Scotland’s Little Pink Guards – The Strange Case of the School Chaplain, Time for Exclusive Education and Mob Rule

If the Israel Folau incident gives us an insight into how our ‘liberal’ elites seek to bully Christians into accepting their doctrines, then what has been happening back home in Scotland to the Church of Scotland minister Mike Goss gives another.

The following appeared in The Courier this week:

clipping

The Courier has now carried this story for three days, and it has been picked up by other national newspapers.   The standard narrative is that of homophobic minister being challenged to resign by hundreds of brave pupils.   But the facts (such inconvenient things when you are trying to run a hate campaign!) are very different.

The campaign is based on lies.  Indeed the petition itself is libellous.  They cannot give one example of Mike having made a hateful statement or discriminated or said anything against any LGBTQI (don’t forget the +) pupil.  Not unless they consider having a different opinion about SSM as ‘hateful’.  To be fair, they probably do.  The depth of intolerance, ignorance and stupidity that is being fed into our children means that doubtless some think that to disagree with someone is to hate them.

Contrary to what the TIE (Time for Inclusive Education – an Orwellian title if ever there was – because what they want, as this campaign indicates is an exclusive education, excluding everyone who does not conform to their view) organisation stated in The Herald  – this is not Scotland’s pupils making their voice known.  It is a tiny minority of activists.

Councillor Boyd who joined in the witch hunt is also a disgrace.  He lied about Mike being an ‘extremist anti-LGBTQI (don’t forget the +) ‘ and that other ministers in the town were opposed to Rev. Goss.  So far the only one who has spoken out is John Toller, the Baptist minister, who gave strong support. (update – see the note below).   I also don’t believe that ‘many parents’ contacted the councillor about Mike Goss.

As for the petition itself the comment was made that ‘hundreds’ have signed it.  900 to be precise.  Which sounds a lot except that the petition is an online petition on change.org and is open to be signed by anyone in the world.  In internet terms 900 signatures on a petition that has been widely publicised in the secular media is nothing.  I wonder how many are actually Carnoustie pupils (when I last looked at the petition before all the publicity it was 56 people in total who had signed).  But you see how this is spun.  The media and TIE tell us that this is Scotland’s pupils taking ‘direct action’ and then say that hundreds have signed the petition – but the vast majority have nothing to do with the school, are not pupils and may not even have anything to do with Scotland.  But the impression remains…

  1. clipping

I wrote the above letter which was published as the main letter in The Courier.   It is basically the same one I wrote to The Herald – which as far as I aware has not been published – and I doubt it will.

There are many disturbing things about this story.    The fact that a hard-working, compassionate and caring minister is being attacked and bullied in this way is bad enough.   That he is being attacked with such blatant libellous lies is even worse.  That the press are running so scared of being accused of homophobia (the unforgivable secular sin) that they dare not point this out is a step further.  But perhaps most chilling is the way that TIE and the gay activists are prepared to use children to enforce their doctrine.  It is reminiscent of the way that Mao created the Little Red Guards, in order to ensure that all of society conformed to his dictate.   This Maoist doctrine is precisely what is happening in Scotland today – and few politicians, journalists or teachers are prepared to challenge it.

The hypocrisy from the politicians, media and academia is appalling.  Are they demanding that Catholic chaplains should be removed because they are opposed to SSM?  What about Muslims who are also opposed to SSM?  Should they be removed from public posts or would that be Islamaphobia? (the third great sin of the secular liberals – the second is of course, transphobia).

When SSM was passed (in the name of tolerance) we warned that one of the consequences would be the marginalisation and demonisation of those who upheld the traditional Christian position – and of course, we were mocked and abused as extremists for suggesting such a ridiculous idea.  Now that we have vigilante groups of pupils attacking their school chaplain in the media (who quietly acquiesce in this bullying) apparently the real extremists are, according to a local politician,  are those who  are opposed to SSM; a sin which makes you unworthy of public office.   And thus in one quick leap we have moved as a society from tolerating difference to equating those who oppose SSM with ISIS!  (One can only hope that the good people of Carnoustie have the sense at the next election to get rid of a councillor who can spout such intolerant, irrational nonsense).

But what about the Church?  Here is an opportunity for the Church of Scotland to stand up for freedom of speech, liberty of religion and  to support one of its own ministers.  But not a word.   Nothing on their webpage, nothing on their social media and nothing to the press – (unless of course you know better).  It has been left to the Free Church and Baptist ministers to offer public support.  That tells you a great deal about the Church of Scotland.   It’s a spineless, gutless, Godless organisation, which signals its virtue all over its own media, but cannot even have the gumption or courage to stand up for one of its ministers who is being pilloried in the press for holding a position which, until last year, was their official position.  According to the C of S and their ‘diverse economy’ C of S ministers are still permitted to hold to the traditional Christian position on marriage (how generous!).  They can, but woe betide any C of S minister who dares to hold to that position in public.  They will be thrown to the Little Pink Guards.

