It's not persecution - it's equality and tolerance...
Blogged by James Preece on 6th March 2012
Here's the latest bit of tolerance from Great Britain - the land where Christians are not persecuted - they simply choose to exclude themselves...
Two senior midwives from Glasgow have lost their battle not to assist in abortions following a court ruling.
In a judgment handed down today from the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Lady Smith ruled that the midwives must accept the decision of their hospital management to oversee other midwives who are performing abortions on the labour ward.
The midwives in the case, Miss Mary Doogan and Mrs Connie Wood, argued that they had never been required to supervise abortion procedures in the past, and that the hospital was asking them to be morally, medically and legally responsible for abortions.
Although they said that this conflicted with their profound objection to abortions, Lady Smith said that the midwives involved were not protected by the conscience clause of the Abortion Act.
[link]
We keep being told I don't need to worry because Catholics won't be forced to perform same-sex marriages.
I don't believe that is anything but a short term compromise until the gay lobby feels ready to make the next push, but even with this compromoise - everybody forgets about all the other Catholics who will be forced to take part.
Florists will have to supply gay weddings, chefs will have to cook for gay wedding receptions, web developers will have to build websites for companies who specialise in gay weddings.
If they want to keep their jobs...
Many recusant Catholics were made to pay fines that forced them in to poverty for failing to turn up to the official Church of England services. This is the modern equivalent - you can live your faith, but we will take your livelihood away.
Reader Comments
+17
Nicolas Bellord said...
I do not know if "persecution" is the right word but does it matter? It is a plain fact that Christians and Catholics in particular are slowly being edged out of many areas of life. The medical profession is the prime example. How many Catholic gynaecologists are there? How many will want to be midwives if they are required to supervise abortions? It is similar to the old penal times where those who could not in conscience accept the oath of supremacy were prevented from holding positions in the army and the professions. And we do not help ourselves when we let our institutions be secularised instead of creating havens where conscientious Catholics could work.
+
+13
Catherine said...
"in 2010, [Cardinal George of Chicago] further outlined the degree to which he believed religious freedoms (in the United States and other Western societies) was endangered. After the passage of legislation that enabled Civil Unions in Illinois, his eminence stated, "I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square"
TOWARD TOTALITARIANISM
In a talk given by Fr. Joseph Esper, he outlines the stages of persecution:
Experts agree that five stages of a coming persecution can be identified:
(1) The targeted group is stigmatized; its reputation is attacked, possibly by mocking it and rejecting its values.
(2) Then the group is marginalized, or pushed out of the mainstream of society, with deliberate efforts to limit and undo its influence.
(3) The third stage is to vilify the group, viciously attacking it and blaming it for many of society’s problems.
(4) Next, the group is criminalized, with increasing restrictions placed on its activities and eventually even its existence.
(5) The final stage is one of outright persecution.
Many commentators believe the United States is now in stage three, and moving into stage four. —www.stedwardonthelake.com
+
+2
New Friend said...
More persecution conspiracy theories!
From all I know most employers, including the NHS, do their utmost to accomodate anyone with an objection of conscience.
However the NHS like everyone else has a duty to provide a service. I believe it is desperately short of midwives. I don't suppose it took such a decision lightly but at the end of the day the midwives in question have a contract, which they would have seen and signed. If they cannot accept the contract, that was their decision.
Of course florists, chefs and website designers must not discriminate! They offer services to the public and that is the law. They always have a choice but if they wish to remain in that business they cannot ignore the law. No-one, Christians, Catholics, Muslims or Humanists can ignore the law. We can try to change the law, but that is all.
Just imagine the implications of allowing what you want to be permitted. Anyone with an conscientious objection to anything could refuse to meet their contracted obligations. Imagine a vegan chef refusing to prepare meat dishes, or animal rights activist florist refusing to kill bugs.
Nicholas
I think the "oath of allegiance" is not so very far away from the "oath of supremacy" and is a very healthy thing for us to have. I don't thing that Christians and Catholics in particular are being edged out of anything. I think their CHURCHES may be, as institutions, but that is quite different. Individuals have to make their own judgements on whether they can meet their contracted obligations. Ultimately that is their own personal decision and is not anything that either the state, or their Church, ought to have a view on.
+
+20
James said...
There is a shortage of midwives - therefore Catholics cannot be midwives.
Makes perfect sense...
+
+2
New Friend said...
James
Which is precisely why as much effort as possible is made to reach a sensible accomodation. It is only when complete inflexibility is encountered that problems arise.
+
+17
James said...
So why not allow these midwives to oversee births while some other midwife oversees abortions?
If there are not enough midwives available to oversee all the abortions - how does forcing out the Catholic ones help?
+
+2
New Friend said...
James
I am no expert but that is, so far as I know, precisely what happens in most cases. We would have to make enquiries of the individual hospitals to know what the specific circumstances were. It could be that they are a small unit with insufficient staffing to be that flexible, or it could be that the staff members were making a stand. I don't know.
+
+6
Mike Carroll said...
New Friend is once again defending the religious organisation known as the National Secular Society.
They have such a strong and fundamental belief system that New Friend feels must be publicly upheld and defended.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Mike
I don't see the point you are making but as I have already answered you several times I won't do again, and certainly not repetitively. Instead, I invite you or any others who need convincing, to visit:- http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/06/22/is-secularism-a-religion-2.htm
There the argument is robustly dismissed. Perhaps you will listen to Mr Cline.
+
+16
Mike Carroll said...
Oh.
More wonderful wisdom from, New Friend, the defender of the religious cult of secularism.
+
+2
New Friend said...
Mike
There is nothing remotely religious or cult like about secularism, other than in the minds of those who oppose it. There are no "official" organisations. It is a broad movement of like minded people who are open minded and free to reach their own conclusions. How is that religious?
+
+16
Mike Carroll said...
New Friend is defending the religious cult of secularism once again.
They have such a strong and fundamental belief system that NF feels must be publicly upheld and defended.
+
+2
New Friend said...
Mike
As you are simply repeating your original error I will refer you to my previous answer. Secularism is the opposite to a "belief". It is a principal which seeks to establish a freedom from belief.
Only those who have a religious believe try to discredit secularism by trying to categorise it in the same way. By any objective analysis such a categorisation is nonsense.
If you really want to debate this I would like to invite you to do so on a humanist forum. I think you would soon learn how they would respond to such suggestions. I will post a link upon request.
+
Jonathan said...
Thanks NF, I would like to see that link please.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Jonathan
Try http://forum.thinkhumanism.com
You will have to register to post and there is not a current thread on this subject so you would have to find an old one, or start a new one, but there are several that you might find of interest.
Although not a strictly humanist forum you might also like to look at;_
http://heathen-hub.com
+
+6
Mike Carroll said...
NF
You are quite right. I have amended my mistake below.
----------------------
New Friend is once again defending the religious organisation known as the National Secular Society.
They have such a strong and fundamental belief system that New Friend feels must be publicly upheld and defended.
+
+4
Mike Carroll said...
New Friend is once again defending the religious organisation known as the National Secular Society.
They have such a strong and fundamental belief system that New Friend feels must be publicly upheld and defended.
+
+24
Teresa said...
"Many recusant Catholics were made to pay fines that forced them in to poverty for failing to turn up to the official Church of England services. This is the modern equivalent - you can live your faith, but we will take your livelihood away."
