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

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

Yes - agree to disagree. My view is that part of the reason Trump was elected was because he was able to voice political opinions on policies or ideologies that people wanted to be able to talk about but felt that their voices were not being heard in the debate or were being inaccurately portrayed, whether it was about Jews, Muslims, gays, immigration or ethnic minorities. My opinion therefore is that shutting down voices leads to an unsatisfactory outcome and I would rather have a situation where discussions can take place amongst people with opposing policy ideas on the detail of how to combat bullying, without superficial hyperbole, in order that people who feel they are not being heard do not resort to electing a Trump to get their voices heard. There must be quite a few of them for Trump to get elected so you can't ignore them or shout them down - an alternative option is detailed debate to try to persuade them to your beliefs. 

[Aruntraveller]

Yes - agree to disagree. My view is that part of the reason Trump was elected was because he was able to voice political opinions on policies or ideologies that people wanted to be able to talk about but felt that their voices were not being heard in the debate or were being inaccurately portrayed, whether it was about Jews, Muslims, gays, immigration or ethnic minorities. My opinion therefore is that shutting down voices leads to an unsatisfactory outcome and I would rather have a situation where discussions can take place amongst people with opposing policy ideas on the detail of how to combat bullying, without superficial hyperbole, in order that people who feel they are not being heard do not resort to electing a Trump to get their voices heard. There must be quite a few of them for Trump to get elected so you can't ignore them or shout them down - an alternative option is detailed debate to try to persuade them to your beliefs.

Whilst I understand your analysis of Trump's 'victory' - I think you are downplaying the appeal to prejudice that took part.

My point is that for gay children to be able to withstand bullying they need the tools to do that. They need to be told that they are OK. They need to be told that they can go to someone in authority and they will be taken seriously and treated fairly. They can't do that if that is denied by the likes of the Rev Robertson.

I am talking from experience here. My childhood, and particularly my teenage years would have been much happier and I think more balanced, had I been afforded that sort of treatment.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Whilst I understand your analysis of Trump's 'victory' - I think you are downplaying the appeal to prejudice that took part.

My point is that for gay children to be able to withstand bullying they need the tools to do that. They need to be told that they are OK. They need to be told that they can go to someone in authority and they will be taken seriously and treated fairly. They can't do that if that is denied by the likes of the Rev Robertson.

I am talking from experience here. My childhood, and particularly my teenage years would have been much happier and I think more balanced, had I been afforded that sort of treatment.

Trent - sorry to hear about your childhood.

I agree there was an appeal to prejudice with Trump - I do think that that tactic would not have worked so well for Trump if politics had been more about respectful engagement and policy debate with those you disagreed with. It seems to tend more towards abusive identity wars rather than policy debates these days.

I agree with your view that gay children, or indeed any children who are being bullied, need the tools to withstand it. I would think that if Robertson was asked for his opinion on the proposed tools put forward by TIE, and he opposed those tools for Primary school children, the next step would be to ask which particular aspects he opposed, why, and what alternative tools he proposed to safeguard LGBT Primary school children, or Primary school children of LGBT parents, from bullying. I linked to Shaun Dellenty's article in the Guardian (he is the founder of the organisation, Inclusion For All) where he has details of what he considers appropriate tools to give schools to combat homophobic bullying at a Primary school level. 

In other words, having discussions on the issues without exaggerated accusations from any side would be a better plan IMO for persuading people to agree on a way forward rather than remaining entrenched in opposing political positions on LGBT issues.

[Rhiannon]

The first step in stopping homophobic bullying is to stop 'othering' people who are LGBT. That is easily done in primary schools by making it very matter-of-fact that some people have relationships with others of the same gender, and some people have parents that are of the same gender. It's not a big deal.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The first step in stopping homophobic bullying is to stop 'othering' people who are LGBT. That is easily done in primary schools by making it very matter-of-fact that some people have relationships with others of the same gender, and some people have parents that are of the same gender. It's not a big deal.

Yes - Shaun Dellenty seems to have suggested something similar for Primary schools - I linked to it earlier.

https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/feb/05/homophobic-bullying-children-gay-primary-schools

[Rhiannon]

Yes - Shaun Dellenty seems to have suggested something similar for Primary schools - I linked to it earlier.

https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/feb/05/homophobic-bullying-children-gay-primary-schools

And this is what Robertson doesn't want in schools.

[Aruntraveller]

Trent - sorry to hear about your childhood.

Well I wouldn't want you to think that it was awful or anything - it wasn't. But I still think things could have been different for me it I hadn't worried so much about the matter (although maybe I was born a worrier!), and an openness by the education establishment would have been very welcome. But they were very different times in the 60's and 70's.

