Rev. Dr Bernard Randall reported to UK terrorist watchdog, Prevent

A very concerning, although not altogether surprising, story from the UK, where a COE Rev was essentially sacked and reported to the UK terror watchdog for giving, all things considered, a calm and compassionate sermon on Christian teaching, in a chapel in a Christian school.

A Christian school in Long Eaton reported its chaplain to the Government's anti-terror watchdog after he suggested his students should 'make up their own minds' on LGBT teachings.

Reverend Dr Bernard Randall, 48, had been working as the chaplain at Trent College when he was reported to 'Prevent', a programme which seeks to prevent people from being radicalised.

Rev Randall claims he was approached by students who suggested they had been confused and upset by the school's new LGBT teaching proposals.

His lawyers say he subsequently held a sermon in the school's chapel, where he presented the Church of England's biblical teachings on marriage and human nature, and said "children at the school were not compelled to ‘accept an ideology they disagree with’".

He then suggested students should debate and make up their own minds during the sermon in 2019.

A week later his legal team says he was suspended and reported to the Government's anti-terror watchdog.
https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/long-eaton-school-reports-chaplain-5395171

The terror watchdog did not take it any further, but nevertheless a horrific experience for the good reverend and a further illustration of the attack on Christians. Hopefully, his court case will go well.

Supported by the Christian Legal Centre, Bernard Randall, who is ordained in the Church of England and is a former chaplain of Christ’s College, Cambridge, is taking Trent College to court for discrimination, harassment, victimisation and unfair dismissal.

He commented on his case: "My story sends a message to other Christians that you are not free to talk about your faith. It seems it is no longer enough to just ‘tolerate’ LGBT ideology. You must accept it without question and no debate is allowed without serious consequences. Someone else will decide what is and what isn’t acceptable, and suddenly you can become an outcast, possibly for the rest of your life.

"I was 'too religious' for them in a Christian school. When I read that there had been a Prevent referral, it was just so mind-blowing, the fear. If the world is mad enough to say that a Church of England minister talking about the Church of England's beliefs is a violent extremist, then somebody else might be mad enough to act on it."

https://christianconcern.com/cccases/rev-dr-bernard-randall/

Smee_Again

Sounds like radicalisation to me.

Smee_Again

Smee_Again wrote: »

Sounds like radicalisation to me.

So you read the links, watched the 6-minute video, distilled it all, weighed it all up, formed a firm opinion to enable you to make such a pronouncement, and typed up your comment, all in the two minutes between my creation of the thread and your reply?

Most impressive :rolleyes:

Here is a video and the text of the sermon in question.

I have a theory about Brexit. It seems to me that people who voted to leave the European Union voted for largely political reasons – to do with democratic self-determination; and people who voted to remain did so for largely economic reasons – to do with prosperity and jobs. Of course I’m simplifying here, and both sides claim to consider both, but it seems to me that which set of ideas, which ideology, takes priority determines which way many people voted. And while we can easily discuss facts, and try to find the truth behind factual claims, ideals aren’t true or false in the same way.

And so the problem with the often very heated and unpleasant debate ever since the referendum, is that people haven’t managed to cope with there being two competing sets of ideals – two ideologies. Now when ideologies compete, we should not descend into abuse, we should respect the beliefs of others, even where we disagree. Above all, we need to treat each other with respect, not personal attacks – that’s what loving your neighbour as yourself means. By all means discuss, have a reasoned debate about beliefs, but while it’s OK to try and persuade each other, no one should be told they must accept an ideology. Love the person, even where you profoundly dislike the ideas. Don’t denigrate a person simply for having opinions and beliefs which you don’t share.

There has been another set of competing ideals in the news recently. You may have heard of the protests outside a Birmingham primary school over the teachings of an LGBT friendly “No Outsiders” programme. In a mostly Muslim community, this has been sensitive, because many parents feel that their children are being pushed to accept ideas which run counter to Islamic moral values. Many in that community are concerned, even angry, that their children are having an agenda, an ideology pushed on them, which is in conflict with their religion.

And in our own school community, I have been asked about a similar thing – this is one of the requested topics, and the question was put to me in a very particular way – “How come we are told we have to accept all this LGBT stuff in a Christian school?” I thought that was a very intelligent and thoughtful way of asking about the conflict of values, rather than asking which is right, and which is wrong.

So my answer is this: there are some aspects of the Educate and Celebrate programme which are simply factual – there are same-sex attracted people in our society, there are people who experience gender dysphoria, and so on. There are some areas where the two sets of values overlap – no one should be discriminated against simply for who he or she is: that’s a Christian value, based in loving our neighbours as ourselves, and God making humankind in his image, male and female, and himself loving everyone equally. All these things should be accepted straightforwardly by all of us, and it’s right that equalities law reflects that.

But there are areas where the two sets of ideas are in conflict, and in these areas you do not have to accept the ideas and ideologies of LGBT activists. Indeed, since Trent exists “to educate boys and girls according to the Protestant and Evangelical principles of the Church of England,” anyone who tells you that you must accept contrary principles is jeopardizing the school’s charitable status, and therefore it’s very existence. You should no more be told you have to accept LGBT ideology, than you should be told you must be in favour of Brexit, or must be Muslim – to both of which I’m sure most of you would quite rightly object.

Now I don’t know about the faith of the person who asked me to talk about this topic. I don’t think he would say is religious, though I may be wrong, but I am aware that there will be a good few in our community who will have been struggling, if they feel they are being told that they must accept ideas which run counter to their faith – or indeed non-faith based reasoning about the world. So I want to say to everyone, but especially to those who have been troubled, that you are not obliged to accept someone else’s ideology. You are perfectly at liberty to hear ideas out, and then think, “No, not for me.”

