Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

LGBT in schools vs religious parents

Your words are right there, ffs!

Yes. And at no point do I say:

people with certain religious beliefs shouldn't have kids

Go and read it again. Like the actual whole sentence. Anybody with basic comprehension can understand this is just a suggestion if they expect to use the state education system and not expose their kids to this stuff.
 
Sacked for her views that were linked to her beliefs pretty much is that.

Where does it talk about 'LGBT ideology' in the bible?

Her beliefs are that being a bigoted piece of shit is fine as long as your sleep paralysis demon told you to. That is a false belief. It's not a valid opinion, it's not a cultural practice, it's just someone being an intolerant cunt and then weaponising tolerance in order to get away with it.
 
Yes. And at no point do I say:



Go and read it again. Like the actual whole sentence. Anybody with basic comprehension can understand this is just a suggestion if they expect to use the state education system and not expose their kids to this stuff.

As I said, the inference is very clear in the context of the post you responded to. Fwiw, you're far from alone when it comes to anti-religious, particularly anti-Christian, sentiment on these boards.
 
As I said, the inference is very clear in the context of the post you responded to. You're far from alone when it comes to anti-religious, particularly anti-Christian sentiment on these boards.

He's implying, you're inferring.
 
Where does it talk about 'LGBT ideology' in the bible?

Her beliefs are that being a bigoted piece of shit is fine as long as your sleep paralysis demon told you to. That is a false belief. It's not a valid opinion, it's not a cultural practice, it's just someone being an intolerant cunt and then weaponising tolerance in order to get away with it.
How does this differ then from the views of those who adhere to the words of the Quran which is what we were discussing? Do we ban religion? And if so, all beliefs and theories?
 
Where does it talk about 'LGBT ideology' in the bible?
The Bible is very clear that gay isn't a good thing. I've never really understood how people can claim to believe in the Bible while supporting gay rights. It's like claiming Mein Kampf has some good ideas, and all the antisemitism -- hey, it's just a product of its time, you can ignore that part.
 
How does this differ then from the views of those who adhere to the words of the Quran which is what we were discussing? Do we ban religion? And if so, all beliefs and theories?

Again, you can be as religious as you like provided you get that whatever you think the precepts of your religion are, they only bind you not everyone else. So you can refuse to be gay because you think Allah wills it, but you get zero fucking say in whther other people are allowed to be gay or not. The alternative is fundamentalism and theocracy, which is bad for everyone regardless of which religion it is.
 
The Bible is very clear that gay isn't a good thing. I've never really understood how people can claim to believe in the Bible while supporting gay rights. It's like claiming Mein Kampf has some good ideas, and all the antisemitism -- hey, it's just a product of its time, you can ignore that part.
Only if you think the Bible is a divinely written work that is correct at every point. Historically that's a very niche and extremist view.
 
Again, you can be as religious as you like provided you get that whatever you think the precepts of your religion are, they only bind you not everyone else. So you can refuse to be gay because you think Allah wills it, but you get zero fucking say in whther other people are allowed to be gay or not. The alternative is fundamentalism and theocracy, which is bad for everyone regardless of which religion it is.
So people can hold views but not express them on social media in case it offends the nosey; of whatever regime they’re living under, be they secularist, theological, neoliberal, fascist?
 
The Bible is very clear that gay isn't a good thing. I've never really understood how people can claim to believe in the Bible while supporting gay rights. It's like claiming Mein Kampf has some good ideas, and all the antisemitism -- hey, it's just a product of its time, you can ignore that part.

It all comes down to what people want to believe - the “important” bits are the ones that fit their worldview and the “difficult” bits can be explained away by history, culture etc.
 
The Bible is very clear that gay isn't a good thing. I've never really understood how people can claim to believe in the Bible while supporting gay rights. It's like claiming Mein Kampf has some good ideas, and all the antisemitism -- hey, it's just a product of its time, you can ignore that part.

Are you aware of what a fundamentalist is, and how uncommon they are in most religions?
 
Sorry mate but you posted this in response to the story about the Christian woman being fired for voicing concerns over sex education in her son's Christian school:



The inference is very clear.

Give over, it's a flippant remark and disingenuous to fixate on it.

The case does not hang on her being a Christian but is based on her having the following beliefs which were found to be protected in this first hearing despite her losing overall.

