LGBT in schools vs religious parents

[SpookyFrank]

Her words:



That's not being a cunt and it certainly doesn't suggest she'd raise her kids with a lack of "civility" to anyone.

Were those the words she got sacked for? Or was it when she was drivelling on in public about schools brainwashing kids with 'trans ideology' and bringing her own profession into disrepute in the process?

 

[Serge Forward]

"Shouldn't have kids" because of that?

My fucking god.

Social services deffo need to intervene here

 

[skyscraper101]

Why should not having kids because you don’t agree with a lot of nonsense they peddle in schools not be a legitimate reason to not have kids?

 

[Puddy_Tat]

telling kids that gay / trans people exist and that's not a problem is not 'extreme ideology'

 

[Orang Utan]

And you aren’t a Christian.

And neither are those who claim to be yet still hate people instead of love them

 

[Spymaster]

telling kids that gay / trans people exist and that's not a problem is not 'extreme ideology'

Few would disagree with that, but telling them that biological males can be female, and vice versa, is hugely contentious, and not just among bigots. Promoting hatred towards LBGTQ is obviously wrong and should be robustly challenged, but voicing genuinely held concerns should not lead to people losing their jobs or being told they shouldn't have children.

 

[alex_]

People can be as christian as they like for all I care, so long as they don't expect me or anyone else to be bound by their chosen strain of woo bullshit in any way.

Not that Jesus had much, or anything at all to say about trans people. He did say don't be a cunt though, but these weirdos always seem to skip that part.

That’s my point, I’m not talking about you - I’m talking about the person you are talking about.

 

[skyscraper101]

Tell you what is extreme ideology. Making kids wear blazers and ties in roasting hot weather or putting them in isolation for not having compliant trousers or agreeable haircuts. Bur apparently it’s inclusive sex education that’s the problem. Right.

 

[Ax^]

Few would disagree with that, but telling them that biological males can be female, and vice versa, is hugely contentious, and not just among bigots. Promoting hatred towards LBGTQ is obviously wrong and should be robustly challenged, but voicing genuinely held concerns should not lead to people losing their jobs or being told they shouldn't have children.

what were her genuine concerns aside from her believe her giant sky friend might be offended again

 

[SpookyFrank]

Why should not having kids because you don’t agree with a lot of nonsense they peddle in schools not be a legitimate reason to not have kids?

I mean I wouldn't have kids if I thought society was overrun by a dangerous cult of weirdos looking to corrupt vulnerable youth.

Although to be fair, it is. But most of the people in that dangerous weirdo cult are old and their influence is in terminal decline. They do still have their branding on a lot of schools, but despite the vast resources they dedicate to it they're really quite shit at indoctrinating young people.

 

[SpookyFrank]

what were her genuine concerns aside from her believe her giant sky friend might be offended again

The crux (sorry) of it is that christian schools are prejudiced against christians.

 

[brogdale]

Few would disagree with that, but telling them that biological males can be female, and vice versa, is hugely contentious, and not just among bigots. Promoting hatred towards LBGTQ is obviously wrong and should be robustly challenged, but voicing genuinely held concerns should not lead to people losing their jobs or being told they shouldn't have children.

We’ve been here before with cases like this and there is a very important distinction between “voicing concerns” and holding discriminatory beliefs that could result in partial service provided to service users. We obviously don’t really know what her role was, or what she said in the disciplinary hearing, but if her employers were left with the view that she would discriminate against pupils in her charge by denying them curriculum content simply because of her supernatural beliefs, they were right to sack her.

 

[Spymaster]

We’ve been here before with cases like this and there is a very important distinction between “voicing concerns” and holding discriminatory beliefs that could result in partial service provided to service users. We obviously don’t really know what her role was, or what she said in the disciplinary hearing, but if her employers were left with the view that she would discriminate against pupils in her charge by denying them curriculum content simply because of her supernatural beliefs, they were right to sack her.

Apparently, she wasn't a teacher but a "pastoral care assistant", so I guess her impact on curriculum activity was limited although I'd agree it's a potential factor.

However, the comments she made on FB were in regard to the school her son went to, not the one she worked at. Her son's school is a Christian school. Unless the comments promoted hatred, someone should not lose their job at a completely different establishment, for their views on the delivery of religious values in the religious school that her religious son attends.