There are several areas where many or most Christians (and for that matter people of other faiths too), will be in disagreement with LGBT activists, and where you must make up your own mind.

So it is perfectly legitimate to think that marriage should only properly be understood as being a lifelong exclusive union of a man and a woman; indeed, that definition is written into English law. You may perfectly properly believe that, as an ideal, sexual activity belongs only within such marriage, and that therefore any other kind is morally problematic. That is the position of all the major faith groups – though note that it doesn’t apply only to same-sex couples. And it is a belief based, not only on scripture, but on a highly positive view of marriage as the building block of a society where people of all kinds flourish, and on recognizing that there are many positive things in life more important than sex, if only we’d let them be. This viewpoint is recognized by many people as extremely liberating. And it’s an ethical position which could also be arrived at independently of any religious text, I think.

In other areas you are entitled to think, if it makes more sense to you, that human beings are indeed male and female, that your sex can’t be changed, that although the two sexes have most things in common, there are some real, biologically based, differences between them overall. And if you think that, you would be in accord not only with the Tradition of most Christians, and other faiths, but much of the biological and psychological sciences too.

You are entitled, if you wish, to look at some of the claims made about gender identity, and think that it is incoherent to say that, for example, gender is quite independent of any biological factor, but that a person’s physiology should be changed to match his or her claimed gender; or incoherent to say that gender identity is both a matter of individual determination and social conditioning at the same time, or incoherent to make claims about being non-binary or gender-fluid by both affirming and denying the gender stereotypes which exist in wider society. And if these claims, which do seem to be made, are incoherent, then they cannot be more than partially true. Yet truth is important as we try to make decisions about the consequences of these ideas.

And you might reasonably notice that some LGBT activists will happily lie about gender identity being a legally protected characteristic (which it isn’t), and from that observation wonder whether there are other areas where their relationship to truth is looser than might be ideal. But by way of contrast, no one has the right to tell you that you must lie about these matters, to say things you sincerely believe to be false – that is the tactic of totalitarianism and dictatorship. On a more positive note, Christians will want to have a discussion about human identity which focusses as most important on the things we all have in common, rather than increasingly long lists of things which might divide us. At the same time, the Christian concern for truth will be trying to distinguish between false stereotypes and those areas of human interaction which are assisted by the practical wisdom of past generations.

You might be concerned that if you take the religious view on these matters you will be attacked, and accused of homophobia and the like. But remember that religious belief is just as protected in law as sexual orientation, and no one has the right to discriminate against you or be abusive towards you. Remember too that “phobia” words have a strict sense of extreme or irrational fear or dislike, like arachnophobia, fear of spiders, or triskaidekaphobia, fear of the number thirteen – well there’s nothing extreme about sharing your view with the Church of England, established by law, and of the majority of the world’s population who belong to these faiths. Nor is it irrational to hold these views, since they can be based both on secular reasoning and on scriptures – and if, on other grounds, you are sure that the scriptures reflect the mind of God, then they provide the very best reasons possible for anything. But “homophobia” and “transphobia” have come to be used in a looser sense to mean often simply “you disagree with me and I’m going to refuse to listen to you, and shame you to shut you down.” In other words they have sometimes come to be terms of abuse, used in a dictionary-definition bigoted and bullying way. You can safely ignore these uses, although that takes real moral courage, I know.

And you may think that LGBT rights are different somehow, because no one chooses to belong to the varied groups represented by these ideas. To which I would remind you that equalities law does not recognize that distinction – all equalities are in fact equal. And I’d also encourage you to remember that what is under consideration in religious and ethical thought is only the actions and choices we do make. And what it may never have occurred to you to realize – that religious people don’t have a choice about what they are either. So, for example, I can no more wake up one morning and choose not to believe in God, than I can choose to believe that the Moon is made of cheese. I just know it isn’t, and I can’t change that.

So, all in all, if you are at ease with “all this LGBT stuff,” you’re entitled to keep to those ideas; if you are not comfortable with it, for the various especially religious reasons, you should not feel required to change. Whichever side of this conflict of ideas you come down on, or even if you are unsure of some of it, the most important thing is to remember that loving your neighbour as yourself does not mean agreeing with everything he or she says; it means that when we have these discussions there is no excuse for personal attacks or abusive language. We should all respect that people on each side of the debate have deep and strongly held convictions. And because, unlike Brexit, this is not a debate which is subject to a vote, it is an ongoing process, so there should be a shared effort to find out what real truth looks like, and to respect that that effort is made honestly and sincerely by all people, even if not everybody comes up with the same answers for now.

Smee_Again

^^

Thanks for providing the evidence to support my point.

Peregrinus

I'm not seeing anything in what ex loco posted that proves your point. Can you explain?

santana75

He spoke the truth, simple as that and because he did they came after him. I recall seeing a sermon by Francis Chan from 2010 where he said that some day, the bible will be considered hate speech. I'm not sure even francis wouldve predicted that this would happen so soon. There is something profoundly evil at work behind the scenes in the society we live in, and it's all being done under the guise of "inclusion". I wonder though if that sermon was delivered in a closed classroom, with just the priest and the pupils, who it was who reported him to the authorities?

Peregrinus

santana75 wrote: »

He spoke the truth, simple as that and because he did they came after him . . .

Well, maybe. On the other hand, maybe not.

