Christian parents sue government over school's transgender policies

[ArtemesiaK]

Just wondered if anyone else had seen this?...

‘I am not sure what you mean by 'mainstream'? Mainstream churches, all churches, believe in evangelism. It would be rather missing the point not too.’

Are you not just confusing evangelism with Evangelical churches?

All churches believe in evangelism but not all are in the Evangelical tradition.

The Evangelical tradition is within Protestantism and has a focus on salvation through faith alone, conversion experiences due to being born again and the inerrancy of the bible.

I am assuming when Nice Gerbil refers to mainstream she means the ‘middle’ Anglican churches which most non Christians see as the face of Christianity in the U.K.

It is the kind of Christianity that vicars present in school assemblies, that secular people have at their church weddings, and that Catholics and Evangelicals often go towards at ecumenical events.

Just to add, I mean the middle Anglican churches, not all Anglicans as some Anglicans are Anglo-Catholic and some Anglicans are Evangelical.

Possibly not entirely. I knew a teenage boy who was very religious CofE, and at 16 ish came out as gay. A mutual friend attended a church group with him a few years later and said that there was much discussion about homosexuality being wrong etc. A few years later he identifies as a woman. I don't know anything about his transition, we no longer have contact, but it seems highly possible to me that the combination of his sexuality and religion may have played a part. To add this pressure would not have come from his family in perhaps the same way as it might in fundamentalist American Christianity.

These parents adhere to Christian beliefs which the church has held to for centuries. Namely, that God created us male and female in his own image.

The school labelled them transphobic because they were not ok with being told that they and their sons had to affirm a boy presenting as a girl. They were being intimidated by the school into renouncing their beliefs. It was not enough to just tolerate differing views - they were being intimidated into actually affirming views which they do not hold to.

I know many Christian parents will be grateful that they are fighting this battle for them.

It's sad to see how readily people will ridicule Christians, even on mumsnet.

@Comefromaway

These people give ordinary gender critical women a bad name.

How come? I've read the article and can't see what it is that is objectionable.

Do most Christians in England actually believe that though?

I would argue not. 7 days, no evolution, etc etc.

I would say believing those things is a pretty extreme form of belief here.

And as I say. The other cases this org has supported are on the site and people can draw their own conclusions.

@NiceGerbil

Anyone wanting to see can look through the info and cases on their site

christianconcern.com/about/services/christian-legal-centre/

People can make their own minds up.

I'm not sure what point you are making beyond possibly some sort of general point that litigation to protect religious views is somehow wrong.

I'm an atheist. I have very little time for the concept of respecting religious beliefs which is a different concept from respecting the right to hold religious beliefs as long as those beliefs are not imposed on non- believers.

Of the cases listed many concern street preachers. I cannot see how, in a democracy, anyone can reasonably object to that, provided there is no incitement to violence or intimidation of passers by. If one isn't interested, carry on walking.

Even as an atheist I find it concerning that criminal sanctions should be brought against street preachers.

Another case concerns the dismissal of a nurse for wearing a small but visible cross. I couldn't support anyone being dismissed for that. I would not be happy at all with a nurse saying she would pray for me but a cross is, to my mind, no different from the scarf wearing Muslim women regularly co-opted on here to support "gender- critical" views. Such women are, I'm told, incapable of adjusting their head scarf if a trans woman is present.

Tbh, I intensely dislike the whole idea of "modesty" and covering up and am very uncomfortable at how often it is dragged in to support the "gender critical" argument. However it seems hypocritical in the extreme to support the right of women to wear garments dictated by oppressive, misogynistic religious views but not support the right of another woman to wear a small cross. Either all religious symbols are banned in a work environment or they are permitted- provided they don't interfere with the ability to carry out a job.

I think we are at cross purposes.

That's not what I've been saying at all.

I was referring to previous points I'd made so understand not read it's a long thread!

'Tbh, I intensely dislike the whole idea of "modesty" and covering up and am very uncomfortable at how often it is dragged in to support the "gender critical" argument'

Can you expand on this though? Sounds interesting.

Just had a quick look though about the hosp jewellery thing.

Not in depth but she was a theatre nurse.

My mum worked in theatre and for obv reasons there are very strict requirements.

Re all clothing. Clogs. Etc. Hair covered.

I'm sure you've read in the news about things getting left in patients eg gauze.

A dangly necklace dropping in during surgery is obvious risk surely?

Generally no jewellery is worn may be some exemptions.

Also risk to wearer and patient in some circs during surgery.

Just read theatre nurse and thought... Erm...

