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

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

i agree the Catholic Church is not really representative without a debate. I don't think justice is modelled by the Church leaders preferring it to remain an hierarchy where they decide the Church position, and people are left to decide if they want to stay or leave the Church.

But given, the diverse views thereisn't really a Catholic position , anymore than there is s Muslim position.

I think it's worth discussing proposed policy details with Catholic parents and leaders who voice concerns that the proposals are for mandatory beliefs on LGBT to be taught to their children in Primary school, in order to figure out the detail of how not to render LGBT issues invisible in Primary schools.

[Rhiannon]

i agree the Catholic Church is not really representative without a debate. I don't think justice is modelled by the Church leaders preferring it to remain an hierarchy where they decide the Church position, and people are left to decide if they want to stay or leave the Church.

But given, the diverse views thereisn't really a Catholic position , anymore than there is s Muslim position.

I think it's worth discussing proposed policy details with Catholic parents and leaders who voice concerns that the proposals are for mandatory beliefs on LGBT to be taught to their children in Primary school, in order to figure out the detail of how not to render LGBT issues invisible in Primary schools.

It's true that there's no such thing as a Christian position. However the Catholic Church still has that its teachings and traditions are infallible and I don't see that changing any time soon, if ever. So although debate within the church should happen, it won't.

Nobody wants 'beliefs' about LGBT issues taught - there are facts that can and should figure in schools. There's no detail to figure out unless the idea is for facts to be ignored.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It's true that there's no such thing as a Christian position. However the Catholic Church still has that its teachings and traditions are infallible and I don't see that changing any time soon, if ever. So although debate within the church should happen, it won't.

Nobody wants 'beliefs' about LGBT issues taught - there are facts that can and should figure in schools. There's no detail to figure out unless the idea is for facts to be ignored.

Sure - in which case a discussion on the proposed policy and material to be taught is a good way of allaying Robertson's concerns about beliefs being taught rather than facts.

The Herald article you linked to quoted Robertson as saying "“We are concerned that what is being proposed is not teaching children facts but indoctrinating them with a particular political/sexual philosophy.”

[Robbie]

In practice does that happen? Kids are growing up accepting & hardly noticing that some have two same sex parents. Most will have one of each, a few don't, pretty soon it won't be worth a mention. That's not indoctrinating, it's just living peaceably alongside others. There are other issues about which to take umbrage like war, poverty and famine.

As far as I know the state Catholic schools near to me have much the same ethos & if kids want to debate they will do so while the teachers try to keep everything moderate. Vast majority of pupils and staff will have liberal or moderate views as will some of the clergy. (I don't know about independent schools.)

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

Even more so when you consider that these schools are effectively 100% state funded.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Even more so when you consider that these schools are effectively 100% state funded.

I assume the government is interested in the Catholic Church's position because sufficient numbers of tax payers and voters want to send their children to faith schools, faith communities have political influence, and lobbying on policy issues is part of being in a democracy so the Church lobbies on issues that it has an interest in such as education and ethics. 

[Rhiannon]

Sure - in which case a discussion on the proposed policy and material to be taught is a good way of allaying Robertson's concerns about beliefs being taught rather than facts.

The Herald article you linked to quoted Robertson as saying "“We are concerned that what is being proposed is not teaching children facts but indoctrinating them with a particular political/sexual philosophy.”

To him the 'facts' are that gay relationships and marriage equality are sinful, as is abortion. If schools teach anything differently then to him this will not be 'factual', but 'indoctrination'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

To him the 'facts' are that gay relationships and marriage equality are sinful, as is abortion. If schools teach anything differently then to him this will not be 'factual', but 'indoctrination'.

What are you basing that opinion on? Robertson's blog says "I gave my considered opinion and whilst I do not expect every one to agree with me, I do expect that in a democracy my views are entitled to be heard without being subject to the kind of irrational and prejudiced abuse demonstrated in the article. "

Robertson also said other people who do not share his beliefs, including his beliefs on SSM, are free to choose to get their rules and principles from sources other than the Bible. So based on his blog, it appears that his concern is about indoctrination of children with the beliefs, rules and principles from other sources as opposed to facts.

