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

[Rhiannon]

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.

[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.

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

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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". 

[Aruntraveller]

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

[ippy]

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

[floo]

The experience of your imagination.

ippy

The imagination can be very convincing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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"?

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[wigginhall]

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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/

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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/

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

Dermott O'Leary did a very good programme on what rank and file Catholics believe compared to what they are supposed to believe.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[floo]

I suspect many Catholics use contraceptives these days.

[Shaker]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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?

[floo]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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. 

[Aruntraveller]

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.