I absolutely agree James. Not only that, but how difficult will it now be for young Catholic girls and boys to apply for medicine at university? What sort of questions will they be asked at interviews? Will they be discriminated against and will we end up with no practising Catholics in the medical profession? These are realistic fears given recent rulings and we have every right to expect the Archbishop who is blunt enough to tell people to “hold their tongues" to be more forthright in defending us.
Archbishop Nichols is very, very skilful at saying the things the media and the secularists want to hear ( unlike Cardinal O Brien). Indeed the New Humanist magazine ( tag line "Ideas for godless people ") said “At a time when "persecution" is frequently invoked by Christians who are unhappy with legal rulings concerning their faith, ……….. it is refreshing to hear a leading religious figure[Nichols]reject the use of the word”. However they did say also that: “ Nichols does not entirely reject that the anti-secularist rhetoric that has emanated from the country's religious and political establishment in recent weeks “
Nichols seems even handed and reasonable to the New Humanists but as a Catholic I am very concerned .If he is not prepared to publicly defend and guide Catholics then what sort of Shepherd is he?
+
+1
New Friend said...
Teresa
It is not the same at all! It is just the spin being put upon it to try and present Catholics as being persecuted.
Whenever someone chooses to enter a profession they have to accept the standards of that profession. Whilst many concessions will be made to try to accomodate conscientious objections, there has to be a line in the sand. Thus a choice has to be freely made.
This is NOT discrimination at all. It is simply the expectation that professional standards will be met. If your commitment to something else is stronger than to those professional standards then you cannot accept the job.
You don't like Archbishop Nichols for being too weak. I don't much like him either, but for different reasons but have you ever stepped back and considered, just for a moment, that he might be playing a tactical game? You don't win a war by throwing all you have at the enemy in the first 10 minutes. I would wish he would shut up and speak only to his membership, but at least what he does say has a modicum of reason mixed with the rhetoric. Which is more than can be said for most of what I read here.
+
+14
Teresa said...
What does this mean : New Friend "This is not discrimaination . It is simply the expectation that professional standards will be met."
Is abortion now a " professional standard" that must be met?
New Friend:"Whenever someone chooses to enter a profession they have to accept the standards of that profession"Hmmm.
Midwives, professionally trained to bring new life safely into the world , are now being told they must be prepared to assist with abortions if they wish to keep their job.
New Friend says this is about keeping up "professional standards" . This is the Orwellian "Newspeak" from "New Friend" .
+
+2
New Friend said...
Teresa
I was speaking in general terms. You would have to ask "The Royal College of Midwives" for their views on this. I suspect their answer may well be that if an abortion is lawful their primary concern is to ensure that those who choose one can do so safely and, as their focus is upon their patient, they must set aside all personal issues.
+
+9
Tiggy said...
Goodness it must be a heavy burden being a world authority on everything. Mr Preece is more of a gentleman than me. I would have blocked you long ago. Not because I disagree with you , but because you are so incessantly smug and annoying. Still it is Lent. I may force myself to read your tosh as a penance.
+
New Friend said...
Tiggy
That is a bit rich when all I am doing is being a lone voice putting a counter viewpoint against a tide of religious belief which claims to know the "truth" about everything.
No-one, not you or me, is right about everything. However neither are we wrong about everything either. The trick is to consider other viewpoints and see where they have merit. If you don't hear them when a particular issue is being considered how can they be evaluated? That is what friends are for.
+
+8
Mike Carroll said...
New Friend is once again defending the religious organisation known as the National Secular Society.
They have such a strong and fundamental belief system that New Friend feels must be publicly upheld and defended.
+
+27
Philip said...
As ever, round and round in circles goes New Friend: "They always have a choice but if they wish to remain in that business they cannot ignore the law." Then they do not have a choice. And, you are completely wrong. If I run a vegan catering business then I can refuse to take business from meat-eaters but, I assume, that the same principle will apply to people with catering and florist businsses that applied to the person who ran a bed and breakfast and wanted to decide to whom he did and did not offer his services. You never seem to be able to distinguish between a normative and positive argument. The post is about what the law ought to be (in James' view) and you respond by saying that Catholics should not ignore the law. I gave up posting in response to your comments because I found myself, after several exchanges, chasing you round in circles. I shall probably regret giving in to temptation again!
+
+16
epsilon said...
But Philip - our friend here has "standards" to uphold! Like the standard of letting people change the meaning of words, so a wo(man?) trained in the art of assisting life at the birth of a baby - called a midwife - is now expected to snuff it out and throw it in a soiled goods waste bag, as and when required.
The current definition of a midwife:
1. a person trained to assist women in childbirth.
2. a person or thing that produces or aids in producing something new or different.
WORD HISTORY The word midwife is the sort of word whose etymology seems perfectly clear... Wife would seem to refer to the woman giving birth, who is usually a wife... the compound midwife was formed in Middle English (first recorded around 1300). Mid is probably a preposition, meaning "together with." Thus a midwife was literally a "with woman" or "a woman who assists other women in childbirth." Even though obstetrics has been rather resistant to midwifery until fairly recently, the etymology of obstetric is rather similar, going back to the Latin word obstetrīx, "a midwife," from the verb obstāre, "to stand in front of," and the feminine suffix -trīx; the obstetrīx would thus literally stand in front of the baby.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/midwife#ixzz1oMpnMB7Z
How can the law of a land twist the meaning of a word to mean the exact opposite of what is has been for centuries, and deny workers their rights to do the job they have been trained to do and which the label says clearly on the tin -> mid-wife ??
Are we not going to back these workers and take this to the court of human rights / Employment tribunals or any other entity that is worthy of the title "justice system" - or have we hit on another meaningless word?
Interchangeable:
midwife - abortion worker
marriage - non-marriage
justice - injustice
+
+1
New Friend said...
epsilon
Everything evolves, even the meaning of certain words, as our knowldge and understanding increases. That we have expanded what we mean by "midwife" is but one example of this. What you are suggesting is what Catholics seem to suggest for many situations. That things cannot change. Everything must remain as it used to be, as written down in your little books.
Of course you have as much right as anyone else to take your case to court if you feel the law has been misapplied. However if you lose, will you accept that, or coninue to feel victimised?
+
+4
Mike Carroll said...
New Friend is once again defending the religious organisation known as the National Secular Society.
They have such a strong and fundamental belief system that New Friend feels must be publicly upheld and defended.
+
Simon Platt said...
Dear Epsilon,
I think "answers.com" is probably to be trusted but little. If I remember correctly "wife" in middle English would be "woman" in modern English - hence fishwife, housewife, etc.
Still, your substantive point is sound. It is grotesque that midwives should be expected to cooperate in the destruction of unborn human life.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Philip
If all we were ever debating was what the law ought to be, then that would be fine. That's politics and everyone has a right, as an individual, to participate. What I find though is that many of the arguments are not about changing the law, they are about ignoring the law because you have a "higher" one which you feel a need to obey.
Yes, exactly the same argument applies in the bed and breakfast case. They were wrong. You, and they, can argue that the law needs to be changed but whilst it exists it applies to everyone.
If we can agree on that as fact, then I will be happy to debate the merits of any individual law changes that you recommend. So often though the argument is not about that. It is about how or why laws should not apply to you, or be ignored by you, so that has to be dealt with first.