I have to declare a personal interest here.  I regard Mike Goss as a friend (yes – I do still have friends in the Church of Scotland!).  He is also a member of the SolasCPC board.  I know him well.  He is just about the last person I would expect to utter a ‘hate filled’ comment.   It’s why this charge is so ridiculous and unbelievable.  But the fact that it is false news and an attempt to smear does not seem to matter.

I also speak out because I know they will come for me too.  Already there have been a couple of pathetic attempts to have me removed as a chaplain at the University of Dundee and I dare not reveal in public which schools I am involved in (how sad that ‘tolerant, liberal Scotland has been reduced to this).  Because of the internet there are vigilante groups who see it as their life mission to cleanse the world of anyone who does not accept their agenda.  Most people can’t be bothered with the hassle and so just give them what they want.  I’m so thankful that Mike (like Israel Folau) has not caved in and is prepared to stand up for what he (and millions of others) believe.  Lord, have mercy!

Kevin McKenna – It is time to stand up to those who wish to criminalise faith – article in The Herald

The Intolerance of Secular Scotland and Christianity in Schools- Letters in The Courier

Update:  For the fourth day in a row this story has appeared in the Courier.  And it confirms that Councillor Boyd was lying to the press when he stated that Mike Goss did not have a good relationship with other ministers in the area – it turns out that another two of them have contacted the press to say that this was not true.  Councillor Boyd is upset that they have done so and so he now accuses them of ‘banding together’ (thereby making a mockery of his earlier claim that they were not banded together!)…and even states to one “I find your preaching to me, copying in the press, simply unacceptable”  – says the man who attacked (preached) at Mike Goss and went to the Press with calls for his dismissal.  It seems the bully councillor can’t cope with people disagreeing with him!

clipping-1.jpg

 

 

 

 

23 thoughts on “Scotland’s Little Pink Guards – The Strange Case of the School Chaplain, Time for Exclusive Education and Mob Rule

  1. Surely here is an opportunity for Bible believing school chaplains across Scotland to make a public stand in support of Mike Goss against this nasty and totally ignorant and intolerant minority group. Failure to do so will open every Bible believing school chaplain across Scotland to similar attack and possible removal from their post. As Head Teachers are responsible for inviting ministers to be a part of their chaplaincy team, I’m sure a good number will move to quietly dismiss those whose beliefs run contrary to the noisy minority lobby simply because the ‘don’t need the aggro’ or negative publicity for their school.

      1. As a former secondary DHT, what saddens me is the fact that this is a witch-hunt from pupils in a school which has a values set which includes things like respect and tolerance, yet it would appear that those with values founded on scripture are deemed to be unacceptable. I suppose these pupils would apply the same standard to Christian teachers and even fellow pupils who are Christians. Clearly listening to and engaging with alternative points of view, a foundational element of education in a democracy would appear to be a ‘no-no’ for the instigators of the petition. I wonder if the Head Teacher and the education authority will be applying the school’ anti-bullying policy to deal with the nasty bullying of a school chaplain. Will the school and the education authority investigate the allegations made against the chaplain in the petition and will they then issue an unreserved public apology to the chaplain. I’m sure that many parents, pupils, teachers and chaplains now await a response from the school consistent with the values listed on its website.

  2. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but it’s laughable when someone bemoans a lack of public tolerance for those whose views are informed by a book which quite literally and unequivocally commands homosexuals be put to death.

    1. Feel free to laugh…but know that you are doing so out of ignorance…and that such ignorance feeds prejudice which is of course the primary cause of intolerance.

      1. To the contrary. The ignorance and prejudice emanates entirely from those who promote the moral code found within the pages of their ancient holy books, and then freely express their intolerance in articles like the one titled “Homosexuality” on the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland’s website.

        And that, dear sir, is no laughing matter.

      2. As I said it is ignorance and prejudice. Would you like to tell us where you get your moral code from and why it should be imposed on the rest of us?

      3. You can say ignorance and prejudice as often as you like, but mere assertion does not make it a fact.

        The source of my moral code is not the topic of discussion, and unlike religious puritans, I’m not attempting to impose it upon others. In fact, it’s just the opposite. I hold that the sexual habits of consenting adults are of no concern to anyone other than those involved. That’s why your complaints of intolerance are met with indifference. If you quit butting into the affairs of others, they’ll have little reason to butt into yours.

      4. But you do attempt to impose it upon others. And you seek to use the State system to do so. However given your criteria that ‘the sexual habits of consenting adults are of no concern to anyone other than those involved’ would you then agree that incest between consenting adults is ok?

      5. I accidentally hit ‘send’ before completing my other response, so please delete it.

        Espousing a live and let live philosophy creates no imposition upon anyone save for the requirement to permit others to live their lives in peace. So seeking state protection against those who choose to violate the rights of others seems a perfectly reasonable and proper solution. And until opponents of same-sex relationships can demonstrate they cause any asctual harm, there is little reason to prohibit them.