I agree there was an appeal to prejudice with Trump - I do think that that tactic would not have worked so well for Trump if politics had been more about respectful engagement and policy debate with those you disagreed with. It seems to tend more towards abusive identity wars rather than policy debates these days.

Yes but  (and I realize this is a digression here) it was Trump who did that. Whenever Clinton tried to get onto policy debate he'd drag it off into rhetoric of the most prejudiced kind. I really don't think it was for the lack of trying on Clinton's side - however much one liked or disliked her (more of a Bernie man myself).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And this is what Robertson doesn't want in schools.

I think you missed my edit in #177. I said:

 I would think that if Robertson was asked for his opinion on the proposed tools put forward by TIE, and he opposed those tools for Primary school children, the next step would be to ask which particular aspects he opposed, why, and what alternative tools he proposed to safeguard LGBT Primary school children, or Primary school children of LGBT parents, from bullying. I linked to Shaun Dellenty's article in the Guardian (he is the founder of the organisation, Inclusion For All) where he has details of what he considers appropriate tools to give schools to combat homophobic bullying at a Primary school level. 

In other words, having discussions on the issues without exaggerated accusations from any side would be a better plan IMO for persuading people to agree on a way forward rather than remaining entrenched in opposing political positions on LGBT issues.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Well I wouldn't want you to think that it was awful or anything - it wasn't. But I still think things could have been different for me it I hadn't worried so much about the matter (although maybe I was born a worrier!), and an openness by the education establishment would have been very welcome. But they were very different times in the 60's and 70's.

Yes but  (and I realize this is a digression here) it was Trump who did that. Whenever Clinton tried to get onto policy debate he'd drag it off into rhetoric of the most prejudiced kind. I really don't think it was for the lack of trying on Clinton's side - however much one liked or disliked her (more of a Bernie man myself).

I agree Clinton tried to debate policy. But a lot of damage had already been done as Trump was able to tap into people's frustration at being derided by the "educated liberal elite" and present himself as a maverick who would say the things his supporters felt they were not allowed to say. I think deriding people is more likely to result in them becoming more entrenched in their position - so I think there are more effective ways to pursue political aims.

[Rhiannon]

Robertson says quite clearly he doesn't want LGBT issues taught in schools. The only way to teach that LGBT people are the same as everyone else is to have them visibly represented in society, including in literature in schools. 'Tools' to prevent bullying are only effective when used alongside education that stops othering people in the first place.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Robertson says quite clearly he doesn't want LGBT issues taught in schools. The only way to teach that LGBT people are the same as everyone else is to have them visibly represented in society, including in literature in schools. 'Tools' to prevent bullying are only effective when used alongside education that stops othering people in the first place.

All good points that can be put to Robertson in any discussions when identifying his or others' concerns to do with the TIE proposal of mandatory teaching of LGBT issues in schools.

Apparently Robertson's opinion was of interest to the Herald, since he was asked by the Herald for his opinion on the TIE proposals  that was put to the Scottish Parliament. More discussions may shift some or all of his opinions, once there is greater clarity on the details of what's being proposed to be taught to children - Robertson seemed to have a concern that moral beliefs were being imposed. In his blog on the LGBT issue he said "For those who don’t [believe in a Maker] they can choose to get their rules and principles from elsewhere but in reality that means that the rich and powerful will just make up their own morality and impose it on the rest of us. Morality just becomes the fashion of the rich and powerful."

McKenna's article in the OP was about constructive ways to debate and deal with opposing opinions and concerns on political issues, such as education policies.

[Aruntraveller]

Morality just becomes the fashion of the rich and powerful."

Ermm....isn't that a description of most Churches?

[Rhiannon]

All good points that can be put to Robertson in any discussions when identifying his or others' concerns to do with the TIE proposal of mandatory teaching of LGBT issues in schools.

Apparently Robertson's opinion was of interest to the Herald, since he was asked by the Herald for his opinion on the TIE proposals  that was put to the Scottish Parliament. More discussions may shift some or all of his opinions, once there is greater clarity on the details of what's being proposed to be taught to children - Robertson seemed to have a concern that moral beliefs were being imposed. In his blog on the LGBT issue he said "For those who don’t [believe in a Maker] they can choose to get their rules and principles from elsewhere but in reality that means that the rich and powerful will just make up their own morality and impose it on the rest of us. Morality just becomes the fashion of the rich and powerful."

McKenna's article in the OP was about constructive ways to debate and deal with opposing opinions and concerns on political issues, such as education policies.

That's rather a selective understanding you have there.

[Rhiannon]

Ermm....isn't that a description of most Churches?

Quite.

I dislike the idea that 'ordinary' people are too thick and too weak to form moral ideas withoutbthe church to shield them from the ecstasies of 'the rich and powerful'. Talk about a desire for a dependency culture.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Ermm....isn't that a description of most Churches?

