|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Am I an extremist now?
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Two things - firstly what is an extreme view. You can determine that - it might need reference to surveys and you'll need to agree who is the group you are talking about, and when, and how far from the norm constitutes an extreme. But it can be done.
The second is the issue of what the word "extremism" means. Here's the fount of all knowledge on the subject, which will give some sort of idea of the problem. Yes, it means someone holding views that are to extreme end of some group or other. But it is only ever applied from the outside and (except in a few specialist technical uses) is only ever used pejoratively.
In the case of political or religious extremism, the issue of violence will likely now be hovering unstated in the background. "Extremist" introduces performative criteria which are absent from the simple consideration of where a person's thoughts lie on some notional distribution.
That's fine if there exists a real risk of that. But if there isn't, it can simply be an invocation of majoritarianism to crush unwanted voices. Those who originally called for the emancipation of gay people were likewise once a minority voice. If you want to call Mudfrog an extremist, you would need to be equally happy calling them extremists, but frankly I think you would be doing them all an equal disservice. Radical would be a better word.
(The problem has of course arisen separately last week in the UK with David Cameron using the word in condemning "nonviolent extremists" - muslims of course.)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
LC,
I gave an example of the extreme views equal marriage. That issue alone. You countered with an example with attitudes towards homosexuality. A related issue, but outside the scope of my example.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... They (we) have stayed exactly where we were all along and it's the government that has suddenly run off into the far extreme corner and is now shouting at us from a distance through a megaphone for being extreme!!!
It's not us that moved, it's you bloody lot!!
What are you going to do, send us for reprogramming? Re-educating? Assimilation??
Well, unless your lot start getting in people's faces and blowing stuff up, we'll probably just work around you. As always, Dr. Seuss has the answer:
quote:
Well...
Of course the world didn't stand still. The world grew.
In a couple of years, the new highway came through
And they built it right over those two stubborn Zax
And left them there, standing un-budged in their tracks.
The Zax
Of course the world didn't stand still. It never does. Why would anyone expect it to?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Mudfrog, you keep talking about "the government". A Conservative MP is not "the government". He's a Conservative MP mouthing off.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
My son used to tell his professors I was so liberal I made Karl Marx look like a right winger.
I think the difference is in what context is the teacher speaking. If s/he is teaching in a government funded school in the US, s/he would be expected to affirm equal marriage. That may not happen right away, though since this question is not addressed by the US Supreme Court.
However, I the teacher is teaching in a school that is funded by a conservative church, s/he will have the obligation to affirm what the church teaches.
However, it has been my experience that kids will come to their own conclusions by the time they are 16 and it is more than likely to affirm equal marriage regardless of educational background.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
Mudfrog,
Clearly your beliefs, per se, will not be punished. No need to turn yourself in. The law punishes conduct, not belief nor thought.
If I had been punished for every extreme impulse, belief, plot, fantasy, emotion, etc. that has ever floated though my addled brain, I'd have been locked up long ago.
[ 05. August 2015, 04:36: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Poor Mudfrog. You're such a viotim.
Here you're claiming you're about to be forced to marry people you don't want to marry. Really?
Unless you expect the state to subsidize your preaching, I see nothing that says you're being prevented from holding your views on same sex marriage and propounding them.
Of course, as time goes by the views get to be considered despicable by most people. Like the older folks I knew in the U.S. who were sure that inter-racial marriage was bed. Posing as an extremist is very romantic, but you're just being old fashioned in an embarrassing way.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Any pastor in the US has the right, even the obligation to, to refuse to marry any couple s/he does not feel should be married, whether they are gay or straight.
I never turned anyone down, though.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
True in Britain of Nonconformists ... but Anglican clergy may not have that option. Does anyone here know?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Look to the right or left of the position. If there is not much further place to go, it is extreme. Even if you agree with it.
That seems to me to have some logic to it.
IS, ISTM, are extreme in two different senses. One is that they hold that their political ideas are worth killing non-combatants for. On a strength-of-belief scale from 1 to 10, that's a 10 - you can't get much more attached to your belief-system than that.
The other sense is a lack of appreciation of arguments for and against. Allah demands it, end of story. So that if you arranged people in a long line according to how pro- or anti- they are, IS would be at one end.
"Extremism" is thus used both of being 100% for or against something, and of the behaviour that human beings indulge in when we're 100% committed to a proposition that we're 100% for or against.
