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

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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).

[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 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 Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

Or being told that they themselves are sinful - it is appalling.

Quite.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?   

[ProfessorDavey]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.   

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.