+
+4
Mike Carroll said...
New Friend is once again defending the religious organisation known as the National Secular Society.
They have such a strong and fundamental belief system that New Friend feels must be publicly upheld and defended.
+
+15
Catherine said...
"Every life is precious"
"Laws change; conscience doesn't".
from the movie 'Sophie Scholl the Final Days'
+
+13
Policraticus said...
Historically speaking, this threat is not new. Benedict XV, in 1920 warned in the encyclical BONUM SANE that;
"The coming of a world state is longed for […] based on the principles of absolute equality of men and […] would banish all national loyalties […] no acknowledgment would be made of the authority of a father over his children or of God over human society. If these ideas are put into practice there will inevitably, follow a reign of unheard-of terror."
+
Jonathan said...
"The coming of a world state is longed for..."
... by the pontifical council for justice and peace!
“These measures ought to be conceived of as some of the first steps in view of a public Authority with universal jurisdiction"
http://www.justpax.it/eng/home_eng.html
+
+1
New Friend said...
Policraticus
That quote sounds like a response to the potential spread of communism, rather than to anything we face today.
A secular state is not anti religion, despite the spin which many religious people seek to put upon the idea. The USA is a secular country and religion is thriving there. There is nothing to fear from it, and much to gain as it protects rather than diminishes your rights.
+
+4
Mike Carroll said...
New Friend is once again defending the religious organisation known as the National Secular Society.
They have such a strong and fundamental belief system that New Friend feels must be publicly upheld and defended.
+
+13
Catherine said...
Catholic Church - heretic of the world's new order. Archbishop Chaput
"I suggested earlier that the Church's religious liberty is under assault today in ways not seen since the Nazi and Communist eras. I believe we are now in the position to better understand why.
Writing in the 1960s, Richard Weaver, an American scholar and social philosopher, said: "I am absolutely convinced that relativism must eventually lead to a regime of force."
He was right. There is a kind of "inner logic" that leads relativism to repression.
This explains the paradox of how Western societies can preach tolerance and diversity while aggressively undermining and penalizing Catholic life. The dogma of tolerance cannot tolerate the Church's belief that some ideas and behaviors should not be tolerated because they dehumanize us. The dogma that all truths are relative cannot allow the thought that some truths might not be.
The Catholic beliefs that most deeply irritate the orthodoxies of the West are those concerning abortion, sexuality and the marriage of man and woman. This is no accident. These Christian beliefs express the truth about human fertility, meaning and destiny.
These truths are subversive in a world that would have us believe that God is not necessary and that human life has no inherent nature or purpose. Thus the Church must be punished because, despite all the sins and weaknesses of her people, she is still the bride of Jesus Christ; still a source of beauty, meaning and hope that refuses to die -- and still the most compelling and dangerous heretic of the world's new order."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/aug/10082503
+
+1
New Friend said...
Catherine
"The Catholic beliefs that most deeply irritate the orthodoxies of the West are those concerning abortion, sexuality and the marriage of man and woman. This is no accident. These Christian beliefs express the truth about human fertility, meaning and destiny."
Excuse me! Who are you to decide what is "the truth" about anything?
That is the whole problem. Those who believe want to substitute democracy with a theocracy. Until a majority agree with you it isn't, thank goodness, going to happen.
It might shock you to know that you don't have an exclusivity on morality, or on "truth". You have an opinion on what they are, but that is all. Relativism is nothing to do with it. That is another issue. We can agree on the absoluteness of certain things, but not always what those things are.
+
+6
Mike Carroll said...
New Friend is once again defending the religious organisation known as the National Secular Society.
They have such a strong and fundamental belief system that New Friend feels must be publicly upheld and defended.
+
+13
Liberal Traditionalist said...
As well as the state seeking to erode and erase any potential for health service workers to exercise their rights to conscience under the existing legislation - we again view the spectacle of junior judges twisting-out any protections given by parliament when legislation is enacted.
Judges always use the "Diversity Card" to trump any conscience argument - the implications are now that any protections that parliament allows churches in relation to same-sex unions will eventually be eroded by the first pubilicty-minded judge that hears a conscience-related case.
Between the politically-correct mandarins in the National Health Service and a few out-of touch judges; freedoms become easily eroded and the truth gets stamped-upon.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Liberal Traditionalist
Oh dear, more conspiracy theories. So now not only is the law wrong, those whose job it is to apply it, deliberately do so to gain themselves publicity.
Once again this is just a persecution pose. The law applies to all. equally and fairly. If anyone has a genuine case of a law being misapplied, bring it and prove it. I seem to recall some high profile attempts that have been clearly shown to be incorrect. Not that you are likely to see that.
+
+6
Mike Carroll said...
New Friend is once again defending the religious organisation known as the National Secular Society.
They have such a strong and fundamental belief system that New Friend feels must be publicly upheld and defended.
+
+2
Liberal Traditionalist said...
Not a conspiracy theory but an observation based on the evidence of the last two decades - judges make Case Law and often do so via strange interpretations of "the intention of parliament" - the phrase you may be looking for is Judicial Precedent.
Most of the erosions of legal rights actually originate in the courtrooms and parliament is too lazy & unconcerned to defend its supremacy.
If your lot were open and honest about their intentions; they would put their beliefs and aspirations in their election manifestos - however where I live the aggressively secularist MP - on the council of the National Secular Society - was soundly thrashed in a safe Liberal Seat because the silent majority were able to make ther views clear.
+
New Friend said...
Liberal Traditionalist
For sure Judges interpret the law, but my own experience of them, and it has been enough, is that they are generally very conservative in outlook but extremely careful and thoughtful when applying the law. If you are unhappy about this then the remedy is in your own hands. Vote in a parliment prepared to enact such change as you believe is needed.
I don't know what you mean about "your lot". I am not a member of any party and always make my decisions at the time on the merits of what I think the country needs. My local MP is a younger conservative, but with a tradititional outlook. Having conversed with him several times I respect him, and I believe he does me too, but we disagree on several points. Doesn't make him a bad guy. It is interesting that you attribute the loss of your Liberal MP to him being secular. I would take a small bet with you that the desire to continue with religious priviledge was not a major factor in the voter's minds. I would suspect he was unpopular for other reasons.
+
New Friend said...
Liberal Traditionalist
For sure Judges interpret the law, but my own experience of them, and it has been enough, is that they are generally very conservative in outlook but extremely careful and thoughtful when applying the law. If you are unhappy about this then the remedy is in your own hands. Vote in a parliment prepared to enact such change as you believe is needed.
I don't know what you mean about "your lot". I am not a member of any party and always make my decisions at the time on the merits of what I think the country needs. My local MP is a younger conservative, but with a tradititional outlook. Having conversed with him several times I respect him, and I believe he does me too, but we disagree on several points. Doesn't make him a bad guy. It is interesting that you attribute the loss of your Liberal MP to him being secular. I would take a small bet with you that the desire to continue with religious priviledge was not a major factor in the voter's minds. I would suspect he was unpopular for other reasons.
+
+7
Salisbury John said...
"In this context, it is helpful to turn to the example of Saint Thomas More, who distinguished himself by his constant fidelity to legitimate authority and institutions precisely in his intention to serve not power but the supreme ideal of justice. His life teaches us that government is above all an exercise of virtue.