        As to incest, I have no qualms if legitimate consent is possible. However, it’s highly questionable whether such relationships are truly consensual when they involve a relative who once held a position of authority (i.e. parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts).

      6. My philosophy, so to speak, is to live and let live. Or more precisely, it follows the Wiccan Rede of “An it harm none, do what ye will.” And there’s nothing immoral or perverse about that. But please feel free to show evidence demonstrating otherwise.

      7. Such as putting homosexuals to death for example, yes?
        And you wonder why Christianity is collapsing in Scotland!
        Maybe look in the mirror from time to time and you will see the modern face of arrogant and intolerant Christianity staring right back at you.

        My mother is a devout Christian and she would turn her back on you in an instant.
        You are a disgrace!

      8. You are such a sweet and rational person. Also coming in with the abuse and now even bringing your mother into it! I’m not sure which church is arguing for homosexuals to be put to death (the reason you give for the Church dying)…perhaps out of your vast store of knowledge you could enlighten us?

    2. ‘Literally and unequivocally’, Ron?
      I know the Scripture verses on which you are basing this analysis and for all I know, you might also know them. Possibly not, since you give no citation.
      This ‘command’ was given for a specified reason and as part of a whole range of prohibited practices. To meaningfully use ‘literarly’ one would have to explain what sort of command it is — for example it is important to know whether this is civil law or martial law — and, similarly, to meaningfully use ‘unequivocally’ one would need to explain away significant occasions when it has apparently not crossed anybody’s mind that such a putatively unequivocal law would apply. I seriously doubt whether you have earned the right to use ‘literally and unequivocally’ but I believe that the default qualifier for ‘something to be complained about’ is ‘unacceptable’. You are less likely to be called out on that one.

      Yours,
      John/.

      1. Mr. Kilpatrick,

        How does one read the passage in Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”) in anything but a literal and unequivocal manner given that it is preceded and followed by verses prescribing similar punishments for other sexual improprieties?

  3. Hi, Ron,
    Thanks for replying. You wouldn’t count Leviticus 20:22f. as an equivocation but its presence does make ‘unequivocal’ way too strong a word.
    [Lev. 20:22f.] You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them.
    Also, The sexual improprieties are put alongside idolatry because in-your-face, public sexual acts were what made for social cohesion in the Canaanite nations. Note that it is the sexual act and not just same-sex attraction that was liable for punishment.
    Yours,
    John/.

    1. Mr. Kilpatrick,

      Again, how can the prescribed penalty — death — be subject to any other interpretation than literal death for those found to be in violation of the biblical ordinances? Would you not agree that such an injunction constitutes extreme intolerance towards those who engage in sexual practices we disprove of? Moreover, why should the Hebrew laws apply to non-Jewish people?

      1. Of course it’s intolerance, Ron,
        but you can’t absolutise tolerance — viz. the caricature of the man determined to tolerate everything, except intolerance — and it isn’t about ‘sexual practices we disapprove of’ either. Nor is it simply about there being a next generation and the future existence of the nation, though that is involved. (The chief warning sign telling the establishment now that they mustn’t outlaw expressions of principled non-approval is ‘Aging Population!’)
        These laws were not to be used to persecute minorities or to act as a cover for malicious persecution of individuals. For example, parents are nudged away from a too-hasty or vindictive misuse of Leviticus 20:9 by a ‘word to the wise’: [Proverbs 19:18] ‘Discipline your son, for there is hope; do not set your heart on putting him to death.’
        Not all the laws did apply to non-Jewish people — for example, braxy was a non-kosher delicacy, forbidden to Jews by law but they could give it to refugees or sell it to foreigners — but the link of all these practices to the communal life of the nations round about meant that there was a real danger of Israel being destroyed through the efforts of foreign, sexual agents provocateurs. The example given in Numbers 25 was, as far as we can tell, nothing more than straightforward, though blatent adultery but in significance it was deemed to be a threat to the whole nation.
        It is important to note that these laws were applied to foreigners in the land, not out of it. In fact, the deterrence of having these laws could only work in a new nation where the proscribed practices were not already endemic. Attempts to apply the Law of Moses to those who are free from the law are wrongheaded, and miss the point. On the other hand, nations have their own laws, which are to be respected and it is always hubristic for the younger generation to announce: ‘Now we know better.’ Principled non-approval and the freedom to express it are vital parts of our heritage.
        Lastly, capital punishment seems extreme for a generation who have lived without it but the methods of execution available in Israel were humane compared, for example, to crucifixion. When people take things into their own hands, then we get extremes, as with the King of England who was allegedly assassinated by his own wife because of his homosexual actions, in an ‘appropriate’ manner.

        Yours,
        John/.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s