Those who think that gay marriage is totally wrong, that there is no shadow of an argument for it, do seem to hold an extreme position in the second sense. It's hard to see how they could be any more against it. Belief in divine revelation doesn't seem to leave much room for arguments to the contrary...
But that doesn't mean that they all think that this is the big issue that they have to die in a ditch over. There may be more important things that are wrong with society. So they're not all extreme in their actions.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Good distinction, Russ.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
'Extremist' isn't automatically a negative word anyway, and isn't just about terrorists. It's about people who take something to an extreme that most don't. The vast majority of Muslims you meet are peace-loving people - the extremists are a tiny minority. However, of all the Christians I know, there are many who are against gay marriage. It really doesn't seem to be a minority view among Christians. In my experience, people are more likely to consider a Christian an extremist if the Christian fasts, or sells their possessions to help the poor. Mother Teresa was an extremist in that way. Christians who are against gay marriage are very common though, and are not making a sacrifice to themselves. Extremist does often seem to be about making a big sacrifice to yourself, like suicide bombers. It often seems to be the self-sacrifice bit that makes people talk about extremism. I suppose because that is the ultimate test of how far a person takes their beliefs.
[ 05. August 2015, 07:10: Message edited by: Fineline ]
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
FWIW I don't think Mudfrog is an extremist at all. My view is that "extremist" refers more to the methods one uses or supports while Mudfrog is more akin to a "radical" in that he is at odds with what he sees as current ways but wouldn't countenance extreme measures to oppose them.
FWIW, the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent a note to civil servants this week asking for suggestions on how departments could save money. Suggesting the cancellation of HS2, Trident replacement and the aircraft carriers is hardly extremism but is distinctly radical.
Thank you, I think that is a good way of putting it. I would agree that someone like Mudfrog is radical, Christian Concern et al would probably be extremist.
Having occasionally done some work for Christian Concern, and having met Andrea on a couple of occasions, I don't think it's entirely fair to label them extremist in the context of this thread. I would be very surprised if anyone there advocates violence, for example.
That they have very deep convictions, a (to my mind) distorted perception on reality, and jump on every opportunity they can to bang the drum and cry "Persecution" makes them politically/legally aggressive embarrassments and to be argued against in love. They're far from bomb-throwing Neanderthals. If anything most of the people I've met there are overbearingly nice but incredibly sheltered. AMW is mad as a box of frogs, mind.
For the avoidance of doubt, my views and theirs are far from in alignment.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Those who think that gay marriage is totally wrong, that there is no shadow of an argument for it, do seem to hold an extreme position in the second sense. It's hard to see how they could be any more against it. Belief in divine revelation doesn't seem to leave much room for arguments to the contrary...
But that doesn't mean that they all think that this is the big issue that they have to die in a ditch over. There may be more important things that are wrong with society. So they're not all extreme in their actions.
An excellent summing up.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can see what you're getting at, Mudfrog, but - call me complacent - I don't see anyone battering down the door of your Citadel and hauling you off to the cells any time soon ...
If they do, though, let me know and I'll come and visit you in prison.
LOL no indeed...
but then again - who would have thought that the government would suddenly bring in the charge of hate crime and extremism on people for disagreeing with, basically, what is a government policy on the status of marriage.
This has nothing whatever to do with homophobia - no one is suggesting that teachers (or anyone) should be allowed to say 'I don't like homosexuals'; all people are saying is that marriage should be retained as having the traditional definition because of its very nature.
It wasn't a hate crime 2 years ago - and now, suddenly, it is.
Maybe the next unexpected step is to move on from banning individuals from expressing disagreement to censuring organisations from having a written policy that maintains the 'old' definition.
Only last year the Salvation Army's General issued an amendment to our ceremonies book that affirmed the Army's teaching that we uphold the New Testament standard of marriage as being the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others.
Is that written phrase alone extremist hate speech? Will we be ordered to remove it from our book?
Is that the next step?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Only last year the Salvation Army's General issued an amendment to our ceremonies book that affirmed the Army's teaching that we uphold the New Testament standard of marriage as being the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others.
Is that written phrase alone extremist hate speech? Will we be ordered to remove it from our book?
Is that the next step?
