christian schools have been adoption draconian (and highly subjective) meeting the values of the school policies for years. Good example being a catholic school that offered a job to a person and then revoked the offer when they discovered the person was separated from their wife.
This reads like a bit of a cake and eat it kind of a post.
On one hand you seem to be saying no persecution and on the other trying to justify it as a kind of revenge sacking for what the catholics did. Do we even know whether this lady is a catholic? If not, why mention it?
-
This reads like a bit of a cake and eat it kind of a post.
On one hand you seem to be saying no persecution and on the other trying to justify it as a kind of revenge sacking for what the catholics did. Do we even know whether this lady is a catholic? If not, why mention it?
She is claiming she lost her job because she was a christian - I'm simply giving examples where christian schools have kicked people out (or in my example revoked a job offer) because they didn't like aspects of the applicant's private life, which would be open and shut direct discrimination except for the special privileges religions are given as exemptions from the law.
-
She is claiming she lost her job because she was a christian - I'm simply giving examples where christian schools have kicked people out (or in my example revoked a job offer) because they didn't like aspects of the applicant's private life, which would be open and shut direct discrimination except for the special privileges religions are given as exemptions from the law.
That sounds like ''Had it coming'' to me.
-
She is claiming she lost her job because she was a christian - I'm simply giving examples where christian schools have kicked people out (or in my example revoked a job offer) because they didn't like aspects of the applicant's private life, which would be open and shut direct discrimination except for the special privileges religions are given as exemptions from the law.
Two wrongs don't make a right though.
-
Two wrongs don't make a right though.
Glad to see that you accept that it is wrong to provide special privileges to religious organisations allowing them opt-outs to equalities legislation that don't apply to other organisations.
Sounds as if you are embracing secularism after all. You'll be joining the NSS next.
-
If a person has done something wrong they must accept the consequences, whether or not they are religious.
-
Glad to see that you accept that it is wrong to provide special privileges to religious organisations allowing them opt-outs to equalities legislation that don't apply to other organisations.
Sounds as if you are embracing secularism after all. You'll be joining the NSS next.
Glad to see that you accept that it is wrong to provide special privileges to religious organisations allowing them opt-outs to equalities legislation that don't apply to other organisations.
Sounds as if you are embracing secularism after all. You'll be joining the NSS next.
I don't know where you get that idea.
Secularise schools today, schools sold off for housing estates tomorrow.
-
I don't know where you get that idea.
Because you said that:
'Two wrongs don't make a right though'
Implying that you consider both the case in the OP to be wrong, but also that allowing faith schools special privileges to opt out of equalities legislation is also wrong, as indicated by me in reply 12.
-
Anyhow I find it galling when christians cry 'persecution' over something like this when christian schools have been adoption draconian (and highly subjective) meeting the values of the school policies for years. Good example being a catholic school that offered a job to a person and then revoked the offer when they discovered the person was separated from their wife.
Sorry if this is a bit of a derail, but since it has been established that (a) a catholic school is involved and (b) the subject of your comment has a "wife". Could you not have used the appropriate masculine pronoun?
I think that the academic pressures enforcing political correctness - particularly in tertiary education - are every bit as persecuting as anything else. It some years since I retired and the need to communicate in a "gender free" manner was already apparent then.
-
Sorry if this is a bit of a derail, but since it has been established that (a) a catholic school is involved and (b) the subject of your comment has a "wife". Could you not have used the appropriate masculine pronoun?
I think that the academic pressures enforcing political correctness - particularly in tertiary education - are every bit as persecuting as anything else. It some years since I retired and the need to communicate in a "gender free" manner was already apparent then.
Women can have wives too, now. It’s possible that the candidate was rejected, not because she was separated from her wife but because she ever had one. If I had to bet, I’d guess it was a man, but you can’t be completely certain, nowadays, and that’s a good thing.
-
I had considered that, Jeremy, but since the RC church does not recognise same sex marriage there is no way such a woman would have even been considered for a post in a catholic school. That was the reason for my point (a).