What enlightened his conscience was the sense that man cannot be sundered from God, nor politics from morality. As I have already had occasion to say, "man is created by God, and therefore human rights have their origin in God, are based upon the design of creation and form part of the plan of redemption. One might even dare to say that the rights of man are also the rights of God"
The defence of the Church’s freedom from unwarranted interference by the State is at the same time a defence, in the name of the primacy of conscience, of the individual’s freedom vis-ŕ-vis political power. Here we find the basic principle of every civil order consonant with human nature."
APOSTOLIC LETTER
ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO
PROCLAIMING SAINT THOMAS MORE
PATRON OF STATESMEN AND POLITICIANS
+
+1
New Friend said...
John
Thomas More approached everything from a religious perspective at a time when such was not questioned. The only question was what version of the religion was supreme.
Your remarks are written as though the existence of "God" has to be accepted as an established fact by everyone. As it isn't they carry no authority. The Church is not, cannot and must not be protected from "unwarrented interference by the State", unless the State itself proclaims what that means. Everyone and every organisation has to be subject to the supremacy of the State because only in that way can the will of the people be determined. We simply cannot allow groups to opt out. Down that road lies anarchy.
+
+4
Mike Carroll said...
New Friend is once again defending the religious organisation known as the National Secular Society.
They have such a strong and fundamental belief system that New Friend feels must be publicly upheld and defended.
+
+1
New Friend said...
I have been reading a little more about this case. It seems the facts are not as originally reported on here. These are selected parts of a report from the BBC:-
+4
Mike Carroll said...
New Friend is once again defending the religious organisation known as the National Secular Society.
They have such a strong and fundamental belief system that New Friend feels must be publicly upheld and defended.
+
+13
Salisbury John said...
ARCHBISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN:
It is a characteristic of any decaying civilization that the great masses of the people are unaware of the tragedy. Humanity in a crisis is generally insensitive to the gravity of the times in which it lives. Men do not want to believe their own times are wicked, partly because they have no standard outside of themselves by which to measure their times. If there is no fixed concept of justice, how shall men know it is violated? Only those who live by faith really know what is happening in the world; the great masses without faith are unconscious of the destructive processes going on, because they have lost the vision of the heights from which they have fallen.
+
+1
New Friend said...
John
It would be nice if some of the quotes came from a non religious perspective for those that do are all tarred with the same brush. For those who don't believe in God anything said by someone who does is immediately suspect.
Humanity is not in any crisis caused by any lack of faith! The only crisis I see is actually more caused by faith than saved by it.
+
+7
Mike Carroll said...
New Friend is once again defending the religious organisation known as the National Secular Society.
They have such a strong and fundamental belief system that New Friend feels must be publicly upheld and defended.
+
+3
Kathleen Lundquist said...
@ New Friend - you wrote: "For those who don't believe in God anything said by someone who does is immediately suspect."
Really?
I'd venture to say that all of us commenting here believe in God. So, anything we say in defense of our own point of view is "immediately suspect"?
Right, then. Thanks for making that clear.
+
New Friend said...
Kathleen
The point was made about quotations only ever coming from those with a belief. To a non believer this means they all come from one perspective and as they have no balance, they are suspect.
It does not mean what you suggest it means.
+
+7
Nicolas Bellord said...
New Friend: I do not think the current oath of allegiance can be equated with the Oath of Supremacy. I rather get the impression that you would support making the Oath of Supremacy mandatory once again. I have my grandfather's practising certificate as a Solicitor which specifically mentions that he was excused from taking the oath because he was a Roman Catholic. For your information Wikipedia gives us the text of the Oath:
I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her Highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the Queen's Highness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, privileges and authorities granted or belonging to the Queen's Highness, her heirs or successors, or united or annexed to the imperial crown of this realm. So help me God, and by the contents of this Book.
Roman Catholics who refused to take the Oath of Supremacy, for example Sir Thomas More, were indicted for treason on charges of praemunire. Such persons were generally executed.
+
New Friend said...
Nicholas
No I would not wish to see the oath of supremacy re-instated for I believe in your freedom to practice your religion every bit as much as I disagree with much of the way it operates. Swearing an oath of allegiance seems enough for me, provided it is sincerely done, and no attempt is made to place any belief above the sworn loyalty. If a Catholic holds a belief in his heart that his primary loyalty is to the Pope and not the Queen, then something is wrong. Anyone who by nature of their job has to swear allegiance must do it with complete sincerity.
+
+2
Nicolas Bellord said...
Dear New Friend:
I am afraid my preferred allegiance is to his Holiness the Pope and then the Queen. Oh dear perhaps you ought to rethink your reluctance to bring back the Oath of Supremacy.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Nicolas
If that is true, then shame on you. You should certainly never sign an oath of allegiance, because you would be lying. In such circumstances any job which requires it is closed to you. I wonder how any Catholic who is so required squares that with their conscience.
I think it is truly disgraceful that anyone in our country believes they owe a higher loyalty to anyone than our head of state. That applies to all immigrants who continue to feel bound to their country of origin. And now to you.
My wife is a Catholic and an immigrant. Her proudest moment came when she received her British citizenship and swore her oath in front of the Queen's representative. That picture hangs on our wall. Seems she is more British than you! You ought to be ashamed.
+
+2
Nicolas Bellord said...
Dear New Friend: I do find your posts good for a laugh. I do not think I have ever been asked to sign an Oath of Allegiance. I am seven sixteenths Irish by blood and a quarter unknown - possibly French - and the remaining five sixteenths English or Buckinghamshire to be more specific. So what with being Catholic as well you may understand that my loyalties are somewhat mixed. I suspect that my Irish ancestors left Ireland after getting into trouble with the authorities there. Certainly my Great grandfather got into a bit of bother for flying a green Irish ensign on the approaches to Waterford. Also I understand I belong to something called the European Union and I was once on a committee of the Council of Europe. I have always considered myself a bit of an outsider and "agin the Government" which probably amounts to misprision of treason in your view I suppose.
+
+2
Nicolas Bellord said...
I might add though that I am a keen monarchist as I believe the monarchy forms an important part of our Constitution in that it is more important than the pretensions of the House of Commons. The coronation service and the promises the Queen made then should be seen as a limiting factor in what the Commons can enact in that they assert Christianity and Christian principles as being part of our constitution. I suggest you read Aidan Nichols O.P. on the subject.
+
+3
Nicolas Bellord said...
And Dear New Friend I am glad to hear you have a Catholic wife (from the Phillipines?). Tell her to say lots of rosaries for your conversion so that you can be blissfully happy together in this world and the next.
+
New Friend said...
Nicolas
As people clearly get tired of too many posts I will answer you last three with one.
Many British people have a somewhat mixed heritage like you. I presume you are now a British citizen. You owe no personal loyalty to the EU for, thank goodness, we have not progressed to the point of giving up our sovereignty. Only certain public officials, and new citizens, have to swear the oath but it is assumed that all citizens accept it. Being "against the government" is no problem. Many people are. Opposing the Monarch is a problem, whilst campaigning for a change to a republic is not. There is a difference. Placing your primary loyalty to someone, or something, outside the UK is not an acceptable situation for any British citizen, in my opinion.