The honours students will have noted that the newspaper report only quotes one side in this case. All their information has come from Dr. Randall's lawyers, who obviously have an interest in presenting their clients case in a favourable light. Plus I note that the disciplinary action originally taken against Dr. Randall was overturned by the school governors. More than a year later he was made redundant, but there isn't much detail in the newspaper report to back up the inference we are implicitly invited to make; that he was made redundant because of the 2019 incident. We are not told what reason the school gave for his redundancy.

I'm not saying that his lawyers are wrong; just that there are some gaps in the story presented in the newspaper report, and there may be an alternative account of these events that refers to facts not mentioned here.

santana75

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, maybe. On the other hand, maybe not.

The honours students will have noted that the newspaper report only quotes one side in this case. All their information has come from Dr. Randall's lawyers, who obviously have an interest in presenting their clients case in a favourable light. Plus I note that the disciplinary action originally taken against Dr. Randall was overturned by the school governors. More than a year later he was made redundant, but there isn't much detail in the newspaper report to back up the inference we are implicitly invited to make; that he was made redundant because of the 2019 incident. We are not told what reason the school gave for his redundancy.

I'm not saying that his lawyers are wrong; just that there are some gaps in the story presented in the newspaper report, and there may be an alternative account of these events that refers to facts not mentioned here.

But he literally recreated his sermon word for word in that video and if it is precisely what he said that day then he did speak the truth, nothing more.

looksee

santana75 wrote: »

But he literally recreated his sermon word for word in that video and if it is precisely what he said that day then he did speak the truth, nothing more.

That is not the 'truth' that is in question. It is not clear whether he was made redundant/sacked because of that sermon, or for other reasons.

stoneill

Smee_Again wrote: »

^^

Thanks for providing the evidence to support my point.

There was nothing in that speech to support radicalisation.
He has clearly stated on numerous occasions that ideologies should not be forced upon people, but you should make up your own mind.

Peregrinus

santana75 wrote: »

But he literally recreated his sermon word for word in that video and if it is precisely what he said that day then he did speak the truth, nothing more.

So? He may believe that this sermon is what led to the decision to make him redundant 18 months later, but we don't know why he believes that, so we cannot evaluate his belief. Is it well-founded? Is it reasonable? Is it unreasonable? We've no idea.

And we are not told at any point what reason the school offered for making him redundant, which is a fairly glaring omission. For all we know, they might have pointed to other legitimate considerations - a lack of funds to pay a chaplain, a reduction in the proportion of students identifying as Christian and/or availing of the ministry of the chaplain, other disciplinary matters unrelated to this particular issue, could be anything.

Basically, we have enough information here to be concerned about whether his redundancy was fair, but we don't have enough information to make a judgment about that. The newspaper report is clearly an attempt to influence us to take a particular view. It's basically the view his lawyers would like you to take. A basic requirement of justice is that you should at least hear the opposing view before you make your mind up.

santana75

looksee wrote: »

That is not the 'truth' that is in question. It is not clear whether he was made redundant/sacked because of that sermon, or for other reasons.

Did I miss something here? Im going by what the report said in the OP. The rev gave a sermon and a week later he was sacked. There was a Prevent referral issued aswell. So are you questioning if he was fired because of the content of that sermon of if he was fired for some other reason? To me it seems obvious given the fact that there was an anti-terrorist investigation ontop of him losing his job. He spoke the truth and because of that he was persecuted, it literally says in The Bible that this will happen to any one who preachers the word of God and who wishes to live a Godly life. I dont see the confusion here, it seems very straight forward what happened.

The fact that the school deemed it necessary to suspend him, and report him to Prevent (!!) is worrisome enough. Even though he was able to overturn this on appeal, he was still censured, subjected to disciplinary action and had further conditions placed on his employment. Even if he was not subsequently "let go" from his employment the events before that culmination are certainly extremely worrisome and objectionable. A scene soon to be replicated everywhere, where extreme (not to mention contradictory) points of view on sexuality and gender are not only accepted, but deemed mandatory, and irrefutable (no matter how mild mannered the objection).

looksee

santana75 wrote: »

Did I miss something here? Im going by what the report said in the OP. The rev gave a sermon and a week later he was sacked. There was a Prevent referral issued aswell. So are you questioning if he was fired because of the content of that sermon of if he was fired for some other reason? To me it seems obvious given the fact that there was an anti-terrorist investigation ontop of him losing his job. He spoke the truth and because of that he was persecuted, it literally says in The Bible that this will happen to any one who preachers the word of God and who wishes to live a Godly life. I dont see the confusion here, it seems very straight forward what happened.

There was an interval of over a year between the original censure and his being made redundant. However, I have just realised the thread is Christian Only so I will withdraw from the discussion, with apologies.

Peregrinus

santana75 wrote: »

Did I miss something here? Im going by what the report said in the OP. The rev gave a sermon and a week later he was sacked. There was a Prevent referral issued aswell. So are you questioning if he was fired because of the content of that sermon of if he was fired for some other reason? To me it seems obvious given the fact that there was an anti-terrorist investigation ontop of him losing his job. He spoke the truth and because of that he was persecuted, it literally says in The Bible that this will happen to any one who preachers the word of God and who wishes to live a Godly life. I dont see the confusion here, it seems very straight forward what happened.

You did miss something. Quite a lot, actually.

He gave a sermon and was suspended, not sacked, and was referred to the police. The police dismissed the referral. He objected to his suspension and the school governors reversed it.