The reason that she's drawn opprobrium on these boards is because she's a Christian, and anti-Christianity is acceptable in many left wing circles in a way that criticism of other religions is absent. But let's look at what Skyscraper and Plank have said here. Huge numbers of traditionally sexually conservative families in Asian communities, such as Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims, also do not want liberal sexual values taught to their kids at school. According to Sky and Plank, those people shouldn't have kids.

This is only a short step from telling people they shouldn't have kids because of their religion, and we know where we've heard that before.

 

[nottsgirl]

Apparently, she wasn't a teacher but a "pastoral care assistant", so I guess her impact on curriculum activity was limited although I'd agree it's a potential factor.

However, the comments she made on FB were in regard to the school her son went to, not the one she worked at. Her son's school is a Christian school. Unless the comments promoted hatred, someone should not lose their job at a completely different establishment, for their views on the delivery of religious values in the religious school that her religious son attends.

The reason that she's drawn opprobrium on these boards is because she's a Christian, and anti-Christianity is acceptable in many left wing circles in a way that criticism of other religions is absent. But let's look at what Skyscraper and Plank have said here. Huge numbers of traditionally sexually conservative families in Asian communities, such as Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims, also do not want liberal sexual values taught to their kids at school. According to Sky and Plank, those people shouldn't have kids.

This is only a short step from telling people they shouldn't have kids because of their religion, and we know where we've heard that before.

You can’t see the problem with a pastoral care assistant having opinions that it’s not ok to be LGBTQ+?

 

[Spymaster]

You can’t see the problem with a pastoral care assistant having opinions that it’s not ok to be LGBTQ+?

I can. But was she passing that on? The article says she was sacked for the language she used in social media posts, not because her work with kids was unacceptable. I wouldn't have responded to that alone though. There's not enough information as to what she posted or how the decision to fire her was reached.

The big one here is this truly dangerous shit coming from some posters that people with certain religious views shouldn't have kids.

What do you think of that?

 

[kabbes]

Schools do indeed teach a dangerous subject as fact, in spite of its dangerous ideological nature. This subject is taught as a mishmash of self-contradictory ideas drawn from many different texts and different times, which have been decontextualised from their various historical origins. Regardless of where the ideas are drawn from, though, we have plenty of evidence from contemporary research that the theories are false. The false beliefs that are taught at fact, however, foster a particular cognitive schema of the world, which perpetuates massive harm. It is a schema associated with solipsism and the objectification and dehumanisation of our fellow beings.

That subject is economics. And anybody who wants to start banning subjects from schools could do worse than starting with that one.

 

[brogdale]

Apparently, she wasn't a teacher but a "pastoral care assistant", so I guess her impact on curriculum activity was limited although I'd agree it's a potential factor.

However, the comments she made on FB were in regard to the school her son went to, not the one she worked at. Her son's school is a Christian school. Unless the comments promoted hatred, someone should not lose their job at a completely different establishment, for their views on the delivery of religious values in the religious school that her religious son attends.

That fleshes out the story a little, but there is probably more to this case than is currently in the public domain. As I understand it, school employers do often get workers to sign contracts that require not bringing disrepute etc. upon the school through public comment. And, as I said above, we don't know what passed in the disciplinary hearing. If I were a governor/employer in such a situation I would definitely have enquired if her expressed (supernatural) beliefs would result in her refusing to assist with certain elements of the curriculum? If she said that would be the case, I can't see how the had any other option other than to dismiss.

 

[Spymaster]

That fleshes out the story a little, but there is probably more to this case than is currently in the public domain. As I understand it, school employers do often get workers to sign contracts that require not bringing disrepute etc. upon the school through public comment. And, as I said above, we don't know what passed in the disciplinary hearing. If I were a governor/employer in such a situation I would definitely have enquired if her expressed (supernatural) beliefs would result in her refusing to assist with certain elements of the curriculum? If she said that would be the case, I can't see how the had any other option other than to dismiss.

We're not too far apart on that. More information required.

"People who's cultural views lead them to not want their children exposed to liberal sexual ideology at school, should not have children".

Discuss.

 

[brogdale]

"People who's cultural views lead them to not want their children exposed to liberal sexual ideology at school, should not have children".

Discuss.

No thanks; that's the discourse that you're attempting to create; I was reacting to your posts about the case being discussed.