We need to change the promises made during the coronation of the Monarch to ensure that the link is broken between the state and the C of E. I suspect it is already too late in the reign of the Queen to make ammendments, and might be for dear old Charles, but maybe by the time of William we will be ready. It is essential that the supremacy of our elected parliament be clearly seen as paramount.
Yes my wife of 10 years is a Filipina, who remains a cultural Catholic and was a practising one when she arrived in the UK. We attended Church together and I took her to Rome, as she had always wanted to pray in St Peters.
However she sees just as many of the problems as I do, especially when back here in the Philippines. Her eyes have been opened to the truth. Not the "Truth", as written down in your little books, but in the reality she has witnessed for herself. We have many Catholic friends here with whom we work on shared projects. Good people who seek to serve. I have to tell you they listen to, and agree with me, very much more than many do here. Sorry she doesn't do rosaries as she thinks them quite ridiculous, and actually always has. That is not new.
+
+6
Catherine said...
SEVENTY PER CENT OF WORLD POPULATION LIVE IN COUNTRIES WITH HIGH RESTRICTIONS ON RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
Vatican City, (VIS) - "Terrorist attacks on Christians in Africa, the Middle East and Asia increased 309 per cent between 2003 and 2010. Approximately 70 per cent of the world’s population lives in countries with high restrictions on religious beliefs and practices, and religious minorities pay the highest price". These words were pronounced on 1 March by Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi C.S., permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations at Geneva, during the course of the nineteenth ordinary session of the Human Rights Council.
Speaking English, Archbishop Tomasi recalled how, "in general, rising restrictions on religion affect more than 2.2 billion people. Those affected have either lost the protection of their societies or have experienced some government-imposed and unjust restrictions, or have become victims of violence resulting from an impulsive bigotry".
Among the causes of this phenomenon, the archbishop mentioned "the evolving political situation, wrong perceptions of the role of religion, expediency, and subtle ambiguities in the understanding of secularism". In the current situation, it is vital for the international community "to assure the protection of people in their exercise of freedom of religion and religious practice".
In this context, the Holy See observer noted that States must guarantee all their citizens the right to religious freedom, at both the individual and community level. Freedom of religion is not a derived or granted right, "but a fundamental and inalienable right of the human person. ... The task of government is not to define religion, ... but to confer upon faith communities a juridical personality so that they can function peacefully within a legal framework.
"Respect for the religious freedom of everyone may be at stake in places where the concept of “State religion” is recognised, especially when the latter becomes the source of unjust treatment of others, whether they believe in other faiths or have none".
The archbishop went on: "Above the institutional considerations, the critical problem facing the promotion and protection of human rights in the area of religious freedom is the intolerance that leads to violence and to the killing of many innocent people each year simply because of their religious convictions. The realistic and collective responsibility, therefore, is to sustain mutual tolerance and respect of human rights and a greater equality among citizens of different religions in order to achieve a healthy democracy where the public role of religion and the distinction between religious and temporal spheres are recognised. ... But to achieve this desirable goal, there is a need to overcome a culture that devalues the human person and is intent on eliminating religion from public life".
"Religions are not a threat, but a resource", he said. "They contribute to the development of civilisations, and this is good for everyone. Their freedom and activities should be protected so that the partnership between religious beliefs and societies may enhance the common good. ... The educational system and the media have a major role to play by excluding prejudice and hatred from textbooks, from newscasts and from newspapers, and by disseminating accurate and fair information on all component groups of society.
"But lack of education and information, that facilitates an easier manipulation of people for political advantages, is too often linked to underdevelopment, poverty, lack of access to effective participation in the management of society. Greater social justice provides fertile ground for the implementation of all human rights. Religions are communities based on convictions and their freedom guarantees a contribution of moral values without which the freedom of everyone is not possible. For this reason", Archbishop Tomasi concluded, "it becomes an urgent and beneficial responsibility of the international community to counteract the trend of increasing violence against religious groups and of mistaken and deceptive neutrality that in fact aims at neutralising religion".
+
+1
New Friend said...
Catherine
This is actually is a powerful endorsement of the principal of secularism which guarantees freedom to practice your belief, without favouring any particular one. I encourage you to reconsider your current attitude on this.
One statistic must be wrong. 70% of the world's current 7 billion is not 2.2 billion. It must be more than 2.2 billion given that China would surely be included.
+
+6
Teresa said...
Is it just me or do New Friend's arguments on this thread show that he holds the sort of dogmatic, illogical and illiberal posititon that he claims he is trying to challenge? New Friend, it seems , is even prepared to support a change of language , Orwellian style, to create a " brave new world" where "midwives" mean "abortionists".
+
New Friend said...
Teresa
I am neither supporting the way words change their meaning, or opposing it. I am just pointing out it happens and has always done so. It is not a new phenomenon.
That a Catholic would suggest that I am dogmatic, illogical and illiberal is slightly ironic don't you think? I am much more flexible, and open to reason, than most on here seem to be. I am firm in my opposition to dogma, but that is only because I encounter so much of it. I would suggest the real reason you don't like what I say is because it is too uncomfortably near the truth, too often.
+
+5
Teresa said...
Nf It is not a question of not liking whatt you say but I object when you say your argument is reasoned and tolerant when that is simply not the case.
. You appear to believe that religious people should not have the right of conscientious objection. You believe that midwives should not be allowed to opt out of any involvement in abortion.
Yet you say you are flexible and open to reason. This is the flaw in your argument - you are entitled to your views but you cannot claim to be flexible or reasonable .
Also, (and I don't wish to be rude), your arguments are not sufficiently well informed to be thought provoking . You should post less and research more if you actually want to engage in a meaningful debate.
Otherwise you are simply posting your opinion like the rest of us.....the difference is you claim special privileges because, in your own view, you are " more reasoned."
I think many of us are trying to be tolerant and respectful of you but really....
+
New Friend said...
Teresa
I actually bothered to do the research on the Scottish midwife case and found it was not as reported here, because, guess what, the report came from a Catholic newpaper and the story was spun for your eyes, to make it seem much more controversial than is really the case. I posted extracts from another report by the BBC, which I am sure you can find. The judgement, and the action by the Health Board, seem entirely fair and reasonable to me, and, I would suggest, to most other people. The point is that the midwives ARE allowed to opt out of any involvement in abortion and always have been. Their only complaint was that they were expected to supervise other midwives who are involved. They could have easily coped with the situation by refusing any supervisory responsibilities but decided to make an issue of it. I suspect lurking in the background somewhere is that shadowy Catholic legal group who are looking to bring this type of case.
You are entitled to feel I am neither reasoned or tolerant. I feel some of the comments here are much worse than that, but I am not so impolite as to say so.
I can assure you I am flexible and reasonable, but perhaps you have not witnessed it, because when responding to certainty, opinions have to be firm. The presentation of Catholicism leaves no room for doubt or compromise. We are right and you are wrong, dummy! There is not a lot of room for flexibility when having to counter such arguments. It, of necessity, needs to be robust.
+
+3
Catherine said...