Eighteen months later he was made redundant. He thinks he was made redundant because of this incident, but he doesn't say why he thinks that. He doesn't tell us what reason, if any, the school gave for making him redundant. He tells us nothing, in fact, about the context within which the redundancy took place.

So, there's a great big gap in his story, and some obvious questions to be asked. Until that gap is filled, one way or the other, it would be premature to come to any judgment.

In the very passage in which Jesus warns his followers of coming persecutions, he urges them to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves". That means readings stories like this with a thoughtful and critical eye, and not leaping to pejorative conclusions.

This matter comes before an employment tribunal later this month. Why rush to judgment when you can wait to see what additional facts emerge there?

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

You did miss something. Quite a lot, actually.

He gave a sermon and was suspended, not sacked, and was referred to the police. The police dismissed the referral. He objected to his suspension and the school governors reversed it.

Eighteen months later he was made redundant. He thinks he was made redundant because of this incident, but he doesn't say why he thinks that. He doesn't tell us what reason, if any, the school gave for making him redundant. He tells us nothing, in fact, about the context within which the redundancy took place.

So, there's a great big gap in his story, and some obvious questions to be asked. Until that gap is filled, one way or the other, it would be premature to come to any judgment.

In the very passage in which Jesus warns his followers of coming persecutions, he urges them to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves". That means readings stories like this with a thoughtful and critical eye, and not leaping to pejorative conclusions.

This matter comes before an employment tribunal later this month. Why rush to judgment when you can wait to see what additional facts emerge there?

Are you comfortable making a judgement, or at least forming an opinion, about his initial suspension and referral to Prevent by the school for his sermon? While the suspension was overturned he remained under censure.

santana75

Peregrinus wrote: »

You did miss something. Quite a lot, actually.

He gave a sermon and was suspended, not sacked, and was referred to the police. The police dismissed the referral. He objected to his suspension and the school governors reversed it.

Eighteen months later he was made redundant. He thinks he was made redundant because of this incident, but he doesn't say why he thinks that. He doesn't tell us what reason, if any, the school gave for making him redundant. He tells us nothing, in fact, about the context within which the redundancy took place.

So, there's a great big gap in his story, and some obvious questions to be asked. Until that gap is filled, one way or the other, it would be premature to come to any judgment.

In the very passage in which Jesus warns his followers of coming persecutions, he urges them to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves". That means readings stories like this with a thoughtful and critical eye, and not leaping to pejorative conclusions.

This matter comes before an employment tribunal later this month. Why rush to judgment when you can wait to see what additional facts emerge there?

Theres no gap in The Reverend's story at all though. Its plain as day that he was relieved of his duties for delivering that sermon, yet you seem to be trying to argue that it wasnt because of the sermon but possibly for some other reason. I mean if you want to reserve judgement until the final verdict so be it, but to me, from reading about the case this is what happened:

- The school adopted "Educate and Celebrate's" ethos into their curriculum.
- Some students in the school approached Rev Randall with their concerns about this decision by the school
- The Rev delivers a sermon
- In the weeks following his sermon Dr. Randall was told by the school that his sermon undermined the schools LGBT agenda and he was suspended pending an investigation
- Dr randall was also reported to the Governments counter terrorism watchdog "Prevent" as a potentially violent religious extremist.
- In August 2019 Dr Randall was told that the Headmaster had concluded that his actions amounted to gross misconduct and that he would be dimissed.
- This decision was overturned by the schools governors but the Rev was given a list of conditions regarding any future sermons, including prior sight by the schools leaderships and prohibition of Broaching any topic or expressing any opinion that is likely to cause offence or distress to the members of the school body.
- When lockdown was implemented in march of last year, Dr. Randall was furloughed. He was then told his fulltime hours would be reduced to seven per week: At the end of the year he was made redundant.

Again this is very plain and straight forward, I dont see any gaps. He delivered a sermon, he was reported to police and suspended for that sermon. He was told he would be dismissed by the headmaster but that was overturned by school governors but he was given a list of restrictions for any future sermons. His working hours were reduced, then he was made redundant.

Let me ask you a question: What do you think of the Reverend's sermon? I mean put aside the legal case and everything else, what did you think of the content of what he said that day, do you agree with him or do you not agree with what he said?

Peregrinus

Nicolas Scary Tomb wrote: »

Are you comfortable making a judgement, or at least forming an opinion, about his initial suspension and referral to Prevent by the school for his sermon? While the suspension was overturned he remained under censure.

Yes. Assuming the newspaper report is correct and gives all the relevant information, that seems to me to have been clearly wrong.

santana75 wrote: »

Theres no gap in The Reverend's story at all though . . .. Its plain as day that he was relieved of his duties for delivering that sermon, yet you seem to be trying to argue that it wasnt because of the sermon but possibly for some other reason. I mean if you want to reserve judgement until the final verdict so be it, but to me, from reading about the case this is what happened:

- The school adopted "Educate and Celebrate's" ethos into their curriculum.
- Some students in the school approached Rev Randall with their concerns about this decision by the school
- The Rev delivers a sermon
- In the weeks following his sermon Dr. Randall was told by the school that his sermon undermined the schools LGBT agenda and he was suspended pending an investigation
- Dr randall was also reported to the Governments counter terrorism watchdog "Prevent" as a potentially violent religious extremist.
- In August 2019 Dr Randall was told that the Headmaster had concluded that his actions amounted to gross misconduct and that he would be dimissed.
- This decision was overturned by the schools governors but the Rev was given a list of conditions regarding any future sermons, including prior sight by the schools leaderships and prohibition of Broaching any topic or expressing any opinion that is likely to cause offence or distress to the members of the school body.
- When lockdown was implemented in march of last year, Dr. Randall was furloughed. He was then told his fulltime hours would be reduced to seven per week: At the end of the year he was made redundant.

