Miriam Cates

[CassieMaddox]

New report says she was trustee at a church while gay conversion therapy was happening. The kind of conversion therapy that involves exorcism of demons.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ngprp5xdvo

As a director and trustee at the charity behind the church, external from September 2016 to September 2018, Mrs Cates, had safeguarding responsibilities for those who attended

Thought this might interest some posters on here. Not sure I would trust her with safeguarding after this, if indeed she retains her seat.

Gender ideology is comparable in that it's a potentially harmful belief to raise children with in some people's eyes.
But we want it out of schools and taught as fact not banned as a belief.

Do you want belief in demons banned? Or praying to overcome demons banned?

Or do you want churches and all religious groups to be forced to accept homosexuality?

I've worked with children who have been traumatised by 'exorcism' rituals to cure them of autism.
Abusive practises have however been very hard to prove. The families belief that autism was caused by demons was concerning but not illegal.

At what point does regarding homosexuality as a sin and praying about it become abuse?
I'm sure there is a line but it's hard to legally define.

I do think adults who voluntarily join groups where they know they will have issues with how they live shouldn't complain.

It's different if you can show coercision into being in the group or taking part in prayers. But if you know what they think and just keep going you have to take some responsibility.

Like that journalist who deliberately sought out a Christian therapist to explore sexuality and then was upset when she offered a differing view of sexuality.

It's like I'm going to find the person who will offend me and then be offended and then ask for this to be banned.

I do think conversion therapy is getting misinterpreted to mean no questioning at all even if you seek it out voluntarily and then deliberately misued to make religious views unacceptable.

Like what is happening on this thread.

It's really about Mariam Cates having views which shouldn't be tolerated.

Looks like we're gonna need a bigger ducking stool.

I don’t even think the the Elf on The Shelf reporting back to Santa (aka The Festive Surveillance State’) is healthy so it must be far worse for kids who are told they will go to hell if they do x (rather than not get many gifts that year).

But I still prioritise freedom of speech and the right to religious belief over banning elves/church/shaming women etc.

Exactly we let parents make those decisions.

Some believe bringing a child up with a religion is abusive.
Some think it's essential.

Some think bringing up a child gender neutral is a abusive.
Some think it's great parenting.

Some parents think teaching your child that being gay is morally no different to being straight is the right morals to instil.
Some think teaching your child it's a sin to be gay is the right moral to instil.

I'm sure we all have our own strong views on each of those scenarios and could argue our case.
But we live in a relatively free society where you can raise your child with whatever beliefs you wish.

But I still prioritise freedom of speech and the right to religious belief over banning elves/church/shaming women etc.

This is really about a view which now exists that we've reached a point where the correct morals have been established and they should be enforced by the state.
(What could go wrong with that eh?!!)

And those correct morals are sexually liberal. The conservative sexual mortality of religious communities should not be tolerated and the state should intervene.

It's interesting though that it's always directed at Christians. As they are generally the most liberal religious group in this country. But the easiest to attack.

It’s part of the demonising of conservatism too.

Tribalism has no place in a democratic society, whether it’s political, religious or social. We are all supposed to tolerate other people’s beliefs and try to understand those that are different.

I see a lot of ‘people who vote x,y,z should be ashamed’.
It doesn’t actually change anyone’s mind about how to vote. Well actually it kind of does because it puts me off.

I’m in the interesting position of having cancelled out DH’s vote every time, so far. We have interesting conversations and land in different places all the time.

So I know that people who vote X,Y or Z can be doing so for very good reasons.

It's not surprising that GC feminists find they have overlapping views on gender ideology with Christians who view homosexuality as a sin. Or with conservatives 😵!!

What is surprising is that some posters think this is a huge gotcha and requires condemnation by GC feminists of the people with whom their views on one issue overlap.

Instead of those posters being able to understand many of us can instead think: I neither agree nor feel the need to condemn. I just disagree.