NF says "...secularism which guarantees freedom to practice your belief.." ???
this gentleman would beg to differ...
http://www.steynonline.com/4857/the-church-of-big-government
"…this distinction shouldn't obscure an important truth — that, in America as in Europe, the mainstream churches were cheerleaders for the rise of their usurper: the Church of Big Government. Instead of the Old World's state church or the New World's separation of church and state, most of the West now believes in the state as church — an all-powerful deity who provides day-care for your babies and takes your aged parents off your hands. America's Catholic hierarchy, in particular, colluded in the redefinition of the tiresome individual obligation to Christian charity as the painless universal guarantee of state welfare. Barack Obama himself provided the neatest distillation of this convenient transformation when he declared, in a TV infomercial a few days before his election, that his "fundamental belief" was that "I am my brother's keeper." …
This is a very Euro-secularist view of religion: It's tolerated as a private members' club for consenting adults. But don't confuse "freedom to worship" for an hour or so on Sunday morning with any kind of license to carry on the rest of the week. You can be a practicing Godomite just so long as you don't (per Mrs. Patrick Campbell) do it in the street and frighten the horses. The American bishops are not the most impressive body of men even if one discounts the explicitly Obamaphile rubes among them, and they have unwittingly endorsed this attenuated view of religious "liberty." …
If you think a Catholic owner of a sawmill or software business should be as free of state coercion as a Catholic college, the term "freedom of conscience" is more relevant than "freedom of religion." For one thing, it makes it less easy for a secular media to present the issue as one of a recalcitrant institution out of step with popular progressivism. NPR dispatched its reporter Allison Keyes to a "typical" Catholic church in Washington, D.C., where she found congregants disinclined to follow their bishops. To a man (or, more often, woman), they disliked "the way the Church injects itself into political debates." But, if contraceptives and abortion and conception and birth and chastity and fidelity and sexual morality are now "politics," then what's left for religion? [The bishops have succeeded in politicizing everything: So the people are no longer able to distinguish a real political issue from a fundamental matter of belief.] …
Ignatius's successor bishops have opted for an ignobler end, agreeing to be nibbled to death by Leviathan. Even in their objections to the Obama administration, the bishops endorse the state's view of the church — as something separate and segregated from society, albeit ever more nominally. At the airport recently, I fell into conversation with a lady whose employer, a Catholic college, had paid for her to get her tubes tied. Why not accept that this is just one of those areas where one has to render under Caesar? Especially when Caesar sees "health care" as a state-funded toga party. …
The state no longer criminalizes a belief in transubstantiation, mainly because most people have no idea what that is. But they know what sex is, and, if the price of Pierre Trudeau's assertion that "the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation" is that the state has to take an ever larger place in the churches and colleges and hospitals and insurance agencies and small businesses of the nation, they're cool with that. The developed world's massive expansion of sexual liberty has provided a useful cover for the shriveling of almost every other kind. Free speech, property rights, economic liberty, and the right to self-defense are under continuous assault by Big Government. In New York and California and many other places, sexual license is about the only thing you don't need a license for. …
Even if you profoundly disagree with Pope Paul VI's predictions that artificial birth control would lead to "conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality," the objectification of women, and governments' "imposing upon their peoples" state-approved methods of contraception, or even if you think he was pretty much on the money but that the collective damage they have done does not outweigh the individual freedom they have brought to many, it ought to bother you that in the cause of delegitimizing two millennia of moral teaching the state is willing to intrude on core rights — rights to property, rights of association, even rights to private conversation. …
The paradox of the Church of Big Government is that it weans people away from both the conventional family impulse and the traditional transcendent purpose necessary to sustain it. So what is the future of the American Catholic Church if it accepts the straitjacket of Obama's "freedom to worship"? North of the border, motoring around the once-Catholic bastion of Quebec, you'll pass every couple of miles one of the province's many, many churches, and invariably out front you'll see a prominent billboard bearing the slogan "Notre patrimoine religieux — c'est sacre!" "Our religious heritage — it's sacred!" Which translated from the statist code-speak means: "Our religious heritage — it's over!" But it's left every Quebec community with a lot of big, prominently positioned buildings, and not all of them can be, as Montreal's Saint-Jean de la Croix and Couvent de Marie Reparatrice were, converted into luxury three-quarter-million-dollar condos. So to prevent them from decaying into downtown eyesores, there's a government-funded program to preserve them as spiffy-looking husks.The Obama administration's "freedom to worship" leads to the same soulless destination: a church whose moral teachings must be first subordinated to the caprices of the hyper-regulatory Leviathan, and then, as on the Continent, rendered incompatible with public office, and finally, as in that Southampton homeless shelter, hounded even from private utterance. This is the world the "social justice" bishops have made. What's left are hymns and stained glass, and then, in the emptiness, the mere echo:
'The Sea of Faith Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd.
But now I only hear Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar'
+
Mockery of the Sacraments said...
I am no expert on Quebec, but I think we may gather that when churches are empty it is because people in the area stopped believing enough to be bothered to attend services. LOL! As the younger generations became less & less frequent in attendance the congregations have aged & fallen prey to old father time. LOL! A few old ladies & recent immigrants imploring passers-by to join their withered church. LOL! Bored children going through the motions of the sacraments led by bored parents just to please Grandma. LOL This is the true mockery of the sacraments!
+
New Friend said...
Catherine
That lengthy diatribe demonstrates part of the problem. It is not an attack on the principal of secularism at all. It is an attack on a style of government. They are not the same thing at all.
It is quite possible to agree with much of what he says, and be a secularist. Separating government and religion does not have to result in the weakening of religion. Indeed it can strengthen it. There is no reason why you cannot make the points you want to make in exactly the same way as any other organisation does. The only change will be that there is no place reserved for you at the top table.
There is much confusion in the minds of the religious over this. Secularism can be a good thing for you, especially for Catholics, as it will ultimately remove the established Church and their special priviledges.
+
+4
Catherine said...
NF
you can believe in that benign version of secularity if you wish - indeed if only there were such a thing- but the fact is as Steyn argues quite correctly...the proponents of aggressive secularism have and will hold on to the upper hand and we - you and everyone else is very naive in imagining that this tide of secularism will stop outside the door of our places of worship or the front doors of our homes behind which we are trying to exercise our inalienable rights as parents towards oour children and not invade that space [which you say should be protected as long as it remains private] when the fact is that the legislative and policy framework is firmly in place to take over that space and force state led indoctrination against what we as Catholics beleive we ought to be free to beleive as objective truth.
you say you would willingly stand beside us if we were uncarcerated or fined for exercising our freedom of speech and worship.....you may regtet that promise sooner than you think.
+
New Friend said...
Catherine
I just wish that you would visit and befriend those who use humanist and secular forums so you could realise that what I say is true. The people there hold no illwill towards those with belief. They will sometimes mock their beliefs and expose the hypocracy, which the sensitive could find offensive, but it is only the Britsh sense of the ridiculous. It is not intended to wound.
I believe "aggressive secularism" to be a myth which exists only in the minds of those determined to resist change and a shift to the status quo. Your right to worship will never be removed. That is not to say that the state won't have a view over what education it's future citizens should receive and not simply leave that to the discretion of the parents. None of us, I hope you included, want us to have a "Westboro Church" brainwashing situation, or Madrassas in the UK. It surely is a question of common sense and balance.
I think you would be very surprised if anything really was done to try to suppress your rights. Many people you now perceive as your enemies would be right beside you defending you. Before we get to that point though we need to establish a level playing field. It doesn't exist yet. Religious privilege is still the norm, and there is a long way to go. Part of the problem is that you cannot understand that.