Again this is very plain and straight forward, I dont see any gaps. He delivered a sermon, he was reported to police and suspended for that sermon. He was told he would be dismissed by the headmaster but that was overturned by school governors but he was given a list of restrictions for any future sermons. His working hours were reduced, then he was made redundant.

This account omits any consideration of the extent to which his furloughing and subsequent redundancy may have been attributable to the Covid pandemic, and it fails to enquire what reason was given for his redundancy, and whether that reason stands up to scrutiny. It's obviously incomplete.

Let me ask you a question: What do you think of the Reverend's sermon? I mean put aside the legal case and everything else, what did you think of the content of what he said that day, do you agree with him or do you not agree with what he said?[/QUOTE]
I haven't watched the video. I have read the quote given; I don't know whether it's the whole of the sermon as delivered. I would broadly agree with what it says in the quote; that people have a right and a responsibility to make up their own minds about this question. I think more could have been said about how to go about making up your mind, and about accepting responsiblity for the implications of your view, and of the expression of your view, for other people and for the community as a whole, and about the need for respect not only for the opinions, but for the experiences, of other people. (But for all I know more was said about those things.)

What are your thoughts on reconciling "respect" for other people, and with the command to love ones neighbor. "Respect" for many today seems to be defined as something akin to unquestioningly accepting and supporting the chosen action of another - a "whatever floats your boat, none of my business, good for you" approach. Or just keeping stum.

Love, of course, is best defined (by our great pal St Thomas) as willing the good of another. Thus, if we love our neighbour and see them stumbling into grave error and worse, is there not a divine obligation on us to offer warning and correction? This of course may upset the person.

The Reverend appeared to be trying to chart a benign middle course when preaching to his students. Basically saying "you don't have to believe the LGBT stuff, there are some debatable and questionable things there, there are other perspectives, make up your own mind". But that got him in trouble.

Peregrinus

Nicolas Scary Tomb wrote: »

What are your thoughts on reconciling "respect" for other people, and with the command to love ones neighbor.

My thoughts are, if you’re having difficulty reconciling these two things, you’re almost certainly going wrong somewhere. These two things should be completely congruent; if you love somebody, of course you’ll respect them. If you find it hard to respect them, that’s more likely to be because you don’t love them enough, rather than because your love for them prevents you from respecting them.

Nicolas Scary Tomb wrote: »

Love, of course, is best defined (by our great pal St Thomas) as willing the good of another. Thus, if we love our neighbour and see them stumbling into grave error and worse, is there not a divine obligation on us to offer warning and correction? This of course may upset the person.

Are we obliged to offer warning and correction if our relationship with them is such that this warning and correction is likely to be resisted, rejected, dismissed? If we really love them, before we start offering warning and correction we need to create the conditions in which that is going to do them some good. If we haven’t done that and it doesn’t occur to us to do it, then offering them warning and correction is likely to be more about more virtue signalling, feeling good about ourselves and validating our own position than it is about doing any good for or to them.

In this particular context, we have an adult - Dr Randall - and a bunch of adolescents. Adolescents are notoriously prone to groupthink, but the group they think with is their peers - other adolescents. Adult authority figures telling them what to think are likely to have a strongly negative effect. So adults offering them “correction and warning” are probably not going to do them a huge amount of good. Which, if you’re concerned to do good for them, is a problem.

This cuts both ways, of course. The backstory here involves a programme in the school which, we infer, encouraged students to adopt particular attitudes towards LGBT people. If this programme were delivered by adults telling the students, in effect, “this is how you have to think, this is what you must believe”, then it will have been exactly as effective as an adult standing up and reading out the Ten Commandments would be - i.e. not effective at all.

Of course, we don’t know how the programme was delivered. We do know what Dr Randall said, and as you point out it wasn’t a “this is how you have to think, this is what you must believe” message at all; it was an encouragement to independent thinking. (In fact, it occurs to me that part of the reason it got Dr Randall in trouble may have been precisely because it was well-judged to appeal to adolescents; it may have found traction with them; it may have been perceived not only as attempting to undermine the programme’s messaging but as effective in undermining it. But that's speculation on my part.)

Effective messaging to adolescents starts by treating them with respect as autonomous decision-makers. Adolescents have a pretty well-developed sense of when you are trying to manipulate them into making the decision that you think they ought to make, and they react to that pretty much as you would expect them to. That’s a real problem if, in fact, there is a particular decision you want them to make. You’re in the ironic position that the most effective way to equip them to make that decision is to be - genuinely - respectful and supportive of their right to make the contrary decision. Only if they trust you in that regard will they pay any attention to anything you have to say about the substance of the decision before them.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

My thoughts are, if you’re having difficulty reconciling these two things, you’re almost certainly going wrong somewhere. These two things should be completely congruent; if you love somebody, of course you’ll respect them. If you find it hard to respect them, that’s more likely to be because you don’t love them enough, rather than because your love for them prevents you from respecting them.

Are we obliged to offer warning and correction if our relationship with them is such that this warning and correction is likely to be resisted, rejected, dismissed? If we really love them, before we start offering warning and correction we need to create the conditions in which that is going to do them some good. If we haven’t done that and it doesn’t occur to us to do it, then offering them warning and correction is likely to be more about more virtue signalling, feeling good about ourselves and validating our own position than it is about doing any good for or to them.