No, no and no. Are you reading any of the above? You are entitled to believe things that others find abhorrent. That's the nature of a free society.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
... I think the difference is in what context is the teacher speaking. If s/he is teaching in a government funded school in the US, s/he would be expected to affirm equal marriage. ...
Do we really think that? Do we really think that every teacher in every government funded school should peddle the government's views to the pupils?
In the UK a lot of schools are the responsibility of the local authority. Do we really believe that it's every teacher's job to support the local authority's policies in the class room. If there is an election and political control changes, do we think that the way history is taught should immediately change accordingly? Do the Tolpuddle Martyrs suddenly become heroes or villains?
I am sure there are some local education authorities who'd like that to be the case. I'm sure the national Department of Education would like to have that sort of control over academies. But do we agree with them?
Do we really think that because the government is the government and is always telling us it has been elected, its money is entitled to buy our consciences?
[ 05. August 2015, 08:36: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
True in Britain of Nonconformists ... but Anglican clergy may not have that option. Does anyone here know?
The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 has a specific opt out which was added because of the historic "grandfather" rights of the CofE priests to act as Registrars. It clearly states that the change in law cannot be used to force the CofE to conduct SSM against their will.
There can be no "forcing" of other religious groups either, given that none of them are actually doing the Registering themselves, and that there is no obligation put upon them in England and Wales to marry couples who request it.
The only way that the CofE could be "forced" to conduct SSM (in the same manner that they can be "forced" to marry eligible heterosexual people who live in the parish) would be if the CofE changed position and the appropriate changes in the law were made.
This whole argument is stale. Nobody is going to be forced to marry gay people if it is against their conscience to do so. Even the Anglican church has a specific opt-out written into the legislation. Move on, nothing to see here.
[ 05. August 2015, 08:44: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
So at some future wedding when I stand and say, 'The Salvation Army upholds the NT standard....' you can't see a problem with me publicly disagreeing with a law my government has passed?
I think some of you are missing the point here: this word 'extremist'.
Some argumenmts are focussed on the meaning of the word - what is extremism, who are extremists?
That is really not the point.
The point is that the Government has decided to apply the word extremist in a legally defined way to people (in the first instance, teachers) who publicly say 'we do not believe in same sex marriage, we think it is wrong.'
The government is not only wanting to ban a teacher from stating this in front of her class, teaching it - let's assume, in an RE class - but also legally preventing people from expressing this view on social media. - they are making the expression of disagreement with the government on this matter a crime.
The issue is not that's a disagreement over homosexuality; it's a disagreement over redefining marriage - a reasonable position to hold and entirely legal until recently - and the sudden rebranding of teaching such a traditional definition of marriage as a hate crime, as extremism punishable by law alongside those who use social media to incite the killing of people by suicide bombers.
How is it that we have come to this point where, for example, a Christian teacher who has been in the profession for 40 years, has upheld a biblically conservative theology and practice, is suddenly a political and religious extremist because she won't put her conscience and her understanding of the Bible and church teaching aside and yield to party diktat and be forced to teach a position that is entirely alien to her.
Personally I find that worrying and carries with it some echoes of mid twentieth century totalitarian regimes where to go against the party would result in a swift removal from your position.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do we really think that? Do we really think that every teacher in every government funded school should peddle the government's views to the pupils?
Yes. Consider the alternative: teachers who feel they have the right to teach free-sex, eugenics, etc and so on. You are entitled to your beliefs in your own time. You are not entitled to propagate them on the government shilling.
quote:
In the UK a lot of schools are the responsibility of the local authority. Do we really believe that it's every teacher's job to support the local authority's policies in the class room. If there is an election and political control changes, do we think that the way history is taught should immediately change accordingly? Do the Tolpuddle Martyrs suddenly become heroes or villains?
No, first because that's inaccurate - an increasing number of schools have Academy status - and second because there is almost never going to a be situation where teachers are talking to students about local politics. Whereas sex, relationships and citizenship are on the curriculum.
quote:
I am sure there are some local education authorities who'd like that to be the case. I'm sure the national Department of Education would like to have that sort of control over academies. But do we agree with them?
Irrelevant.
quote:
Do we really think that because the government is the government and is always telling us it has been elected, its money is entitled to buy our consciences?
Not at all. If you can't teach the government policy in good conscience on SSM, don't teach the courses where you need to. Become a physics teacher.
