“I’m worried mainly that the mere investigation has brought about a certain kind of a climate of self-censorship among Bible-believing Christians, fear of being stigmatized, despised, or even interfered with by the police in some way if similar views are expressed,” she said.
Oh, stop! What law says a person cannot have religious views? We don’t have thought police in the US yet.
However, if you want to discriminate against someone because your religion bans homosexual acts or interracial marriage, that is something different. That’s not thought; it is biased action.
The OP article reports “Finnish MP” - the U.S. hasn’t codified and proscribed “homophobia” YET - but time will tell. The PC pressure is, however, heating up and getting bolder.
As the world becomes more and more secular, there will be more and more conflict between faith and secularism and the clashes will become more and more pronounced.
And we have some 4,000 to 5,000 years of history from which to ponder the actions of non-believers. Not exactly something new.
Recently, in my country of New Zealand, the government released new guidelines for sex education in ‘Integrated Schools’ (religious schools which are still funded by the government, the vast majority of which are Catholic). They read ‘[students must be] informed by an awareness of changing family structures, shifting social norms in relation to gender and sexuality, the rise of social media, and the increased use of digital communications and devices’.
Basically, they are telling Catholic schools that they are not allowed to teach the Church’s moral teachings at their own schools; they are aiming it specifically at Catholic schools. Coming from our government, it is not surprising, but it shows how this ideology is working against Christian and especially Catholic society.
Similar to how a few years ago the Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels was charged with ‘hate speech’ in a Belgian court for upholding the Church’s teaching on sexual morality.
The remarks on the guidlines read somewhat differently when tbey are quoted directly:
“This update is informed by an awareness of changing family structures, shifting social norms in relation to gender and sexuality, the rise of social media, and the increased use of digital communications and devices. It acknowledges the increased calls for social inclusion and for the prevention of bullying, violence, and child abuse. It recognises the importance of social and emotional learning for healthy relationships.”
The Ministey of Education suggests that:
All young people need access to information and opportunities to think about, question, and discuss issues related to:
- sexual identities
- sexual orientation
- sexual behaviour
- societal messages.
I hope you noted the comment about questioning and discussing the subjects. And at no time does it lay down how the material is meant to be taught. There is no instructions to any schools that they should follow any specific line of thought in regard to sexual orientation or sexual behaviour. They are simpmy meant to be informed.
The M of E also says: ‘Schools consult with their school community on health education every 2 years. This means every school will vary in the way it delivers sexuality education’.
Not only do they not require schools to teach these matters in a particular way, they emphasise that schools need to consult with the community (that’s you) to determine how the matter is approached.
So your claim that ‘basically they are telling Catholic schools that they are not allowed to teach the Church’s moral teachings at their own schools’ is not correct. And the guidlines are for all schools incidently, not specifically ‘aimed’ at Catholic schools as you implied.
Well, New Zealand Catholic implies that it is directed at Integrated Schools, the majority of which are Catholic. Noting also that you live in Australia (and have a biased view due to your atheism), you are further away from the situation.
The link has this: 'An October Lighting New Fires newsletter, sent out from the New Zealand Catholic Education Office, noted that the latest guidelines, intended for all state and state-integrated schools…
My emphasis. Nowhere does it imply that it is specifically aimed at Catholic schools.
It also says Integrated schools are being encouraged to discuss with their proprietors updated guidelines. Also:
“Any programme that seeks to keep people safe is welcome,” the newsletter continued.
“The programme asks schools to consult with their community and determine how this material can be shared. It recognises that there are both cultural and religious challenges to be met before schools attempt to implement any change.
The newsletter added that: “Faith-based schools that work to give life to the full will not be afraid of reviewing their programme and determining what can or should change with this new approach.”
“Proprietors have the right to determine a school’s special character, and continue to influence what is consistent with the faith base of the school.
The report appears to paint a completely different picture of these guidleines as was implied in your first post. But is there anything therein with which you would like to disagree?