Morals and ethics about SSM and bullying are not facts. That SSM exists in society and that children at school might be from diverse family backgrounds is a fact. That bullying people because they seem different from the majority - whether it is because of race or to whom they are naturally attracted or their religious beliefs or their atheism or their moral or ethical beliefs or how they self-identify in some other way  - can cause harm is also a fact.

I say "can cause harm" as there are many children who can shrug it off. I had kids spit in my face and call me a Paki at school during the 70s and some adults were less welcoming of my brown face or cultural differences but it just seemed part of the rough and tumble of navigating Life. Lots of people were nice to me too so I didn't dwell on the ones who weren't and just made street-wise choices about where I walked or went by myself in the playground and park and walking home from school.

[floo]

Bullying needs to be cracked down upon, it shouldn't be treated as a fact of life. I was bullied at my primary school because I came from a better home than that of some of the other kids, so I know how horrible it is to be afraid to go to school.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sorry about your childhood experiences Floo.

I think most people want to stop bullying, including Robertson.

I was making the point that bullying is hard to define as different people have different tolerance levels before they feel they are being bullied, and also whereby it's a problem for them. I didn't want to generalise about harm as it's a fact that some people don't feel harmed by what others would define as bullying - it probably depends on the severity and the individual's circumstances.

[Sebastian Toe]

Is it all a bit like if someone punches me hard in the face. If  I can shrug it off then it's not really assault?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Is it all a bit like if someone punches me hard in the face. If  I can shrug it off then it's not really assault?

Depends on the circumstances - if I was in a fight and punching back, I might shrug it off. I kick-box so being punched in the face is not that big of a deal for me - depends on the damage,

Also bullying can be verbal or physical. A spit or a punch in the face is physical - it can be established objectively- either it happened or it didn't.

Verbal bullying can depend on perception. Having said that, most people would agree that calling people names is bullying. I didn't say I didn't experience bullying but I am not aware of feeling harmed by it. My point was about whether people always feel harmed.

[Sebastian Toe]

Depends on the circumstances - if I was in a fight and punching back, I might shrug it off. I kick-box so being punched in the face is not that big of a deal for me - depends on the damage,

Also bullying can be verbal or physical. A spit or a punch in the face is physical - it can be established objectively- either it happened or it didn't.

Verbal bullying can depend on perception. Having said that, most people would agree that calling people names is bullying. I didn't say I didn't experience bullying but I am not aware of feeling harmed by it. My point was about whether people always feel harmed.

Nevertheless, regardless of level of harm, they have actually been bullied, yes?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Nevertheless, regardless of level of harm, they have actually been bullied, yes?

If it was accusations of verbal bullying I genuinely don't know - who decides when something is verbal bullying unless it is obvious name-calling?

[floo]

Is it all a bit like if someone punches me hard in the face. If  I can shrug it off then it's not really assault?

Good analogy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Good analogy.

It's a bad analogy for non-physical bullying. What do you do if someone alleges they have been subjected to non-physical bullying? Who decides whether they have been bullied or not?

[Rhiannon]

Emotional bullying, like emotional and mental domestic abuse, can be harder to prove and harder to deal with.

[Sebastian Toe]

It's a bad analogy for non-physical bullying. What do you do if someone alleges they have been subjected to non-physical bullying? Who decides whether they have been bullied or not?

Its a bit like asking who decides if you have been slandered or not.
Also a physical assault cannot necessarily be easily determined it could be dependent on when the alleged assault took place.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

True. So I can't say if someone has been bullied or not.

Incidentally, Pride March happening outside my hotel in Cardiff. Kids excited to join in - there is a funfair starting soon and bands playing after 6pm so we'll probably go early evening.

[Sebastian Toe]

True. So I can't say if someone has been bullied or not.

Incidentally, Pride March happening outside my hotel in Cardiff. Kids excited to join in - there is a funfair starting soon and bands playing after 6pm so we'll probably go early evening.

As they sing in the Flintstones....
Have a yabba dabba doo time
A dabba doo time
We'll have a gay old time!

Gabriella!(shouty Fred smiley).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Thanks. Looks pretty good - thete are actually tribute bands playing now - I can hear Abba songs and I am standing outside the hotel and can see a guy in drag belting out Queen hits.