Absolutely. Maybe his point is that where there are conflicting beliefs from different sources, he wants to argue for his beliefs not to be replaced by other people's beliefs, while recognising that other people will argue that their beliefs should take precedence over his beliefs. McKenna's point was that there are better ways to have these discussions rather than employing sensational headlines, accusations, and hate mail.

[Shaker]

In his blog on the LGBT issue he said "For those who don’t [believe in a Maker] they can choose to get their rules and principles from elsewhere

The weal and welfare of actually existing people rather than appeasing the deities of ancient desert superstitions, perhaps.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That's rather a selective understanding you have there.

Did you want me to replace it with your selective understanding?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The weal and welfare of actually existing people rather than appeasing the deities of ancient desert superstitions, perhaps.

Sure

[Rhiannon]

Absolutely. Maybe his point is that where there are conflicting beliefs from different sources, he wants to argue for his beliefs not to be replaced by other people's beliefs, while recognising that other people will argue that their beliefs should take precedence over his beliefs. McKenna's point was that there are better ways to have these discussions rather than employing sensational headlines, accusations, and hate mail.

Hang on, let's wind this back. Why *should* there be any discussion between the education policy makers and the churches about LGBT issues being taught in schools? There is nothing inherently immoral about them and it seems ludicrous that churches should be included and have a voice against equality education 'because god says so.'

The last I knew RC schools were free to set their own policies btw.

[Shaker]

Hang on, let's wind this back. Why *should* there be any discussion between the education policy makers and the churches about LGBT issues being taught in schools? There is nothing inherently immoral about them and it seems ludicrous that churches should be included and have a voice against equality education 'because god says so.'

Isn't that ultimately what it all boils down to with these types, in the end? Anybody who says "I think ... " can be reasoned with, at least in principle; anybody who makes their "I think ... " into "God says/wants ... " has put themselves outside of the tent of reasoning.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hang on, let's wind this back. Why *should* there be any discussion between the education policy makers and the churches about LGBT issues being taught in schools? There is nothing inherently immoral about them and it seems ludicrous that churches should be included and have a voice against equality education 'because god says so.'

The last I knew RC schools were free to set their own policies btw.

There doesn't have to be discussions between education policy makers and the churches.

TIE had put forward some proposals to the Scottish Parliament to discuss, concerning education policy on LGBT issues. The Sunday Herald asked Robertson for his opinion on the proposals, he gave it, and he objected to the sensationalist tone of the subsequent article in the Sunday Herald and the hate mail and what he called "abuse" that he received as a result of the article.

McKenna referenced this incident in his general opinion piece on it having become a more difficult environment for Catholics to stand up for their beliefs e.g. against people who want to silence their beliefs through hate mail, abuse or by accusing them of crimes for holding certain opinions on SSM.

And I commented on his views on whether reasoned debate was becoming more difficult.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Isn't that ultimately what it all boils down to with these types, in the end? Anybody who says "I think ... " can be reasoned with, at least in principle; anybody who makes their "I think ... " into "God says/wants ... " has put themselves outside of the tent of reasoning.

There will always be conflict between people who want change and people who want to maintain traditions, regardless of the basis for that emotional connection to tradition e.g. whether the attachment is based on culture, politics, philosophy, religion etc

[Rhiannon]

There is no reasonable debate to be had with 'because God says so.' All that can be done is concessions put in place - exemptions for some church schools and the parental right to withdraw children from sex ed. It's already been noted that the churches themselves aren't open to debate within their urn ranks and that liberal Catholics are dismissed as 'wishy washy'. And McKenna thinks this a good thing.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I disagree with your chosen form of "otherness" and think it is possible to have a reasonable debate with people with an emotional attachment to abstract concepts, regardless of whether they are religious, political, cultural or philosophical concepts.

McKenna's point about wishy washy Catholics was to do with being too sensitive to criticism rather than standing up for one's beliefs and related to this point made by Haldane and quoted by Tartaglia  that too many Catholics are "preoccupied with means of forestalling secular criticism, rather than engaging confidently with it, in part by means of ingratiating ourselves with dominant groups and classes.”

Tartaglia goes on to say "We accommodate. We compromise. We avoid conflict - even when conflict is the only proper course. We are too wishy-washy, as we would say in Scotland."

ETA - I agree with your point that there should be a means of debate within the Catholic Church so liberal Catholics can express and stand up for their beliefs.

[Rhiannon]

To render one section of our community invisible in primary schools is to 'other' them.

The Catholic church really needs to have debate within its own ranks before it can say what Catholics actually want. At least that does happen within Anglicanism, however badly.