This happens in all walks of life that are paid as public servants. You don't get to be paid from the public purse and then decide which policies you are going to enact. If you don't like it, don't do that job.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So at some future wedding when I stand and say, 'The Salvation Army upholds the NT standard....' you can't see a problem with me publicly disagreeing with a law my government has passed?
Nope. And you'd really stand and say that at someone's wedding?
quote:
The point is that the Government has decided to apply the word extremist in a legally defined way to people (in the first instance, teachers) who publicly say 'we do not believe in same sex marriage, we think it is wrong.'
The government is not only wanting to ban a teacher from stating this in front of her class, teaching it - let's assume, in an RE class - but also legally preventing people from expressing this view on social media. - they are making the expression of disagreement with the government on this matter a crime.
SSM is the law of the land. If an RE teacher cannot teach that simple fact, then she shouldn't be an RE teacher. There is no evidence that expressing this view is a crime, that's bullshit.
quote:
The issue is not that's a disagreement over homosexuality; it's a disagreement over redefining marriage - a reasonable position to hold and entirely legal until recently - and the sudden rebranding of teaching such a traditional definition of marriage as a hate crime, as extremism punishable by law alongside those who use social media to incite the killing of people by suicide bombers.
Nope, it really isn't.
quote:
How is it that we have come to this point where, for example, a Christian teacher who has been in the profession for 40 years, has upheld a biblically conservative theology and practice, is suddenly a political and religious extremist because she won't put her conscience and her understanding of the Bible and church teaching aside and yield to party diktat and be forced to teach a position that is entirely alien to her.
At the point where freedom and justice determined that other people in society were entitled to have equal rights. That point.
quote:
Personally I find that worrying and carries with it some echoes of mid twentieth century totalitarian regimes where to go against the party would result in a swift removal from your position.
You really have no idea.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Have you actually read what the Home Secretary wants to do?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
I must have missed the bit where churches are going to be forced to marry gay people. After all, the Catholic church has been getting on quite nicely for umpteen decades refusing to marry divorcees.
If ever the day comes when legislation is passed on whom religious bodies must marry, it strikes me that this is an excellent argument for separating civil and religious marriage, as is already the case in many European countries.
No one’s going to jail for disagreeing with the government’s decision to allow gay people to have civil marriages.
On teaching in schools – my husband once had to supervise a lesson where a person from an outside organisation was talking about the acceptance of difference. The person spent five minutes on gender, ethnic… difference, and then got onto his main point, which was about homosexuality.
As it so happens, 70% of the kids in my husband’s school are from Muslim homes. Homosexuality as a perfectly acceptable way to live? They were having none of it. “Say what you like, Monsieur, that’s not what my Dad told me.” Husband en rouge was rather impressed how well they expressed themselves, telling the speaker that they respected him as a person but they thought he was wrong. And incidentally, that if he was really serious about accepting everyone, that he needed to respect their right to believe as Muslims that homosexuality is sinful.
Now actually, husband en rouge does hold a traditional view on sexuality. However, he never expressed it at any point in the lesson. He knew the kids well enough to have an idea how they were going to react, so he just sat back and let them have at it. If any of the kids were actually rude to the speaker, he pulled them up, but he stuck to the line of “you have to respect everyone, but you don’t have to agree with everyone” which is what the lesson was actually supposed to be about. He’s never been asked to supervise a session like this again ( ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) ) but the school direction couldn’t complain about how he behaved. Wise as serpents, innocent as doves ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) .
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How is it that we have come to this point where, for example, a Christian teacher who has been in the profession for 40 years, has upheld a biblically conservative theology and practice, is suddenly a political and religious extremist because she won't put her conscience and her understanding of the Bible and church teaching aside and yield to party diktat and be forced to teach a position that is entirely alien to her.
I imagine anti-miscegenationists felt much the same when incitement to racial hatred became a crime. As a teacher you have no right to inflict your bigotry on your students.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Can you explain why disagreeing that marriage should be redefined is 'bigotry' please...?
Is it not a reasonable viewpoint, seeing that the alternative has only been law since March 2014?
Are all views that are in opposition to Government legislation 'bigotry'?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't know where this idea that anyone is going to be forced to conduct SSM against their conscience comes from ...
Over in the US it seems that a lot of conservative Christians are worried lest the Federal Government alters the rules on tax exemption for religious bodies in order to have a platform to 'force' religious groups to conduct same-sex marriages ...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Are we really seriously expecting this to happen?
