God exists because the seasons happen in the same order each year

[bluehillside Retd.]

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"?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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".

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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."

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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." 

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Gordon]

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

[Rhiannon]

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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".   

[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".

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