In this particular context, we have an adult - Dr Randall - and a bunch of adolescents. Adolescents are notoriously prone to groupthink, but the group they think with is their peers - other adolescents. Adult authority figures telling them what to think are likely to have a strongly negative effect. So adults offering them “correction and warning” are probably not going to do them a huge amount of good. Which, if you’re concerned to do good for them, is a problem.

This cuts both ways, of course. The backstory here involves a programme in the school which, we infer, encouraged students to adopt particular attitudes towards LGBT people. If this programme were delivered by adults telling the students, in effect, “this is how you have to think, this is what you must believe”, then it will have been exactly as effective as an adult standing up and reading out the Ten Commandments would be - i.e. not effective at all.

Of course, we don’t know how the programme was delivered. We do know what Dr Randall said, and as you point out it wasn’t a “this is how you have to think, this is what you must believe” message at all; it was an encouragement to independent thinking. (In fact, it occurs to me that part of the reason it got Dr Randall in trouble may have been precisely because it was well-judged to appeal to adolescents; it may have found traction with them; it may have been perceived not only as attempting to undermine the programme’s messaging but as effective in undermining it. But that's speculation on my part.)

Effective messaging to adolescents starts by treating them with respect as autonomous decision-makers. Adolescents have a pretty well-developed sense of when you are trying to manipulate them into making the decision that you think they ought to make, and they react to that pretty much as you would expect them to. That’s a real problem if, in fact, there is a particular decision you want them to make. You’re in the ironic position that the most effective way to equip them to make that decision is to be - genuinely - respectful and supportive of their right to make the contrary decision. Only if they trust you in that regard will they pay any attention to anything you have to say about the substance of the decision before them.

That is interesting, but you missed the bit about the definition of respect. I find it perfectly possible to respect someone who I totally disagree with. I also believe that honesty is an essential component of respect. So if someone is telling me about their great idea to mortgage their house and gamble it all on Bitcoin, even if they are delighted about this idea, I think that love for my neighbour, and indeed my respect for them, demands that I say something (nicely) and not give them dishonest encouragement, or silence. I don't think not saying anything unless I am sure they would agree with me would be the right thing to do, or is at all respectful. This would especially be the case if I was their financial advisor and it was my duty to do so (as it is Dr Randall's spiritual duty to care for his students). Now I wouldn't call them an idiot, but I would gently try and encourage them to think about it more and consider x, y and z.

However, the "respect" that many demand is really a demand for support and encouragement. Disagreement is not disrespect. But there is now little room for disagreement which is what has greatly worried me about this case, because Dr Randall could not really have been more considered about it (good point about the effectiveness!) yet he was reported by the school to the UK's terrorist watchdog and suspended. I mean can you imagine that? I can't believe he did not leave at that stage and sue for constructive dismissal.

My general point was that I do not see how, in Dr Randall's position, he could have said nothing, or said something in support of the LGBT stuff in a circumstance where people had directly asked him to talk about it in the course of his duties.

So in a situation where disagreement is to be viewed as disrespect (well, more serious than that in this instance, if a suspension and the terrorist watchdog are warranted) then there is not much in the way of respect at all.

It is increasingly the case where when someone does not express support for something (never-mind voicing disagreement!), it is interpreted as an act of disrespect, or worse. Such as not "taking the knee" or wearing a badge of a certain flag, or not wearing a poppy in the UK. "PRIDE" month in the corporate world is fast taking on that characteristic, where corporate support for something is no longer enough, but staff are also pressured to demonstrate "respect" (i.e. support/agreement) in a way which is beyond their contracted duties.

Peregrinus

Couple of thoughts:

I’ve already said that we know enough about what went on here to be gravely concerned about Dr Randall’s treatment. But we also know that our knowledge is biassed, one-sided. We haven’t heard the school’s side of the story at all, and what we have heard is a definite and intentional attempt to lead us to a particular conclusion. So — very much in the spirit of Dr. Randall’s sermon, in fact — we have to take responsibility for making our own minds up about this, and not simply adopt the conclusion that Dr. Randall or his lawyers would like us to adopt. And that means, at a minimum, not coming to a final judgment until we have heard and considered other perspectives.

Secondly, the big gap in the story we are given is what the link, if any, is between Dr Randall’s being disciplined over the sermon, and being made redundant 18 months later. The two events are presented as though they are linked but, actually, not even Dr Randall’s lawyers make an explicit claim that they are linked. So that’s a big gap in our knowledge and, in the context, I think an important one.

On the issue of respect, yes, of course I agree; you should be able to respect people with whom you disagree. And respecting them includes respecting the fact that they disagree with you; you have to respect the view they hold, even if you don’t hold that view yourself. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with their view; just that you have to respect the fact that it is their view.

That’s important because if, on the one hand, you are telling people that they should make their own minds up and, on the other hand, you are assailing their ideas because they have made their minds up to things you don’t agree with and think they shouldn’t have, they are likely not to feel very respected. If I say to you that you should make up your own mind on issues of, say, gender identity, and you do that and the conclusion you come to is that you should accept your trans friends’ gender identities, and that you should express a trans identity yourself, then the logic of my position is that you should accept other people’s trans identities and express your own trans identity, because you should be making up your own mind and not simply adopting my ideas. If I don’t follow through and support you in acting on the ideas you have formed, you will begin to doubt my sincerity when I say that you should make up your own mind.

