This is a recording of what Sally Foster-Fulton, the Humanist spokesman and I said on the Call Kaye programme. I should also point out that Church of Scotland ministers Dr Andrew McGowan and Dr Campbell Campbell Jack (the latter with an insightful and superb blog – you can read here – http://possil.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/common-cause/
David – why did you cut out McGrath?
We only had a limited amount of space. And wanted to make sure we had the humanist in. No other reason. We also did not include any of the callers.
McGrath represents the greatest threat to progress. He is dogmatic and intransigent.
David, I’ve been following your posts regarding the latest C of S capitulation and have been outraged at their actions, but sadly, it’s come as no real surprise to learn that the church is wishing to ‘journey together’ with those of other faiths or none at all (one wonders where they envisage their shared destination to be). I was also angered to read from the joint statement that they wish to ‘celebrate diversity’; does the C of S really want to celebrate the differences between Christianity and other religions when these differences go to the very foundation of our faith, Jesus Christ? Would God wish us to celebrate these differences that deny His sovereignty and Lordship? And where in Scripture are we told to have a ‘deep respect’ for those who teach a false religion?
I read Sally Foster-Fulton’s blog last year and was appalled by her post entitled ‘Spirituality and Deep Connections’. In it she praised the syncretism she experienced whilst participating in a Bolivian ritual. She described the ‘fusion between Christianity and Ancient Amazonian and Andean spirituality’ and declared that ‘it was a beautiful ritual that linked Mother Earth and Creator God’. http://cos.churchofscotland.org.uk/blogs/church_and_society/2013/10/21/spirituality-and-deep-connections/. Another page on the Church’s site also gives a good indication of just what ‘time for reflection’ may mean in practice if these proposals are implemented; ‘Working together in faith’ outlined several interfaith activities including events at Eskdale church which links with local Buddhists, making exchange visits to each other’s place of worship. According to the article, ‘this dialogue between the two makes us better Christians and hopefully we can make them better Buddhists.’ http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/connect/working_together_in_faith
One should be in no doubt what children in Scottish schools will be reflecting on under the auspices of Sally Foster-Fulton and many of the present incumbents of the C of S.
Many thanks, David for having the courage to bring this latest development to our attention and to continue to speak out in such a reasoned and forthright way. May God bless and uphold you in the work that you do for Him.
Angela Garry
From the link, Dr Campbell Campbell Jack’s fear is of the “exclusion of any chaplain who taught that Jesus alone is Lord and Saviour” whereas Sally Foster-Fulton advocates a “journeying together” between the religious and humanists. Mark Gordon as a leader in the Scottish Secular Society, will be in favour of the removal of all religious components to RO/TfR in schools.
Tribalism and never ending quarrels between evangelicals and others in the CofS and between the religious and humanists tragically and all to frequently takes priority over what is most important. In this case what is the best interest for pupil ans students in schools.
In practice, it has long been the time since it has been the privilege of a Christian chaplain or Christianity to be central to RO/TfR. What occurs on these occasions is at the behest of the head teacher.
In a climate of British values as determined by the equality act 2010 with one of the protected characteristics being religion, what case does any head teacher have for excluding a chaplain who wishes to share a gospel message about Jesus being Lord? What case do they have for excluding a humanist speaker who is an advocate of freedom of faith and freedom of faith?
Sally Foster-Fulton is right in what she says about being an example to students of how humanists and the religious can be in dialogue. Difference and disagreement is not always a bad thing, and for the sake of the next generation we must find a way of peaceful co-existence and mutual thriving.
The problem comes when the extremists of the fundamental religious fail (in the case of Christianity) to enter into dialogue “seasoned with grace” and militant humanists /secularist discriminate and campaign to remove all religious components to public life. The extremists hate each other, care little for anything (in this case the best interests of students) beyond their agenda and don’t care who gets wounded in the process of their hatred.
Actually no ducatihero. Why not use your real name so we can at least know if we know who is talking about me. In any case my position is clear. It always has been. Despite this David Robertson has been content to bear false witness – now you do too – without a shred of evidence.
Why on earth do you think that I brought the Opt In petition to the Scottish Parliament? Exactly so that RO (or whatever you would like to call it) could remain in place without it being forced upon those who did not want it.
Now please either retract your statement or clarify that you were mistaken!
Ii is common practice for someone to use a handle such as “DucatiHero” or “Linear C” here. This is David’s blog, if he makes it a requirement that real names be used then I will of course use my real name but, no disrespect, I don’t see why I should have to do so at your behest Mark?
What is it about what I have written that you wish to claim I am mistaken about and want me to retract Mark? Did Caroline, your college and fellow leader not mention that “we” welcome removal of all religious components to RO? Therefore are you not implicated in that? I would suggest sir that if there is a mistake or a need for a retraction that you approach your fellow secular activist for such. If you have actioned an internal disciplinary measure towards Caroline to ensure that SSS holds to the inclusion of religious components in RO then I am sure many or the readers here would be interested to hear of that in the interest of maintaining the secular values of freedom of faith and freedom from faith.
As I recall Mark, what you brought in with Opt In was because of what you shared about not being satisfied with a school’s provision for your daughter once the choice to opt out of RO was made either by her or for her.
You make claims of lack of evidence and misrepresentation made by Mr Robertson and myself, are there any other accusations of misrepresentation of you that you wish to make?
Read what I wrote Adam. Yes we know who you are. Read very carefully- because you dont appear to be doing so so far. At no time did I mention my colleagues or their stance. I was very specific about my intentions in bringing the action I did and very specific about what I said. I could have sat in my pied-a-terre in the wild and windy west and thought “lets raise a petition to remove RO from all public schools”. But no. I thought 1) This will not wash with the religionists embedded in the Scottish Parliament and more importantly 2) That would conflict somewhat with the rights of the religious. So to me the solution was obvious. Opt In. If opt in is in place the best result is obtained. Those that want RO can have the RO of their choosing. Those that dont want it arent harmed in any way as they often are now.
The schools provision for my daughter was NOT the only reason this action was raised.
As of course you know Robertson is continually misrepresenting myself and the SSS by stating that we want religion removed from the public sphere altogether and in particular removing RO from schools altogether. And frankly I think you either by design or by ignorance do the same.
Note very carefully because here is the subtlety that people like you dont get.
As an individual I would very much like to see the end of religious evangelism in schools but as a secularist I recognise that we all have rights and if we can provide equality of outcomes for all then that is a better way than blanket removal.
Im done with you now, Adam.