Something about turbans hair coverings for religion. No idea if ok in NHS surgery or not. They're somewhat more obvious and large than a necklace though...

Re Street preaching I've got interesting experience with that as well!

Anyway like I said. Court not court whatever. No skin off my nose.

My earlier posts explain why better prob.

But yes. People can look at the site and draw their own conclusions.

I know what I think. Others can make their own minds up.

@NiceGerbil

Do most Christians in England actually believe that though?

I would argue not. 7 days, no evolution, etc etc.

I would say believing those things is a pretty extreme form of belief here.

And as I say. The other cases this org has supported are on the site and people can draw their own conclusions.

Do most Christians believe that God created us male and female in his own image? Well, yes. Yes they do...

Indeed they do, as do 99% of the population of the world. Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other religious groups believe it too.

People may not believe in God or a higher spirit or being but they do believe in biology and facts.

I'm confused here about who is saying what.

There is no way that 99% of people who would describe themselves as Christian or Jewish etc in England believe in the creation story.

That God literally created man. IE. Don't believe in evolution, that we are related to other great apes etc.

No way.

@NiceGerbil

I'm confused here about who is saying what.

There is no way that 99% of people who would describe themselves as Christian or Jewish etc in England believe in the creation story.

That God literally created man. IE. Don't believe in evolution, that we are related to other great apes etc.

No way.

If you are a Christian, by definition you believe that God is the creator of the world. Whether or not you believe the 6 days in Genesis are literal 24 hour days, or just stand for an unnamed period of time, and whether you believe he created us through evolution or not, and so on and so forth, is another issue. The Bible doesn't specify whether God created us through evolution, but it's clear that God is the author of all life.

The error I think you're making, and it's a biggie.

Is that stacks of people who would tick Christian (Jewish etc) if asked.

Don't actually believe much of it at all, if any.

Plenty of people who tick Christian are-

Ticking the societal default but have haven't been to church prayed even thought about it for years.

Are the religion due to culture rather than belief.
Eg loads of friends Irish/ Italian descent. Don't actually believe much if any, and RC is pretty firm on some things that are in direc opposition to what they think.
Plenty of Jewish friends eat pork is another example.

Get something out of going to church (synagogue etc). A regular thing to do each week. Time out of busy life to themselves to just be. Enjoy the cadence of familiar ritual. See friends/ neighbours or meet new people. Like the singing. Like the surroundings. And so on.

Wanting to get into certain schools (yikes blue touchpaper topic).

Think it's the right thing to do for kids.

Go with a relative because they want them to. Time together etc.

I mean loads more.

You MUST know that. Surely you must?

'The Bible doesn't specify whether God created us through evolution, but it's clear that God is the author of all life.'

The Bible specifies how everything in the universe was created in great detail

It's been a while but iirc

God put the garden of Eden on the earth and created man in his own image.

Eve came as a bit of an afterthought from Adam.

Then the temptation thing. Snake persuades eve. Eve persuades Adam. Despite snake and Adam clearly having big part in apple consumption it's all eve's fault. Off you go no more paradise garden, oh eve pain in childbirth for you.

All the animals etc are to be ruled over by man.

Stars sky earth oceans plants etc all created God.

6 day work 7th day rested.
It's really very specific indeed.

I can check s Bible I've got in spare room from can't quite remember. Centuries ago which may be more... I've noticed a lot of more modern versions seem to be a bit changed from what I remember. Language etc.

Well yes but it is a symbolic account for many Christians, I would say the majority.
What happens in Genesis 2? Adam and Eve's sons get married. There's no hoha about where the women come from, so clearly accepted that there weren't only two humans (and their two offspring) in existence.

Ah ok.

So the approach is to pick and choose which bits are to be believed as written, and which bits to be reinterpreted as science etc moves forward.

So the bit which says God created it all can be picked out as to be believed, and the bits which these days feel unbelievable, to be recast as not really meant like that.

Ok fair enough. Different branches of faiths commonly take different interpretations of their holy texts.

Although I've got to ask.

When this was written, the stars seas skies universe etc created by God in 6 days. Would have been fair enough given the knowledge etc at the time.

Why would anyone from that time write it symbolically? Why is it clear that back then, given it would have seemed like a pretty comprehensive explanation. Would they have thought. Ah but this bit is the important belief bit. I'll surround it with all this detail because... Reasons.

And even given that.

'If you are a Christian, by definition you believe that God is the creator of the world.''

'Do most Christians believe that God created us male and female in his own image? Well, yes. Yes they do...'

I still know.. KNOW. That is not true of most/ all people in England who would describe themselves as Christian.