In this particular context this is a minefield because Dr Randall is a school chaplain and these are students; he is an adult and they are adolescents. So this isn’t an equally balanced relationship; there’s a power imbalance there which means that the students will be particularly sensitive - perhaps over-sensitive - to the possibility that their chaplain, while ostensibly encouraging them to make up their own minds, is actually trying to manipulate them to adopt his ideas, or at least that his respect for their autonomy is contingent on that autonomy being exercised in the way he would like.

And there’s another complicating dimension to this. If I’m a student with a trans friend, I might think - I very probably will think - that how I treat my trans friend affects my friend, and it affects me, but it doesn’t affect Dr Randall and he should totally butt out of the question. But this ignores the extent to which our communities - school, family, parish, neighbourhood, nation, whatever - are constituted by shared ideas and shared values. We are social, relational beings; everything we do has implications for everyone else — no man is an island, etc, etc. How I treat my trans friend has implications for more than just me and my friend.

We live in a culture that values individualism and individual autonomy, and of course adolescents (in any culture) are at a time of life when they particularly value individualism, because they are trying to create themselves as individuals. And this can mask the importance of collectivism and collaboration. The message that "you must make up your own mind" tends to eclipse another possibility, which is that we should collaboratively make our minds together (which is something that goes on a lot, even though we don’t often think of it like that).

Dr Randall is coming from a Christian background, obviously. The Christian tradition is very strong on shared belief, shared faith. There’s a tension within the tradition between top-down formation of shared belief (popes and bishops teach; the church listens/obeys) and bottom-up (the church discerns; popes and bishops articulate what it has discerned) but, however intense their disagreement, people on both sides of that tension are committed to a collective process for belief formation. Radical individualism is a different thing again. If I were to criticise Randall’s sermon, I’d suggest that it’s maybe too individualistic; it doesn’t do enough to suggest to students that they ought to form their beliefs by listening to others; by contributing to a conversation; by seeking shared positions and agreed values. But if Dr Randall did that then - assuming his sincerity - he'd have to commit himself to listening openly to his students and their trans friends, to learning from their experiences, to finding common ground. Because, again, “you have to listen to me but I don’t have to listen to you” is not really a pitch that will win many hearts and minds.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Couple of thoughts:

I’ve already said that we know enough about what went on here to be gravely concerned about Dr Randall’s treatment. But we also know that our knowledge is biassed, one-sided. We haven’t heard the school’s side of the story at all, and what we have heard is a definite and intentional attempt to lead us to a particular conclusion. So — very much in the spirit of Dr. Randall’s sermon, in fact — we have to take responsibility for making our own minds up about this, and not simply adopt the conclusion that Dr. Randall or his lawyers would like us to adopt. And that means, at a minimum, not coming to a final judgment until we have heard and considered other perspectives.

Well we have the text of the sermon, we know that he was suspended, and we know that the school reported him to Prevent. We also know that Prevent said it was unwarranted/no action required, and that the suspension was overturned (subject to conditions). There is enough here to go on in the context of the points I am making, before even considering the redundancy issue.

On the issue of respect, yes, of course I agree; you should be able to respect people with whom you disagree. And respecting them includes respecting the fact that they disagree with you; you have to respect the view they hold, even if you don’t hold that view yourself. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with their view; just that you have to respect the fact that it is their view.

I agree totally, but if the claim for "respect" is really a claim for support, or that expression of disagreement is portrayed as "disrespect" then we have a major issue.

That’s important because if, on the one hand, you are telling people that they should make their own minds up and, on the other hand, you are assailing their ideas because they have made their minds up to things you don’t agree with and think they shouldn’t have, they are likely not to feel very respected. If I say to you that you should make up your own mind on issues of, say, gender identity, and you do that and the conclusion you come to is that you should accept your trans friends’ gender identities, and that you should express a trans identity yourself, then the logic of my position is that you should accept other people’s trans identities and express your own trans identity, because you should be making up your own mind and not simply adopting my ideas. If I don’t follow through and support you in acting on the ideas you have formed, you will begin to doubt my sincerity when I say that you should make up your own mind.

I don't quite agree here. If I present you with a set of information upon which I have formed a conclusion and invite you to consider it and you come to a different conclusion, I should respect your right to hold your opinion, but I do not see why I should support the opinion or actions taken based on it (rather than your right to hold it). To do so would be most insincere. For instance, take your example of gender identity and reverse it. Should a trans activist who invites another to consider the idea of gender identity be expected to support a conclusion, and action based on it, that they entirely disagree with? I don't think that is fair at all. I see nothing disrespectful about thinking someone is wrong and not expressing support for actions based on their conclusion. I think it is perfectly respectful to support someones right to hold a different opinion and also to refrain from expressing encouragement or support for actions flowing from it. A lack of encouragement or support for actions flowing from something you disagree with is of course entirely different to actively preventing said actions. (although there may be scenarios where we should try to prevent actions - for instance if a friend, victim to a gross injustice, decided to do a Rambo rather than get over it or to the police or whatever we would need to do something. An extreme example but you get what I mean).

If someone asks me to sign a petition expressing support for something I do not agree with, it is perfectly respectful to decline to sign it. This is not showing anyone "disrespect". But the issue is, often times declining to do such a thing (or wear a poppy or whatever) is interpreted as an expression of disrespect. I have experience where this has made life very difficult for some Muslim employees who were asked to sign a petition and wear a badge for something they (and their religion) disagreed with. Their polite refusal to sign and wear the badge was interpreted as a sign of disrespect by the individual collecting the signatures and giving out the badges as it was an issue very personal to them. In previous times this minefield was nicely dodged both by a general rule banning politics and political expression from the workplace, along with a general consensus that you just don't do that type of thing in work as it was impolite. However, with younger people especially there is no such reluctance, and with unspecific, general corporate expression of support for such topics as the subject of the petition (as well as of course respect for peoples religious beliefs) it ended up being an absolute nightmare to deal with and the resolution was basically to plámás and smudge everything over. Now, this was a few years ago in a different company than I work in now and I was an onlooker, but as someone with responsibility for staff this is a nightmare scenario which I will hospital-pass to some poor HR member asap should it happen.