(a) lack of belief in “gender fluidity”; (b) lack of belief that someone could change
their biological sex/gender; (c) belief in marriage as a divinely instituted life-long union
between one man and one woman; (d) lack of belief in “same sex marriage” (recognising that
same sex marriage was legal, she believed this was contrary to Biblical teaching); (e)
opposition to sex and/or relationship education for primary school children; (f) a belief that
when unbiblical ideas or ideologies are promoted, she should publicly witness to Biblical
truth; (g) a belief in the literal truth of the Bible, and in particular Genesis 1v 27: “God created
man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created
them”

This happened before the Maya Forstater verdict which found that basically anything short of Nazism could qualify as a protected belief and so her case probably now has a good chance of success.

I think there's a big problem developing here though with how protected beliefs are being used in the various religious and gender critical court cases as a a kind of forced association. A queer friendly venue in Edinburgh was recently legally bullied into hosting a gender critical event they didn't want to hold. Gender Critical group For Woman Scotland are currently threatening to sue the organisers of a trans inclusive feminist festival for not giving them a workshop.

The verdict in the case of Shahrar Ali will be heard next week which will decide whether he was discriminated against by the Green Party for his gender critical views. In the recent Open University case Jo Phoenix was found to have suffered a detriment for amongst other things being called transphobic by some of her collegues. Where are their protected beliefs? Is bigotry, whether perceived or real, now unchallengeable in the workplace?

I think there's a merging of political and philosophical beliefs taking place which is going to lead to a mess. I'm not so comfortable with someone losing their jobs over a facebook post but the Equality Act applies to provision of services and political parties as well. Should it really be the law that someone can't be thrown out of a political party even if they hold (and vocalise) beliefs which go against core principles of the party? Should a Queer community space be forced to hold a homophobic speaker? Could a men's rights activist sue if he wasn't given a job or position in a feminist organisation? Is there any way to hold political events at all if anyone who is not included can threaten to sue if they are denied a platform?

I think the Grainger test needs relooking at and hopefully that will happen if one of these cases lands in a higher court. I also think that venues etc should stand their ground if they can - discriminating against a gender critical person would be legal if it was a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim (ironically the same exemption gender criticals claim is a sex based right).

Unfortunately most community venues or feminist festivals can't afford to raise half a million in (Rowling) crowd funded donations to fight a legal case and have backed down to date but I hope someone takes it up because I don't think this is what the Equality Act was intended to be used for.
 
Give over, it's a flippant remark and disingenuous to fixate on it.

The case does not hang on her being a Christian but is based on her having the following beliefs which were found to be protected in this first hearing despite her losing overall.

Nope, sorry. Sky didn't know that when he posted. Neither did Broggers, as he admitted at the time. That information was posted later in the thread. They posted based on knowing that she was a Christian who moaned about sex education in a church school.

Interesting rest of your post.
 
I think there's a merging of political and philosophical beliefs taking place which is going to lead to a mess. I'm not so comfortable with someone losing their jobs over a facebook post but the Equality Act applies to provision of services and political parties as well. Should it really be the law that someone can't be thrown out of a political party even if they hold (and vocalise) beliefs which go against core principles of the party? Should a Queer community space be forced to hold a homophobic speaker? Could a men's rights activist sue if he wasn't given a job or position in a feminist organisation? Is there any way to hold political events at all if anyone who is not included can threaten to sue if they are denied a platform?

This looks to me mostly like the consequences of losing shared core values.
 
Only if you think the Bible is a divinely written work that is correct at every point. Historically that's a very niche and extremist view.
Sure, but it's the 'evidence' for belief. If you just chuck out the bits you don't like, what's left?
 
Are you aware of what a fundamentalist is, and how uncommon they are in most religions?
See my comment.

There are some Jews and Christians who manage to derive a gay-friendly message from their sacred texts. Fewer Muslims. But it all seems rather irrational.

And -- indubitably -- all quite recent.
 
See my comment.

There are some Jews and Christians who manage to derive a gay-friendly message from their sacred texts. Fewer Muslims. But it all seems rather irrational.

And -- indubitably -- all quite recent.

Very few people who identify as religious, follow their respective scriptures word for word. If some Christians and Jews want to derive gay-friendly stuff from it, good luck to them.
 
Back
Top Bottom