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

[SuperShe]

Just read this in the daily mail, about a Reverend who was sacked and reported to Prevent (counter terrorism and radicalisation agency) for a sermon he gave to pupils: (parts extracted from article)

“You should no more be told you have to accept LGBT ideology than you should be told you must be in favour of Brexit, or must be Muslim – to both of which I’m sure most of you would quite rightly object.

So I want to say to everyone, but especially to those who have been troubled, that you are not obliged to accept someone else’s ideology. You are perfectly at liberty to hear ideas out, and then think, ‘No, not for me’.

You are entitled, if you wish, to look at some of the claims made about gender identity and think that it is incoherent to say that, for example, gender is quite independent of any biological factor, but that a person’s physiology should be changed to match his or her claimed gender; or incoherent to say that gender identity is both a matter of individual determination and social conditioning at the same time, or incoherent to make claims about being non-binary or gender-fluid by both affirming and denying the gender stereotypes which exist in wider society.

Now when ideologies compete, we should not descend into abuse, we should respect the beliefs of others, even where we disagree. Above all, we need to treat each other with respect, not personal attacks – that’s what loving your neighbour as yourself means.

By all means discuss, have a reasoned debate about beliefs, but while it’s OK to try and persuade each other, no one should be told they must accept an ideology. Love the person, even where you profoundly dislike the ideas. Don’t denigrate a person simply for having opinions and beliefs which you don’t share.”

Here’s a link to the full article. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9557845/School-reports-chaplain-telling-pupils-theyre-allowed-disagree-LGBT-teaching.html

I wholeheartedly agreed with everything the Reverend said and I am not even a Christian. I cannot believe how he was treated when he said nothing discriminatory or illegal. Yet it’s perfectly acceptable for LGBT activists and school teachers to chant “Smash heteronormativity" in the school.

I forgot to add the reverend was appointed in 2015 to provide pastoral care, share the Christian faith and lead services in the school’s chapel as the school has a ‘Christian ethos’.

And the sermon was promoted after concerns from pupils about the organisation
Educate & Celebrate, which was invited to ‘embed gender, gender identity and sexual orientation into the fabric’ of the school who were asking him questions like – ‘How come we are told we have to accept all this LGBT stuff in a Christian school?’

sermon was prompted* not promoted

I can't see anything unChristian or objectionable in what he said, let alone extremist.

So basically he told them to be kind listen love the person even if you disagree with the ideals

And that makes him a terrorist

On the basis of that address, an organisation wishing to counter radicalisation might want to think about employing him.

His sermon is calm, measured and thoughtful. The schools response is frightening. I hope parents of pupils at this school are aware of the views their children are being taught to follow, without the ability to question them, and react.
If my child were a pupil I would be withdrawing them from this school.
Education used to be about considering all views and using evidence, facts and debate to reach a conclusion. Not being told what to think.

I thought the sermon was extremely distasteful. I’m very GC and support his opposition to the trans activism in his school. The Prevent referral was outrageous (as the authorities seem quickly to have agreed). But the sermon was out of order in several particulars, I thought.

Firstly, he claims to be putting forward a ‘Christian’ view of relationships and sex without acknowledging that many Christians would disagree with him and would, for instance, support same-sex marriage. In fact that’s probably the view of the majority of CofE churchgoers and perhaps clergy. He sets up a phantom clash between religious belief and right to marry.

Secondly, his claim that the law of the land says marriage is between a man and a woman is misleading at best. I got what he meant immediately but I’m a marriage law nerd for professional reasons. As the DM article (but not his sermon) says, he meant CofE Canon Law, which because the Church is established, is technically the law of the land. However, I’d not expect any child or teenager, or the vast majority of adults, to know that, and of course secular law allows for same-sex marriage and has done for several years.

Thirdly, he generalises from a lie told by by the trainers at this school (and I know, elsewhere too) that gender identity is a protected characteristic to ask ‘what else are they lying about?’ when he’s just been discussing marriage and relationships. This implies bad faith to me and as a young lesbian I’d have been very upset by the insinuation that asking for my relationships to be treated equally was based on a ‘lie’.

This man is being supported by Andrea Williams of ‘Christian Concern’, aka the group that has brought and lost endless homophobic lawsuits. They certainly aren’t concerned with free speech. To be fair, I suppose it could just be the DM ringing her as a rent a quote.

I think this chaplain has been treated badly and hope he gets compensation. However, I think just about any school that employs a chaplain would have been concerned by that sermon and would have taken steps to address the issue, hopefully a lot less hamfistedly than this school appears to have done - though of course we don’t have their side of the story and, having once been the subject of a sensationalist DM article, I’d not trust them to report on yesterday’s weather.

That is a very well measured sermon, and I cannot for the life of me see how he could possibly be conceived as a terrorist. 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.

Christians have lost a who slew of court cases in regards to stance on homosexuality.

School made an error in reporting to Prevent, rather than just taking individual action.

The general expectation that you shut up about your views when you are the 'larger' minority and there is direct incompatibility between the protected characteristics has been long established by the judgements on Christians (and it's always Christian, not Jews or Muslims)

Christians have lost a who slew of court cases in regards to stance on homosexuality.

Not for their 'stance' in terms of beliefs or just words though; the cases have involved discriminatory actions arising from those beliefs.

Having thought a bit further, there is a concern sometimes expressed on these boards, and it’s one I wholeheartedly share, that the excesses of trans activism will lead to a backlash against LGB people and all the gains we’ve made. I think this sort of thing is an instance of that: the chaplain is using some outrageous lies told by a trainer about trans issues to cast aspersions on LGB rights too. He of course has a right to his opinion; but I think that as GC feminists we have a duty not to jump on his bandwagon or (to mix metaphors horribly) to be part of the backlash ourselves.

Interesting, Justawoman, and a reminder to me to read things in full and not just extracts. Having read the whole thing though, he seems to me to be saying that students are to be allowed to hold the views that marriage within their faith is opposite sex marriage, that sexual relationships outside marriage go against the morals of their faith, and that sex exists. He is not saying that they should or must believe those things, but that to believe so as part of their faith is legitimate.

(Takes me back to earnest discussions with my more evangelical school friends who were opposed to same-sex relationships not for their own sake but on the grounds that sex should be reserved only for marriage. Somehow we all still got on.)

@UnkindlyMay

Interesting, Justawoman, and a reminder to me to read things in full and not just extracts. Having read the whole thing though, he seems to me to be saying that students are to be allowed to hold the views that marriage within their faith is opposite sex marriage, that sexual relationships outside marriage go against the morals of their faith, and that sex exists. He is not saying that they should or must believe those things, but that to believe so as part of their faith is legitimate.

(Takes me back to earnest discussions with my more evangelical school friends who were opposed to same-sex relationships not for their own sake but on the grounds that sex should be reserved only for marriage. Somehow we all still got on.)

Oh, I agree. 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. As well as the sleight of hand arguments I’ve highlighted above. Of course, again, he has a right to his opinion and his view of his faith. However, he’s here arguing from a position of considerable power (as chaplain/teacher to a load of school kids) so I’d argue it’s in no way the same as a student arguing with a mate who’s a member of the Christian Union either (an experience I’ve also had in spades!)

@ErrolTheDragon

Christians have lost a who slew of court cases in regards to stance on homosexuality.

Not for their 'stance' in terms of beliefs or just words though; the cases have involved discriminatory actions arising from those beliefs.

This is not entirely true.

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)

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

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.

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.

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).

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 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

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.

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!

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.

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.

*column inches. Bloody autocorrect!