I'm 'conservative' enough theologically to have some concerns about slippery-slope arguments - and I do part company with a lot of my fellow liberals/lefties on issues like abortion ...
I'm not yet convinced, though, that the practice of 'assisted suicide' in some European countries is the thin end of a very large wedge that will lead to compulsory euthanasia and the genocide of everyone over the age of 80 - which is how some conservative Christians in the US seem to regard it ...
Nor do I believe that SSM is going to lead to public tolerance of paedophilia, bestiality and polygamy - which is again another of the bogey-men that many conservative Christian are putting forward.
There are and have been, it has to be said, some academic voices calling for greater toleration of things most of us would find repugnant or unacceptable - but these are minority voices and whilst I feel there is a need for vigilance - the relaxing of certain taboos would trouble me ... I don't believe the barbarians are at the gates just yet ...
So, no, I'm not expecting anyone to vet what Mudfrog says or doesn't say in his own religious setting and context.
That said, I can foresee a few test-cases where particular activists try to push the envelope a bit ...
As la vie en rouge says, separating the marriage/registration thing out as some European countries have done would go some way towards avoiding the kinds of issues that some fear could arise.
As far as the CofE goes ... I don't see the Government (of any stripe) trying to coerce it to perform SSM anytime soon - but that doesn't mean that the CofE itself at some point may change its rubrics to accommodate that ... which is not inconceivable, of course, if it continues on a 'liberalising' trajectory.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
If this thread becomes dominated by the discussion of SSM rather than what it means to be an extremist, then it's headed for Dead Horses.
Thank you for your attention.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't know where this idea that anyone is going to be forced to conduct SSM against their conscience comes from ...
Indeed, I haven't raised that issue at all.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How is it that we have come to this point where, for example, a Christian teacher who has been in the profession for 40 years, has upheld a biblically conservative theology and practice, is suddenly a political and religious extremist because she won't put her conscience and her understanding of the Bible and church teaching aside and yield to party diktat and be forced to teach a position that is entirely alien to her.
Unless she has been teaching in a Christian school she should not have been teaching her position at all. I have also taught for 40 years and never once told the children what I believe. I have taught in 80% Muslim schools and the Muslim teachers there have done the same. When we teach RE we teach what the people of different faiths believe and practise (in broad terms, of course - there are huge variations) we do not teach them what we believe. Any more than we tell them there is no such thing as Father Christmas.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/
If this thread becomes dominated by the discussion of SSM rather than what it means to be an extremist, then it's headed for Dead Horses.
Thank you for your attention.
/hosting
Thank you - that is indeed what I am trying to get over: the 'equivalence' in English law of people spouting 'kill the Jews/Kurds/Christians/liberal Muslims' on Youtube, and a (e.g. Methodist) teacher telling her class of 15 year olds that she believes the government decision to extend marriage to same sex couples is wrong.
How they can both be 'extremists' and punished by the same law is beyond me.
Let's boil this down to a principle, by removing the issue itself - gay marriage - and speaking about freedom to express a political opinion.
What we are talking about is a teacher telling a classroom of kids that s/he disagrees with a law that was passed by the Coalition Government in 2013.
Is it a crime to to simply disagree with a democratic decision?
I just looked it up:
45% of Tory MPs, 9% of Labour and 7% of Liberal Democrats voted against the same sex marriage act.
Obviously I accept that in a democracy the majority won the vote (thank God for that democracy) but 45% is a significant minority of the ruling party to disagree with its own law.
Can you imagine any government making it a crime to publicly disagree with a Parliamentary vote on any other issue? Fox hunting, Trident, Abortion, Assisted suicide? Welfare reform?
When you start silencing the opposition by calling people who hold the opposing view 'extremists' and punishing them by law, you've got nowhere to go when the extremists really do start saying horrible things.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can you imagine any government making it a crime to publicly disagree with a Parliamentary vote on any other issue? Fox hunting, Trident, Abortion, Assisted suicide? Welfare reform?
'Publicly disagree' is very different from teaching a class of children.
Of course, as teachers, we will discuss all these matters, when appropriate. What we will not do is put forward our stance on them. We must remain neutral, or we will very quickly veer into indoctrination, be it about political/religious/social/any other matter.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can you imagine any government making it a crime to publicly disagree with a Parliamentary vote on any other issue? Fox hunting, Trident, Abortion, Assisted suicide? Welfare reform?