+
+4
Eoin said...
I once went to a "humanist" funeral. The lady who conducted the funeral managed to quote the Bible. Some humanst!
+
+1
New Friend said...
Eoin
It might surprise you to know that humanism and atheism are not the same thing.
It might also surprise you to know that humanists can find words of wisdom in many places and don't reject anything just because it wasn't written by them.
Therefore to quote words of comfort from the Bible at a humanist funeral is completely acceptable, if they made sense and were appropriate. Why on earth not?
+
+3
Salisbury John said...
NF says
"Your right to worship will never be removed. That is not to say that the state won't have a view over what education it's future citizens should receive and not simply leave that to the discretion of the parents."
now you show your true arrogant hand....
you're in good company with Hitler and his iniquitous suppression of parents rights to decide their childrens education a law which is in force in Germany to this day.....
despicable!
+
New Friend said...
John
"Godwin's Law" applies. This says that any internet debate can end up with one side claiming the other follows Hitler and then when they do, they have lost.
If the law in the UK matched that which they have in Germany on this issue we would have a stronger society. It has nothing whatsoever to do with having Nazi views, which I detest and which I find are much more mirrored in the ultra right wing attitudes to be found in some Catholics, than in my own. It is a simple issue of ensuring that the State retains an interest in the education of future citizens and does not wash it's hands of it. Not all parents are as loving and caring as you would hope them to be. Some have ideals that you disapprove of. It is in all our interests, yours included, that the State keeps an eye on these things.
+
+2
Catherine said...
NF says
"If the law in the UK matched that which they have in Germany on this issue we would have a stronger society. It has nothing whatsoever to do with having Nazi views"
"The German law forbidding homeschooling was established by the Nazis in 1938. (and has NEVER been repelled or taken off the statute book!) The law has been upheld in recent years by the courts, and in 2006, the country's highest criminal court ruled that the government could seize children whose parents attempt to homeschool on the basis of conscience. The European Court of Human Rights also upheld the law in 2006.
The German government's persecution of homeschoolers made headlines ..after a U.S. judge granted asylum to the Romeikes, a family who had fled to the U.S. in August 2008. “The rights being violated here are basic human rights that no country has a right to violate,” wrote Immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman. “Homeschoolers are a particular social group that the German government is trying to suppress. This family has a well-founded fear of persecution…therefore, they are eligible for asylum…and the court will grant asylum.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/mar/10032308
In one infamous case a 15 year old girl was snatched from the safety of her family home in the middle of the night without warning by so called social workers accompanied by 15 armed state security personnel. the girl was not returned to her family until after her 16th birthday...the parents were only allowed the briefest of visits once a week and the child suffered untold mental and emotional trauma at being forcibly removed from the natural love and care of her home and siblings. and you would advocate such policy led and legally binding activity as "in all our interests" if it were in the UK and elsewhere do you???
I say it's a social engineering policy straight from hell and I pray for all those who believe in it as something 'good' when it has been carefully exported globally by the Frankfurt School who set out to make western culture "stink" [to quote their own words]
you are truly to be pitied NF..... but I also admonish you in your ignorance and obstinate mind set as I am exhorted to by my Lord and Saviour. I am now giving up trying to dialogue with you for Lent! When Jesus said "I thirst" on the cross - it was a thirst as much for your soul and mine. May we meet verily in heaven
+
New Friend said...
Catherine
However the law arose, it is a good one. We are never going to agree upon this though. I remain totally opposed to the idea of "home schooling" as diversive and dangerous. I feel every child should have the opportunity to listen to, and learn from, other views than those held by their parents. To subject children to such a regime is, in my opinion, intolerant brainwashing, and is imposed on children because of the beliefs of the parents and not because of the needs of the child. I realise there is an element of supervision but it is not adequate.
I have spent a lot of time in Germany, having been the MD of a UK subsidiary of a German company. Compared to our education system theirs is streets ahead. The children work hard but have fun too. Ensuring no-one misses out on that is something they can be proud of, and not be condemned for.
I don't know the detail of the case you quote but I would guess that there was very much more to it than you describe. Social workers do not remove children from their homes without good reason. Indeed in my experience they can be too slow to act and leave the children in danger far too long.
To suggest that such a policy is "social engineering", and that home schooling is not, is plainly ridiculous. Why would anyone seek to home school unless they wanted to impose their own beliefs and attitudes upon their kids? That really is try to engineer a situation.
It appalls me that those with a religious mindset seem to feel that those who don't are all evil and wrong in everything they do.
People like me are worried for your kids. We care about them and don't want to see them being forced into anything. We don't want to restrict their choices, but we want them to have those choices. If they are not made available to them, because their parents don't allow it, then it is a responsible action to step in and ensure they are.
Having faith does not give you an exclusive on morality. Mine might be different, but it is sincere.
+
+2
Mockery of the Sacraments said...
LOL! I am an apostate & an acolyte of the Culture of Death.
I think that home schooling is OK & that the National Curriculum should be abolished. The threat of overbearing government is a greater harm than anything home schoolers might come up with. I would uphold the legal principle that parents have the best interests of their children at heart unless there is solid evidence to the contrary. I defend the legal right of parents to provide the education they see fit for their children, even if I hold that the parents believe a load of old cobblers.
+
New Friend said...
M of the S
You are normally one of, if not the only, most accurate of posters here. You are certainly the most amusing. However by your own high standards, and to use your own words, this is a load of old cobblers.
What you suggest would lead to anarchy. How are we ever going to test the parents to determine the "solid evidence"? The harm would be done well before that.
We don't want an over bearing government but we do need an efficient and caring one, whose purpose is to encourage diversity whilst ensuring, as far as possible, that everyone has an equal chance. Of course we need a national curriculum. How can we ensure these aims are met without one?
We simply have to get away from the concept that parents own their kids and that they are the sole decision makers over what is good for them. No-one argues that they are the primary educators. That means the first, and the most important, but it doesn't mean they are the sole educators. The rest of us have an interest, and a responsibility too.
+
+1
Mockery of the Sacraments said...
Thank you for your kind words New Friend.
I remain in disagreement with you on this particular issue. I believe that the UK survived without a national curriculum until the 1980s & that home schooling has always been legal. So I don't think that home schooling or the lack of a national curriculum will cause anarchy.
You say parents don't own their children, well I say the state doesn't either. You say how do we test the parents? I say we don't unless we have an actual reason to do so. Until we see evidence to the contrary we should accept that parents will have more interest & knowledge of what is good for their own children than society at large.
I would rather people who have strong views on education were free to impose their standards on their own children & therefore had less business interfering with what other people's children are taught.
+
New Friend said...
M of the S
I guess we must agree to disagree. I actually have two concerns about home schooling and much less a one about a national curriculum, which is really another issue.
