Reverend reported to anti-terror unit Prevent for telling pupils in a sermon they're allowed to disagree with LGBT teaching

I agree with what ppl have said, that he has failed to note that the opinion on gay marriage is not held by all Christians or all c of e members. And the rather misleading thing he said about 'law of the land'. And that he didn't acknowledge that disagreeing with gay marriage actually does discriminate against gay ppl of you act on the belief.

But it is important that he was giving pupils permission to hold beliefs different to what they are taught at school. He was emphasising the right to hold different beliefs. It's such a core principle if we are to live happily together, and it is being lost with certain secular beliefs.

Obviously I don't know what else led tohim leaving, but on this reading I hope he wins.

This is an important point by a pp This man is being persecuted for verbalising what is the classic position on tolerance and freedom of thought.

Some religious groups have done gay marriages in the past. The Quakers offered gay marriages but they weren’t legally recognised as marriages until civil gay marriage came into being.

There wasn’t a conflict between those groups and those wanting gay marriage.

The dispute was between religious groups who are opposed to gay marriage and people who advocated for it. The Quakers were already carrying out gay marriages so were not opposed to them.

People have marriage ceremonies all the time that are not legally recognised by the state and always will do. Neither the state nor the major denominations can prevent people from holding any kind of marriage ceremony with no legal status.

There is a conflict between LGB rights and religion. The compromise that has been reached is civil marriages for LGB people.

The compromise is actually that religious groups who want to do gay marriages can (Quakers, the URC afaik) and those which don't want to dont have to ... and that the CofE can't, the Gordian Knot master stroke in bringing in the gay marriage legislation, as the different wings of the CofE would otherwise have been infighting till the apocalypse.

This seems to be another reason not to conflate gender ideology with issues of sexual orientation.

This is a real problem... the idea that this man could be described as a "terrorist". It completely devalues the seriousness of using that word.

There are echos of this across all of Woke Kingdom. Words that used to mean truly heinous things being thrown around like confetti with no serious consideration before they are invoked.

It's really quite gross and disrespectful.

Great! A man of faith stands up and says we should all be allowed to question the faith and ideology of others but should still remain respectful of the person and some here want to quibble that he has fucking personal faith.

He was reported as a terrorist and you want to moan about his being a Christian, not every Christian?

Madness!

‘...he’s setting this up as THE Christian view and asserting that being a Christian will inevitably bring you into conflict with LGBT rights.’

Surely it is the belief of the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church, who make up the vast majority of Christians in this country?

There is a conflict between LGB rights and religion. The compromise that has been reached is civil marriages for LGB people.

I am so fed up of us all being lumped together as LGBT. I as a lesbian have nothing in common with the T and very little to do with the G or B. We are not the same.

I think this is the point - there are 2 different things - laws and practices at a societal level and individual beliefs. If you believe (which I don't) that abortion is unethical, then you have to be allowed to argue that in the public sphere, the law arises from democratic consensus but that isn't a winner takes all kind of ideological 'genocide' (hyperbole.)

We are all entitled to say we don't agree with same sex marriage, abortion, gender ideology etc, etc. Just as we are entitled to argue for the death penalty and strengthening women's sex based rights.

The problem with gender ideology is that it's completely circumvented the demoratic consensus building process which depends on reason and evidence and is trying to institute a reign of terror.

"and once I fought against Section 28 and fully supported LBG rights"

Presumably the conservative view (section 28) was that you can't trust (all) teachers to teach this stuff responsibly, and you need legal limits to stop them giving one-sided propaganda to kids.

And I think that's a legitimate fear.

justawoman
I saw the same points you highlight in your first post.

I think what is missing in the sermon is an open acceptance that if you follow that Christian belief portrayed (and not all Christian’s agree but it is a widely held belief of many Christians), it is discriminatory against anyone who is gay.

Because while straight people can have sex but only in marriage, this option is not open to gay people in a framework where gay marriage is impossible.