'Publicly disagree' is very different from teaching a class of children.
Of course, as teachers, we will discuss all these matters, when appropriate. What we will not do is put forward our stance on them. We must remain neutral, or we will very quickly veer into indoctrination, be it about political/religious/social/any other matter.
Interesting. And so no teacher would ever tell his/her class that they disagree with any Government policy?
I find that very hard to believe!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LucyP
Shipmate
# 10476
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Is it a crime to to simply disagree with a democratic decision?
I just looked it up:
45% of Tory MPs, 9% of Labour and 7% of Liberal Democrats voted against the same sex marriage act.
Obviously I accept that in a democracy the majority won the vote (thank God for that democracy) but 45% is a significant minority of the ruling party to disagree with its own law.
Can you imagine any government making it a crime to publicly disagree with a Parliamentary vote on any other issue? Fox hunting, Trident, Abortion, Assisted suicide? Welfare reform?
When you start silencing the opposition by calling people who hold the opposing view 'extremists' and punishing them by law, you've got nowhere to go when the extremists really do start saying horrible things. [/QB]
Mudfrog, your argument makes sense to me. ISTM that the reasoning you are describing could be considered an example of the Gadarene Swine Fallacy .
Posts: 235 | From: my sanctuary | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Yes, it reminds me of the charge of insanity levelled against someone who disagrees with the party simply because they must be mad to disagree with the party.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
who would have thought that the government would suddenly bring in the charge of hate crime and extremism on people for disagreeing with, basically, what is a government policy on the status of marriage.
Have you any evidence that the government is/will bring a charge of hate crime and/or extremism in relation to disagreeing with government policy?
Because, so far the only link given in support of such an action is a blog commenting on a statement by a Conservative MP who is not a minister, let alone a spokesperson for the relevant government department, nor a member of any of the select committees that reviewed the relevant legislation. Basically, his statements of government policy are about as reliable as mine - unless he's directly quoting the relevant Cabinet Minister or the PM ... in which case the actual words of said minister should be easy to find.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can you explain why disagreeing that marriage should be redefined is 'bigotry' please...?
Is it not a reasonable viewpoint, seeing that the alternative has only been law since March 2014?
Are all views that are in opposition to Government legislation 'bigotry'?
It took a long time for raping your wife to become illegal, that doesn't mean I wouldn't suspect anyone opposing the law of being a misogynist bigot. Timing is irrelevant where justice is concerned. In your view how long a time lapse should there be before disagreement with an obviously just law becomes extreme? When does/did it become extreme to call for homosexuality to be outlawed? How about to call for the death penalty for homosexuality? What about slavery? No. Justice is justice no matter how long it takes.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can you imagine any government making it a crime to publicly disagree with a Parliamentary vote on any other issue? Fox hunting, Trident, Abortion, Assisted suicide? Welfare reform?
'Publicly disagree' is very different from teaching a class of children.
Of course, as teachers, we will discuss all these matters, when appropriate. What we will not do is put forward our stance on them. We must remain neutral, or we will very quickly veer into indoctrination, be it about political/religious/social/any other matter.
Interesting. And so no teacher would ever tell his/her class that they disagree with any Government policy?
I find that very hard to believe!
So do I. Because this has arisen in the course of discussing flies buzzing round a dead horse, that is distorting the discussion. People are venting things as general principles that they can't really believe.
Do we really imagine that any teacher - yet alone at secondary level - feels that he or she is constrained to express her opinion on how asylum seekers should be treated, or whether benefits should be capped by the thought that because he or she is paid by the taxpayer, he or she is obliged to defend government policy?
Pull the other one please.
La vie en rouge, thank you for your contribution. That story describes an important part of what I think education is supposed to achieve.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
they can't really believe.
Do we really imagine that any teacher - yet alone at secondary level - feels that he or she is constrained to express her opinion on how asylum seekers should be treated, or whether benefits should be capped by the thought that because he or she is paid by the taxpayer, he or she is obliged to defend government policy?
Pull the other one please.
As discussed above, it depends on the context.
If the teacher is trying to say "this here is the correct view on homosexual marriage" or "all real Christians think *this* about asylum seekers" then clearly she is going beyond the demands of her role. In a similar way I suspect a Catholic pharmacist would have trouble refusing to serve someone contraception. As far as I understand the latter, a person in the NHS who has a moral objection to contraception is obliged to ask a colleague to help a patient or will face disciplinary procedures.