Plus there's a group round here who I would put a good wedge of cash on, them taking that literally.

Do you think it's ok for you to claim to speak for the millions of Christians in England? Why do you think that's ok?

You must know that your statements on what millions of individuals MUST believe, by definition, is just not true. Surely.

I assume the last remarks aren't made to me (I'm not in England, or speaking for most Christians there!) the point I was making about Adam and Eve wasn't about understanding of them changing with scientific advances, Genesis 2 (I do hope I've got the right chapter - might be 3!) was there since earliest times suggesting that it was always viewed symbolically. Why would people not have tried to describe their worldview using symbols in the past? I don't understand that.
I don't think being made in God's image has anything to do with people's bodies, and God certainly isn't male or female (normally I would've added, because being male or female is all about your body and God doesn't have one, but I suppose that doesn't wash with the gender identity view!)

@NiceGerbil

Ah ok.

So the approach is to pick and choose which bits are to be believed as written, and which bits to be reinterpreted as science etc moves forward.

So the bit which says God created it all can be picked out as to be believed, and the bits which these days feel unbelievable, to be recast as not really meant like that.

Ok fair enough. Different branches of faiths commonly take different interpretations of their holy texts.

Although I've got to ask.

When this was written, the stars seas skies universe etc created by God in 6 days. Would have been fair enough given the knowledge etc at the time.

Why would anyone from that time write it symbolically? Why is it clear that back then, given it would have seemed like a pretty comprehensive explanation. Would they have thought. Ah but this bit is the important belief bit. I'll surround it with all this detail because... Reasons.

It's not really about picking and choosing. You just can't approach those texts with the expectation that they are written according to modern conventions. People did not think about written accounts the same way modern people do. At the time Genesis was written down there was no genre of written history in the way we understand it. So literal readings that you see in some modern churches are as alien to that way of thinking as seeing it all as some sort of modern literary device is.

While it's certainly true that in the ancient world there was no particular reason anyone would have thought a modern cosmos or evolutionary explanation would be a credible theory of how things came to be, the text is not a commentary on our modern views anyway. It's better compared to the pagan viewpoint at the time. The Jewish/Christian account differs from that in significant ways which may be more to the point if we want to understand what the text has to say.

But in any case, even in the ancient world many theologians believed that the creation account was meant as a spiritual explanation rather than an exact historical description, even if their reasons had nothing to do with modern scientific theories. There was quite a variety of viewpoints among patristic scholars about the extent to which that was the case, many of which were acceptable within the tradition of interpretation.

So just over half of Christians are Catholic.

The Catholic Church does not believe that the world was literally created in seven days and does believe in evolution.

It also believes that men and women are created in the image of God, and that what is unique about humans is that they are both material and spirit.

The materiality of humans is at the heart of Christianity as Christ was the word made flesh.

It doesn’t really leave much space for identities that just float about quite independently of the material body they are in.

@Twelveshoes

So just over half of Christians are Catholic.

The Catholic Church does not believe that the world was literally created in seven days and does believe in evolution.

It also believes that men and women are created in the image of God, and that what is unique about humans is that they are both material and spirit.

The materiality of humans is at the heart of Christianity as Christ was the word made flesh.

It doesn’t really leave much space for identities that just float about quite independently of the material body they are in.

And this is also true for the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the older mainline Protestant groups. So well over half really.

'But in any case, even in the ancient world many theologians believed that the creation account was meant as a spiritual explanation rather than an exact historical description, even if their reasons had nothing to do with modern scientific theories'

That is really interesting! Got any links etc so can read up?

Tailend- no wasn't to you! And your personal beliefs are interesting.

Incidentally I mean not saying X belief is wrong / right etc. I mean religion is all about belief. And belief even within a fairly comprehensive organised branch of faith always can and should have room for adherents to take from it what fits with them within the main tenets. And that as different groups have different interpretations of parts, so will individuals and that too is fine.

This is interesting though! So hope not coming across as really critical rather than saying what I think etc.

So if this is clearly symbolic and that bit etc and not to be taken literally but this part Is. I don't really get that at all.

I would have thought that then, that explanation of the question humans have always pondered-

Where did all this (stars sun earth animals etc) come from?
Why are we here/ what is our purpose (do we have one)?
All those things.

For then, it's as good a reason as anything else. Simple, comprehensive. I don't understand why back then it was for sure symbolic and not to be taken literally.

Plus of course there are groups that take it literally. Or at least big chunks of it.

Also, is there any other explanation of why childbirth is in general worse for us than for other mammals?