It is also perfectly legal in the U.K. for gay people to marry.

Now to the tricky part and where I think the trans activists have played such a blinder in aligning so closely to LGB.....

If I accept the right of any individual to not believe in trans ideology, do I also accept their right to believe that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong??

Like most of us on here, I personally am gender critical and don’t subscribe to trans ideology but I absolutely do believe in people’s right to gay marriage.

However, I accept anyone else’s right to believe whatever they want.

*column inches. Bloody autocorrect!

I hope he wins. He is entitled to his views and I agree with most of what he said. I do think there will be a backlash against the rabid LGBT lot unfortunately. Mainly because of the T. But also because their most vocal supporters are so awful to other people online. Its a bit like Labour councillors and supporters calling everyone awful bigots, just turns people against the whole party.

I'm a lesbian and a long-time active member of the LGB community and my heart sinks whenever LGBTQ+ is invoked, because LGB and the TQ+ are two separate communities and issues. LGB is about same-sex relationships, TQ+ is about gender identity. They are not the same and I curse Stonewall for conflating them.

When the TQ+ gets the pushback it so richly deserves, those of us who are LGB are braced for it too. Please, please, anyone reading this, help fight the problem by writing and saying LGB and TQ+ — making it clear that the two are separate and different. If it encourages debate with your friends and colleagues, so much the better. Say a lesbian asked you to do it.

This is a huge article for the Mail, the most column issues I think I've ever seen them devote to clashes of rights that involve gender ideology.

My answer to the issue would be to make all educational institutions secular and not promote any faith based ideologies whether that's transubstantiation or transgenderism!

My head is starting to explode.
The Secular Society is campaigning to get religion out of schools (a view I sympathized with) but now the spreading of fundamentalist dogma is coming from LBGT activists who have free rein and are given the same status as holy men and prophets ( and once I fought against Section 28 and fully supported LBG rights).

The Dept of Education has to get a grip. This man is being persecuted for verbalising what is the classic position on tolerance and freedom of thought. That's where I stand and I hope he not only wins but is awarded substantial damages.

I read it as rather more nuanced than that and as supportive of LBG marriage. Either way, something to discuss and debate, not to report to the Police for terrorism and sack the speaker. Totalitarian indeed

but that he’s setting this up as THE Christian view

Agree. But at least he is saying he is open to debate, discuss, argue his point and your point and he will still love and respect you even if you never agree with each other.

This is what has always been my concern, that transactivists who are so extreme in their cancel culture, create a massive backlash against LBG.

I think the problem is not that he’s expressing a particular conservative view of relationships and sexuality, but that he’s setting this up as THE Christian view and asserting that being a Christian will inevitably bring you into conflict with LGBT rights

Yes, he is doing this, but from a very measured position and one which is Christian as Tibtom says. He is saying there is a conflict between Christianity and LGBT sexual activity and ideas (rather than rights I would add), just as there is a conflict between Christianity and extra-marital sexual activity.

I think it is of huge value that someone in a position of power at the school has told the pupils they don't have to agree with anyone (presumably including him).

To put this on par with attacks in London, Manchester, and even the Twin Towers is offensive in the extreme. Terrorist is not a label to throw around lightly.

I agree. But this wild overreaction is normal to people who demand #nodebate and claim they are being “literally killed” by hearing different opinions.

but that he’s setting this up as THE Christian view

That is a criticism is his belief. For him it is the Christian view. There are lots of christian denominations, some of them differ on fundamental aspects of faith such that others would disagree they are actually christian at all. The reverand preached what is his understanding of Christian teaching - in line with the bible. It is certainly the view of the Roman Catholic Church which make up 1.2 billion people and half of the world's Christians.

Ah, I wasn't aware of those, meditrina - I'm curious now as to what those prosecutions entailed.

As well as the higher profile cases, which have been about services, there have been a number of successful prosecutions, going back to at least 2001 (that one used the Public Order Act 1986, so there may be earlier examples)