My first concern about home schooling is that it often seems to me to be as a result of a desire by the parents, and not as an assessed need of the child. The question then arises as to who asseses the need of child. Catholics would no doubt say that is for them alone, but I disagree. I think we all have an interest in every child and the way that is expressed is through our government. Neither the parent, or the state, owns the child. No-one does. They are individuals who are entrusted to our care until they are capable of making their own decisions. Our job is to give them all the information they need to be able to make those decisions. I have no doubt that a devoted, loving Catholic home schooling parent is going to give a child a great one to one education and this may well result in high academic achievements. What though are they missing? School is also about experiencing other ideas, about building social skills, about facing bullies and overcoming them, about competing with your peers and learning how to win, and lose, with equal grace. For those isolated at home, and restricted to a social life with only those of like minds, so much is missing. They won't know this, and may never know it, but they will lack some of the essential skills needed to survive in today's world. It is then, for me, the action of a well meaning, but essentially selfish, parent who lacks the confidence to allow their child to experience the big bad world and then come home to discuss what they have witnessed.
My other concern is not about Catholics home schooling. It is about those of other faiths with extreme agendas. Without adequate supervision and control (which I believe is far from satisfactory at present) we could be allowing the next generation of terrorists to be brain washed right under our noses. Equality legislation would be used against our best interests, so we have to be careful and try to forsee all the possible outcomes. This is from where my fear of anarchy arises.
I used to own a nursery and can see the benefit of the national curriculum. It enables a common programme to be taught everywhere, so there is a joined up progression. Kids going from our nursery to Year 1 at school all had a level of literacy and numeracy taught in a way which their new class teacher recognised and could build on. Kids transferring areas (and this happens a lot) will all be working to the same system. No more keeping down a year so they can catch up. I therefore believe, on balance, that it is a sensible approach.
+
+2
Salisbury John said...
After a widespread public outcry, including a lawsuit filed with the European Court of Human Rights by the Alliance Defense Fund and Professionals for Ethics, Spain has decided to abandon a compulsory, anti-Christian education course for the country’s public and private school students.
“The state should respect the right of parents to raise children according to their beliefs. Spain is rightly respecting basic human rights by abandoning a class that forced students to participate in values training contrary to their convictions,” said ADF Legal Counsel Roger Kiska, who is based in Europe.
Thousands of lawsuits had been filed opposing the agenda of the “Education in Citizenship” classes, which promoted a leftist stance on crucial social issues such as sexuality and abortion. ADF and Professionals for Ethics filed the only suit at the European Court of Human Rights, Europe’s highest court. Included in that suit, Bejarano v. Spain, are more than 300 Spanish parents and children, including 105 children from both public and private schools in several Spanish regions.
Since 2007, more than 54,000 parents had registered complaints with Spain’s government over the four-course program, which featured recommended materials that openly bash the Catholic Church and contain highly sexual imagery. The class was mandatory for 10- to 16-year-old students attending Spain’s public and private schools. Spain’s new minister of education, Jose Ignacio Wert, has now decided to replace the class with a new class on European Union institutions and Spain’s Constitution.
Parents and pro-family organizations had filed more than 2,200 lawsuits against the government, with an overwhelming majority of the decided cases falling in favor of parental rights; however, the same subject matter continued to be taught until now.
The suits argued that the compulsory nature of the objectionable classes violated the conscience rights and religious convictions of parents and students alike. Some materials covered in the classes subjected students to explicit sexual images and graphic content denigrating Christianity.
+
New Friend said...
John
Any gradual change will sometimes feature a reversal from time to time. This looks like one, seemingly caused by trying to go so fast that the people could not keep up.
The tide though is flowing and the ultimate direction of that change is clear. Wait another 10 or 20 years and lets see where we are then.
+
+4
Policraticus said...
I personally am not a homeschooler nor do I necessarily dismiss the enormous benefit to children of experiencing inspirational teachers in school communities that are truly edifying so long as the school and teachers are TRULY acting in loco parentis... but for those who do homeschool for all the right reasons I would defend their human right to do so without state interference of any kind. The following [interesttingly] were all homeschooled!
Alexander Graham Bell - invented the telephone
· John Moses Browning - firearms inventor and designer
· Peter Cooper - invented skyscraper, built first U.S. commercial locomotive
· Thomas Edison - invented the stock ticker, mimeograph, phonograph, and perfected the electric light bulb
· Benjamin Franklin - invented the lightning rod
· Elias Howe - invented sewing machine
· William Lear - airplane creator
· Cyrus McCormick - invented grain reaper
· Guglielmo Marconi - developed radio
· Eli Whitney - invented the cotton gin
· Sir Frank Whittle - invented turbo jet engine
· Orville and Wilbur Wright - built the first successful airplane
to name but a few!
+
New Friend said...
Policraticus
Anyone could write an even longer list of great achievers who went to public school! Most of those you list were from another age, who might have done even better if they have benefitted from being with their peers.
In short, it does not advance your case at all.
Home schooling is unlikely to produce a well rounded person equipped for today's world. It might produce a geek or a swat but is that fair?
+
+3
Salisbury John said...
"Home schooling is unlikely to produce a well rounded person equipped for today's world"..... gosh you mean that someone like Condoleeza Rice the 66th United States Secretary of State, and the second person to hold that office in the administration of President George W. Bush, the first female African-American secretary of state, as well as the second African American (after Colin Powell), and the second woman (after Madeleine Albright) who was also homeschooled is ill-equipped for today's world???!!
Parents, the primary educators may not be the sole educators but they are unequivocally in most cases the best formators of the moral conscience to the ultimate benefit of the common good ...
things may well be v different in another 10 or 20 years [in a detrimental way for parents rights] Mr non beleiving [married to a lapsed Filipino Catholic] NF ...but by then you [if you live that long] will be in your 70s/80s and running out of time to see the Light...! God help you...God love you.
+
New Friend said...
John
I love the way people pick out an example which seems to support their case and then make generalised assumptions from it.
Of course any one individual given any system could do well. It all depends on the individual circumstances, the quality of the people involved and their particular commitment.
I am not talking about individual cases. I am taking about general principals and which system is going to produce, on balance, the best results. You, and many others, would no doubt argue that home schooling should be an option, and I would agree. However, I would limit it to very specific circumstances in which it is considered to be in the best interests of the child. They might include severe disability or isolation. It must only be the interests of the child which are considered. The interests of the parent must be set aside. Any pre-determined beliefs, attitudes or expectations held by the parent that their child will always follow their belief, cannot be allowed to be a consideration. Indeed if a parent holds a particular belief that their child needs to be sheltered away from outside influences this, of itself, is a reason for the rest of us to become involved.
Every child deserves the same opportunities as every other child. Children are advantaged, or disadvantaged, in many ways by the accident of their birth. It is society's task to try to even that out as best we can.
One way we can do that is to ensure that they all mix together and understand each other. Keeping groups apart because of race, religion, class or poverty is not in anyone's ultimate interest. I believe in egalitarianism.
Allowing uncontrolled home schooling would contribute to this problem and do nothing to solve it. It is the selfish act of parents who seek to mould their kids in their own image and not allow them the freedom to grow naturally, experience other views and then make up their own minds. It is the result of the fear that their kids may not "get it" if they are allowed to think for themselves. Good ideas should be capable of surviving heavy examination and testing, and when they do those who hold them will be stronger in their beliefs. I would suggest that the drift away from the Church by those in their teenage years comes directly from the attitude currently held by many parents. It just doesn't work in today's society and you cannot keep your kids separate for ever. Better to allow them to mix early, hear alternative views away from the home, hear yours at home and your answers to their questions, and then guide them step by step.
+