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

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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 Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ippy]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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. 
 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Shaker]

But that is mealy mouthed nonsense

Which is Gabriella on pretty much anything and everything, anytime, ever.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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/

[floo]

Robertson is an extremely nasty piece of the proverbial whose preaching has done a lot of harm over the years!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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..

[Anchorman]

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.