In this particular context this is a minefield because Dr Randall is a school chaplain and these are students; he is an adult and they are adolescents. So this isn’t an equally balanced relationship; there’s a power imbalance there which means that the students will be particularly sensitive - perhaps over-sensitive - to the possibility that their chaplain, while ostensibly encouraging them to make up their own minds, is actually trying to manipulate them to adopt his ideas, or at least that his respect for their autonomy is contingent on that autonomy being exercised in the way he would like.

But it was a Christian school, and students specifically asked him to talk about it. The LGBT people were there to talk about it from their perspective, I would not expect them to caveat everything. I don't see any issue with people "setting out their stalls" and people making up their own mind (they might arrive at a third understanding). Dr Randall, presumably because he sensed a traditional explanation of Christian understanding of these matters would not be allowed, or go down well, or be kind, tried to forge a path in between in a very reasonable way, which is why I found it so worrisome what happened (even the events before his redundancy). If he stood up and did an Ian Paisley fire and brimstone "save our school from sodomy*" special well then I would fully understand and expect him to be disciplined because that is just horrible. But he basically said you don't have to believe the LGBT stuff, hinted at some potential issues and said make up your own mind.

And there’s another complicating dimension to this. If I’m a student with a trans friend, I might think - I very probably will think - that how I treat my trans friend affects my friend, and it affects me, but it doesn’t affect Dr Randall and he should totally butt out of the question. But this ignores the extent to which our communities - school, family, parish, neighbourhood, nation, whatever - are constituted by shared ideas and shared values. We are social, relational beings; everything we do has implications for everyone else — no man is an island, etc, etc. How I treat my trans friend has implications for more than just me and my friend.

If you see a friend who you love doing something to believe is wrong and damaging for them, should you express support? There is a sense out there that friendship and respect requires unquestioning support and encouragement for whatever one decides. I would argue that this is the exact opposite way that a friend should behave because it is completely dishonest. Now, you don't be horrible about it and keep banging on about things. This ties in I suppose with your point on individualism, a sense that "if you are not with me you're against me" attitude to friendship, missing the point that true friends do not just tell you what you want to hear (and nor do true friends expect you to do exactly what they say). We have seen this attitude to friendship play out very poisonously on the internet where when someone, who can be a friend, says something "wrong" they are cancelled and you are expected to denounce them.



Dr Randall, I am sure, said what he did because he believed that what was preached by the LGBT organization was wrong, and harmful., and he was specifically asked about it by students.

Now, if you disagreed with Dr Randalls perspective would you not just say to your friend something like "don't mind that crap"? Can people not do this anymore?

We live in a culture that values individualism and individual autonomy, and of course adolescents (in any culture) are at a time of life when they particularly value individualism, because they are trying to create themselves as individuals. And this can mask the importance of collectivism and collaboration. The message that "you must make up your own mind" tends to eclipse another possibility, which is that we should collaboratively make our minds together (which is something that goes on a lot, even though we don’t often think of it like that).

Do they really? Its a bit like the joke about emo kids (are they still a thing?) that in order to express their individuality they all dressed the same and hung out in a group. My impression is that young people are desperate to fit in somewhere with people who have something in common, even if it is something as banal as liking the same music, a subculture is built around it because in a smaller group you can really "fit in" and be someone within that group in a way you could not in a massive crowd.

I think they are making collective decisions. There are very few standing out completely on their own, advocating x, y or z. Rather it is an expression of a sub group within society, this is particularly the case with the internet.

Dr Randall is coming from a Christian background, obviously. The Christian tradition is very strong on shared belief, shared faith. There’s a tension within the tradition between top-down formation of shared belief (popes and bishops teach; the church listens/obeys) and bottom-up (the church discerns; popes and bishops articulate what it has discerned) but, however intense their disagreement, people on both sides of that tension are committed to a collective process for belief formation. Radical individualism is a different thing again. If I were to criticise Randall’s sermon, I’d suggest that it’s maybe too individualistic; it doesn’t do enough to suggest to students that they ought to form their beliefs by listening to others; by contributing to a conversation; by seeking shared positions and agreed values. But if Dr Randall did that then - assuming his sincerity - he'd have to commit himself to listening openly to his students and their trans friends, to learning from their experiences, to finding common ground. Because, again, “you have to listen to me but I don’t have to listen to you” is not really a pitch that will win many hearts and minds.

I think Dr Randall was preaching a "make up your own mind" message in order to try and liberate students from what he viewed as a collective group think (i.e., LGBT) in a way he hoped would not step on too many peoples toes or upset people. It didn't work!

*Reference to his language used in his nasty campaign in the six counties

This is a perfect example of what I was alluding to above

A campaign encouraging Scottish NHS staff to sign a pledge and wear a badge supporting gay, lesbian and transgender people has been criticised after it emerged participation in the scheme will be monitored.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aec64082-cbb4-11eb-b575-81b2a16c3be4

homer911

The thought police are coming! Believe whatever you like as long as its our beliefs! And they say that religion is indoctrination..