I actually think some posters are just never going to understand this and will continue to present us daily with something we have to now condemn it's so awful.
But which is actually something legal & pretty mainstream which we may/may not agree with.

The Barnados report upheld all his complaints and found the church "upheld and supported" conversion practices. The church involved is putting in place better safeguarding practices. The Diocese says "The Diocese of Sheffield believes, along with the wider Church of England, that conversion therapy is unethical, potentially harmful and has no place in the modern world".

That is not "turning out to be nothing". Unless you think conversion therapy is fine

I've worked with children who have been traumatised by 'exorcism' rituals to cure them of autism. So do you think that trauma is acceptable because their church believes in demons? As that is what this report found happened in this case too.

Abusive practises have however been very hard to prove. The families belief that autism was caused by demons was concerning but not illegal. The belief isn't illegal. Enacting that belief on others in a way that causes foreseeable trauma should be discouraged.

Again, in exactly the same way as we want to see gender ideology discouraged.

No. It isn't. Its about her being involved with a church that was found to be carrying out harmful practices.

If by "the correct morals" you mean "don't impose your beliefs on others in a way that harms them" guilty as charged. That's also why I'm gender critical by the way.

To be honest I assumed that was also a core Christian value but maybe not.

Lots of posters on here refuse to vote for Angela Rayner because she has said trans women are women. They post about her and encourage others not to vote for her because they strongly disagree with her view and feel it is harmful to other humans. They are entitled to feel that. I can disagree and I do, without commenting on their morals.

I feel like that about Miriam Cates. I think she's dangerous to women and children. Her being involved with a church that condones conversion therapy is just another example of things that make me think that. So do me a favour and be respectful enough to debate it rather than shut it down with "bad faith/moral judgement" to avoid it.

Also conversion therapy and belief in people being possessed by demons is not "pretty mainstream".

So she went to and was briefly in leadership of a church that reprehensibly did cross the safeguarding line- their practices, not their beliefs. She left around that time.

She questions whether the current abortion laws are up to date- unsurprising given the huge shift in medicine and society since they were drafted.

She doesn’t agree with same sex marriage.

I don’t see the above as being massively prejudicial to the wellbeing of women and children. She could easily argue allowing termination after a pregnancy is already viable outside the womb is arguing for the wellbeing of children and that you are arguing against it.

We need to have diversity. In diversity we get the best representation. I was taught that by an Anglo catholic female priest who cherishes the people who will not accept her calling.

I’m really worried about the coming government that’s so intolerant of diversity. Only correct opinions may be expressed.

My only hope is that Starmer has been sitting on the fence to get in and will discover a backbone once he is there. But I hoped Boris wasn’t the idiot he appeared to be, and look how that turned out.

Disagreeing with someone's opinion is not "intolerance" it's the sign of a healthy democracy.

Trying to shut down debate with "you are bad faith, only correct opinions cam be expressed" is not disagreement. Its a silencing tactic.

Cassie, you're always alluding to the morals of other posters here. It's baked in to most of the threads you start.

Luckily for you and barring a divine intervention for her, Cates won't be an MP come Friday morning.

Rayner we will still have to contend with for the foreseeable.

From my perspective this thread comes across as others want her to remain an MP because they are 100% on board with the practices at the church she was trustee at.

It’s hard to understand how this conclusion can be reached. You can accept people’s right to hold different views from your own. To say they are allowed to hold them doesn’t mean that you support them wholeheartedly.

Has anyone on here said they approve of such practices?

I am transparent about my opinions, yes.
So are most other posters who regularly start threads on this board. I can often tell who will have posted by the thread title.

If you don't want to engage don't. But this constant implication about "bad faith" is super boring at this point. I'll still be here after the election, posting about various feminist things. As I have been for the last about 15 years 😂

People saying that a belief in demons and exorcism appear to be saying that, yes. People saying they can't see a problem in the report, just standard church behaviour.

As someone with no religion its pretty eye opening!