However, clearly a teacher who is engaged in a discussion in class may at some point say "this is what I think about homosexual marriage". Provided they have been balanced in teaching the curriculum and are making it clear this is just their opinion, it may not be a problem.
As we've heard above, good RE teachers often are scrupulous in not giving their religious opinion on contentious subjects.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I don't think any teacher should be saying anything in class that will lead to some kids hearing "your parents aren't really married".
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As we've heard above, good RE teachers often are scrupulous in not giving their religious opinion on contentious subjects.
I can remember some history teaching that was distinctly misleading too, in primary and secondary school.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can you imagine any government making it a crime to publicly disagree with a Parliamentary vote on any other issue? Fox hunting, Trident, Abortion, Assisted suicide? Welfare reform?
'Publicly disagree' is very different from teaching a class of children.
Of course, as teachers, we will discuss all these matters, when appropriate. What we will not do is put forward our stance on them. We must remain neutral, or we will very quickly veer into indoctrination, be it about political/religious/social/any other matter.
Interesting. And so no teacher would ever tell his/her class that they disagree with any Government policy?
I find that very hard to believe!
Now you are taking your argument to extremes!
As a general rule it's a very good idea for teachers to keep their opinions out of the classroom situation. It's more than possible to teach any subject without having to nail your colours to the mast.
But, if a teacher did so, they wouldn't be reprimanded, I wouldn't think - but I would expect it to be discussed during their appraisal meetings if it came to the attention of their mentors.
Like I said earlier, we need to steer well clear of indoctrinating our pupils. If we wanted to do that we could go and teach in a Christian school.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
As a general rule it's a very good idea for teachers to keep their opinions out of the classroom situation. It's more than possible to teach any subject without having to nail your colours to the mast.
But, if a teacher did so, they wouldn't be reprimanded, I wouldn't think - but I would expect it to be discussed during their appraisal meetings if it came to the attention of their mentors.
Not quite. The reason I find the story about my husband’s “supervision” of this lesson entertaining is that this was a lesson with an agenda – to teach the kids that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality. Note that this is a French State school. The message was strongly at odds with what their parents teach them at home and they were having no truck with it. And said so, in a pretty articulate and intelligent sort of way. Big time fail for the message the school was trying to teach.
The reason husband en rouge has never been asked to supervise a lesson of this type again is that the school authorities expected him to be on message with the speaker. Instead he let the kids loose and didn’t mention that he agreed with them. However, there’s nothing the powers that be can really accuse him of doing wrong.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think any teacher should be saying anything in class that will lead to some kids hearing "your parents aren't really married".
Eh? How many kids have parents married to each other these days? How many kids have a relationship with both parents these days? In my children's (Catholic) primary, there are children with step- and half-siblings due to parental mix and match.
Children aren't that delicate. I grew up knowing that the Church didn't recognise my mother's marriage to my father. No big deal.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
As a general rule it's a very good idea for teachers to keep their opinions out of the classroom situation. It's more than possible to teach any subject without having to nail your colours to the mast.
But, if a teacher did so, they wouldn't be reprimanded, I wouldn't think - but I would expect it to be discussed during their appraisal meetings if it came to the attention of their mentors.
Not quite. The reason I find the story about my husband’s “supervision” of this lesson entertaining is that this was a lesson with an agenda – to teach the kids that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality. Note that this is a French State school. The message was strongly at odds with what their parents teach them at home and they were having no truck with it. And said so, in a pretty articulate and intelligent sort of way. Big time fail for the message the school was trying to teach.
It's a totally different story if it's coming from the kids, of course.
But, then real extremist views shown by the children (ie terrorist etc) would need to be challenged and maybe even reported. But the difference is not hard to find imo. The challenge still would not need to be personal - far better to discuss round the subject and keep our personal views out of the classroom I think.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
le vie en rouge,
What is missing from your husband's behaviour is tolerance. It is good that he did not allow the children to show disrespect to the speaker, but the issue goes beyond this. The lesson that needs to be actively taught is tolerance.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
who would have thought that the government would suddenly bring in the charge of hate crime and extremism on people for disagreeing with, basically, what is a government policy on the status of marriage.
Have you any evidence that the government is/will bring a charge of hate crime and/or extremism in relation to disagreeing with government policy?