 

[skyscraper101]

We're not too far apart on that. More information required.

"People who's cultural views lead them to not want their children exposed to liberal sexual ideology at school, should not have children".

Discuss.

If you're still referring to what I said earlier, I didn't explicitly say these people 'should not have children' - I said "everyone knows the drill, schools are going to cover this stuff and it's going to be inclusive so just suck it up, or home school them, or better still just don't have kids."

Options. Not people with dodgy views 'should not have kids' - but people who expect to have kids, and expect to put them in state education in the UK, and expect that education to be fully in line with their belief system, maybe should reconsider having kids, or educate them elsewhere. I don't really appreciate how you've framed what I said here.

 

[Spymaster]

No thanks; that's the discourse that you're attempting to create; I was reacting to your posts about the case being discussed.

It’s the discourse created by two other posters, one of whom purports to be an educator.

But fair enough.

 

[brogdale]

, or educate them elsewhere.

It's that part that interests me. I've long believed that so-called 'faith schools' should not be able to access state funding but stand on their own financially. If the parent's supernatural deity wanted their offspring educated in the respective faith, I'm sure that she/he/they/it would have arranged for them to have the financial wherewithal to afford the fees.

 

[skyscraper101]

It's that part that interests me. I've long believed that so-called 'faith schools' should not be able to access state funding but stand on their own financially. If the parent's supernatural deity wanted their offspring educated in the respective faith, I'm sure that she/he/they/it would have arranged for them to have the financial wherewithal to afford the fees.

Well that's probably for another discussion. I didn't suggest faith schools were a better alternative. By elsewhere I was more inferring either home schooling or schooling somewhere outside the jurisdiction of the UK.

 

[Spymaster]

If you're still referring to what I said earlier, I didn't explicitly say these people 'should not have children' - I said "everyone knows the drill, schools are going to cover this stuff and it's going to be inclusive so just suck it up, or home school them, or better still just don't have kids."

Options. Not people with dodgy views 'should not have kids' - but people who expect to have kids, and expect to put them in state education in the UK, and expect that education to be fully in line with their belief system, maybe should reconsider having kids, or educate them elsewhere. I don't really appreciate how you've framed what I said here.

So telling people with different cultural beliefs to yours that they should ‘suck it up, school them elsewhere, or not have kids’, is a better solution than making sex education optional at the parent’s discretion?

 

[brogdale]

Well that's probably for another discussion. I didn't suggest faith schools were a better alternative. By elsewhere I was more inferring either home schooling or schooling somewhere outside the jurisdiction of the UK.

No, I not suggesting that faith schools are a better alternative, either. But, if parents with supernatural beliefs insist on their children being educated in faith exclusive environments, such institutions should not be given state funding as they exclude most children.

 

[skyscraper101]

So telling people with different cultural beliefs to yours that they should ‘suck it up, school them elsewhere, or not have kids’, is a better solution than making sex education optional at the parent’s discretion?

What do my cultural beliefs have to do with it? I may even agree with their beliefs for all it matters. The point is, those are the choices. If these people don't like inclusive sex ed classes, then they should either just deal with it, or school them some other way, or don't create the problem in the first place. I don't think making sex education optional is a good idea.

 

[pbsmooth]

So telling people with different cultural beliefs to yours that they should ‘suck it up, school them elsewhere, or not have kids’, is a better solution than making sex education optional at the parent’s discretion?

You’re suggesting it’s simple “sex education” whereas I’m sure people like this would really like it to be taught that being gay is wrong. Look at America. Give them an inch and they’ll be doing some crazy backward shit.

 

[Spymaster]

No, I not suggesting that faith schools are a better alternative, either. But, if parents with supernatural beliefs insist on their children being educated in faith exclusive environments, such institutions should not be given state funding as they exclude most children.

Are there any state funded faith schools whose existence is preventing children of different or no faiths, from attending another?

 

[Spymaster]

I don't think making sex education optional is a good idea.

But telling them to suck it up, self-excluding them from state education or “better still” don’t have kids, is a better one?

 

[skyscraper101]

But telling them to suck it up, self-excluding them from state education or “better still” don’t have kids, is a better one?

Yes. And I also think making sex education optional will lead to more unplanned pregnancies, more cases of STI's, and more ignorance around non-hetero/non-binary issues. So yeah I do think people should either deal with it, or consider their options.