-
I had considered that, Jeremy, but since the RC church does not recognise same sex marriage there is no way such a woman would have even been considered for a post in a catholic school. That was the reason for my point (a).
Not true, my friend is headteacher in an RC school and is married to his husband.
-
Sorry if this is a bit of a derail, but since it has been established that (a) a catholic school is involved and (b) the subject of your comment has a "wife". Could you not have used the appropriate masculine pronoun?
You do understand that it is possible in 2019 for a woman to have a wife.
In this instance the person involved was male, but you shouldn't presume that to be the case. And why is using a gendered pronoun more 'appropriate' than using gender neutral language?
-
I had considered that, Jeremy, but since the RC church does not recognise same sex marriage there is no way such a woman would have even been considered for a post in a catholic school. That was the reason for my point (a).
Why should someone suffer discrimination in employment in a state-funded school on the basis of their sexuality. That seems entirely wrong to me.
And note NS's point - not all catholic schools will discriminate, although they all have a special privilege that allows them to do so, wrongly in my opinion.
-
Why should someone suffer discrimination in employment in a state-funded school on the basis of their sexuality. That seems entirely wrong to me.
And note NS's point - not all catholic schools will discriminate, although they all have a special privilege that allows them to do so, wrongly in my opinion.
To clarify they still discriminate but just for people to say they are Catholics, not in this case that they aren't same sex married.
-
And why is using a gendered pronoun more 'appropriate' than using gender neutral language?
Because "gender neutral" English is ugly, clumsy, imprecise English.
-
Because "gender neutral" English is ugly, clumsy, imprecise English.
In your opinion - other opinions are available.
-
Because "gender neutral" English is ugly, clumsy, imprecise English.
I'm with you on that HH , but then I don't care who I offend
-
OR,
I don't care who chooses to be offended by what I say
-
I'm with you on that HH , but then I don't care who I offend
But is was HH who appeared to be offended by me choosing not to use gendered language, not the other way around. I think there is a smattering of hypocrisy in the 'political correctness gone mad' brigade when they imply this to be about avoiding offence, when it is they, themselves, who are expressing offence at people using language they don't like, not the other way around.
-
But is was HH who appeared to be offended by me choosing not to use gendered language, not the other way around. I think there is a smattering of hypocrisy in the 'political correctness gone mad' brigade when they imply this to be about avoiding offence, when it is they, themselves, who are expressing offence at people using language they don't like, not the other way around.
now I am confused ???
-
today I self identify as...……..
a ring spanner . thank you .
-
now I am confused ???
You shouldn't be.
Most people I know who use what you might describe as PC language don't do so to avoid offence - it is just the normal language they use. Yet the "anti-PC brigade" seem constantly offended and riled by others choosing to use such language. It seems to me that it is the anti-PC brigade who seem to rush to being offended not the other way around.
And on the broader issue where the gender of the person involved is irrelevant to the point being made, why mention it.
-
You shouldn't be.
Most people I know who use what you might describe as PC language don't do so to avoid offence - it is just the normal language they use. Yet the "anti-PC brigade" seem constantly offended and riled by others choosing to use such language. It seems to me that it is the anti-PC brigade who seem to rush to being offended not the other way around.
And on the broader issue where the gender of the person involved is irrelevant to the point being made, why mention it.
because I like to know what sort of creature I'm talking to , Prof.
-
because I like to know what sort of creature I'm talking to , Prof.
A post in which Walter complains about others using non-gendered language, while happily using a non gendered term himself. ;)
-
A post in which Walter complains about others using non-gendered language, while happily using a non gendered term himself. ;)
well
obviously you're a man because you're a prof ;)
-
A post in which Walter complains about others using non-gendered language, while happily using a non gendered term himself. ;)
Professress?
-
Professress?
;D
-
well
obviously you're a man because you're a prof ;)
Extra diversity training for you ;)