Because, so far the only link given in support of such an action is a blog commenting on a statement by a Conservative MP who is not a minister, let alone a spokesperson for the relevant government department, nor a member of any of the select committees that reviewed the relevant legislation. Basically, his statements of government policy are about as reliable as mine - unless he's directly quoting the relevant Cabinet Minister or the PM ... in which case the actual words of said minister should be easy to find.
Are you saying it is an really an acorn?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
le vie en rouge,
What is missing from your husband's behaviour is tolerance. It is good that he did not allow the children to show disrespect to the speaker, but the issue goes beyond this. The lesson that needs to be actively taught is tolerance.
How were the children being intolerant?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
le vie en rouge,
What is missing from your husband's behaviour is tolerance. It is good that he did not allow the children to show disrespect to the speaker, but the issue goes beyond this. The lesson that needs to be actively taught is tolerance.
How were the children being intolerant?
Did not say they were. Didn't say anyone was. What I am saying is that this needs to be said by the instructor. Not merely "Be polite to the person we disagree with". There is a difference.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
Remember that my husband wasn’t there as instructor. The outside speaker was in charge of the discussion, i.e. in the role of instructor and my husband was just there as resident member of staff to keep order and make sure it didn’t all go the dogs.
If the kids were being intolerant, it was up to the speaker to show them that. Unfortunately for him, he hadn’t thought about how he would handle an accusation of disrespect in the other direction (in the form of a well-expressed argument you he didn’t accept and respect their Muslim faith) and made a pig’s breakfast* of trying to persuade them.
I think this is relevant to the original question. Are these kids extremists? No, they are normal, moderate Muslims. Branding them extremists strikes me as highly counterproductive because it leaves you with nothing to say about real extremism, which is a genuine danger to young Muslims. Anyway, there is something rather deliciously ironic about them telling a homosexuality activist that they think he’s being less tolerant than they are. Had the speaker been better prepared and more nuanced, there was actually a very interesting discussion to be had about how people live together who have differing moral values.
*I thought about removing this expression, seeing as how I am talking about Muslim kids, but OTOH, I think they were about as impressed with him as they would have been with a pig’s breakfast.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Had the speaker been better prepared and more nuanced, there was actually a very interesting discussion to be had about how people live together who have differing moral values.
Which is actually the discussion that people need to have. Certainly far more productive than a sledgehammer approach of saying we simply don't accept some values that many people actually hold without serious repercussions to society.
quote:
*I thought about removing this expression, seeing as how I am talking about Muslim kids, but OTOH, I think they were about as impressed with him as they would have been with a pig’s breakfast.
I think all Muslims would agree that pigs need to eat, and therefore deserve their breakfast. Just as long as no one is trying to force them to eat the pigs I can't see anyone objecting to the pigs eating.
[random aside, vaguely related]
I was at a conference recently and over dinner one evening someone actually asked a delegate who was originally from Iran but now working in Denmark whether he still followed the Islamic faith he was raised in. He paused for a moment before saying something to the effect of "It's Ramadan, the sun hasn't set, I'm in a pub drinking beer and eating a burger with bacon". I'm not sure what relevance that has, except to show that even professional scientists (who are supposed to be smart) can be stupid at times.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
... I think the difference is in what context is the teacher speaking. If s/he is teaching in a government funded school in the US, s/he would be expected to affirm equal marriage. ...
Do we really think that? Do we really think that every teacher in every government funded school should peddle the government's views to the pupils?
It's not the government's view, it's the law of the land.
In fact this whole discussion is mired in the typical confusion that occurs between what MPs say, what is government policy, and what is law.
This whole business about what teachers might say in school... I'm sorry, but frankly I can't remember any of my teachers discussing anything remotely political until I was well and truly old enough to have my own political opinions.
It's completely unnecessary for a teacher to state what their view of same-sex marriage is, all they need to state is whether or not same-sex couples can marry.
And as for all this focus on the word "extremism"... I will bet you large sums of money that my colleagues over in the UK drafting office will be going over the language of any such legislation with a fine toothcomb once there's actually a law to draft as opposed to various policy sound-bubbles to figure out how best to make it work. Frankly large parts of this discussion are very premature. You can't sensibly debate what the words of a law mean when the law hasn't actually been written.
[ 05. August 2015, 16:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