And incidently, the fact that I’m sitting in Sydney at the moment doesn’t exclude me from accessing exactly the same information as you can.
Tough luck on the loss to Argentina by the way.
Well, regardless, it is not respectful of the teaching of Holy Mother Church. Given the nature of the New Zealand government under the Right Honourable Miss J Ardern, it is not surprising, and I cease to be amazed when their extremely individualistic and anti-Western values are pushed onto the rest of New Zealand society, because I have come to expect it. It is under the present government that abortion has been fully legalised and euthanasia will be legalised, so I have little respect for it.
These guidelines seem to want to force schools to teach immoral behaviour to children (eg that marriage can be between people of the same sex, that people can change their gender), which is unacceptable. Catholic schools have always taught that people who identify as ‘gay’ or ‘transgender’ should be treated with the utmost sensitivity and respect, but that their values can never be supported, which is precisely what these guidelines propose to do.
There was a time when the New Zealand Labour Party supported many Christian values, but now it has abandoned them, as these guidelines, produced under the Labour government, show.
Neither the guidlines demand that nor does the Catholic article to which you linked suggest that. This appears to be your personal opinion and you haven’t offered any evidence to back it up whatsoever.
Informing children that people of the same sex do get married is not a problem. It’s no good hiding one’s head in the sand and pretending it doesn’t exist. How each school approaches the morality of the situation is up to them. As was explained by the Min of Ed and confirmed in the article to which you linked.
If you have a problem with how the children are being informed then you’ll need to take it up with the individual school. And I imagine that you’re not going to have a problem if it’s a Catholic school.
For instance? where do you see the signs of this coming?
Bear in mind we discriminate properly on a regular basis. We don’t hire the weak when strength is required for the job.
Discrimination is a much maligned word. It is only unjust discrimination that is a concern - the debate is or should be about what is just vs unjust, and this often will involve a weighing of the respective rights of the parties.
Well, I used the shorthand for illegal discrimination. Every time we choose from a menu it is discrimination.
What this politician said, along with the quote from Romans, was (in translation) “How can the church’s doctrinal foundation, the Bible, be compatible with the lifting up of shame and sin as a subject of pride?”
I am guessing that someone complained, probably triggered by the word ‘shame’ and the police said they would look into it. The publicity seems to have come from the politician and not the police. This all happened in 2019. There is nothing I can find to suggest a prosecution has been launched, or even considered.
Well, that qualifier tells us lawmakers have made a call on what is ok and what is not - a kind of moral judgement in some cases. Whether the line between just and unjust matches that between legal and illegal remains in considerable debate.
“ Räsänen stands under pretrial investigation with two other Members of Parliament , Social Democrat Hussein Al-Taee and Finns Party Juha Mäenpää, who are suspected of incitement due to comments deemed racist .”
Incitement to what? To a contrary opinion?
I found a quick Google of ‘Finland’ and ‘incitement’ made it clear: ‘to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation’.
The politician posted on social media criticising her church, the state church, for participation in Pride. That was her “crime”.
In June 2019, she directed a tweet at the leadership of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, questioning its official sponsorship of the LGBT event “Pride 2019”
She wrote: “How can the church’s doctrinal foundation, the Bible, be compatible with the lifting up of shame and sin as a subject of pride?”
Räsänen attended two police interviews about the tweet as well as a pamphlet she wrote 16 years ago on human sexuality for a Christian foundation.
The police had already decided to drop the investigation into Mrs Räsänen’s pamphlet and concluded that there were no grounds to proceed with a prosecution. However, the Prosecutor General reopened the criminal investigation.
On 2nd March, the police interviewed Mrs Räsänen a second time about the tweet and on 5th March, Räsänen was informed that the Prosecutor General had launched two more investigations against her.
The police were investigating whether or not there hd been a crime. Your use of the words in quotation marks suggests someone had decided she was guilty.