Opus Dei came to prominence with Dan Brown's book the Da Vinci Code. They're basically a fundamentalist wing of the catholic church (if that's not a contradiction - is there a non-fundamentalist wing??).
Anyway, would you trust these people with your child's education? It seems that the new education secretary - the person responsible for education in England and Wales is a member of Opus Dei, and doesn't seem to think there's a conflict of interests.
Originally posted by RedmikeYou read that crap ? I thought you valued the truth ...
Opus Dei came to prominence with Dan Brown's book the Da Vinci Code. They're basically a fundamentalist wing of the catholic church (if that's not a contradiction - is there a non-fundamentalist wing??).
Anyway, would you trust these pe ...[text shortened]... Dei, and doesn't seem to think there's a conflict of interests.
The "Da Vinci Code" is a anti-Roman-Catholic propaganda product.
Do you believe that crap, which is fiction according to the author ?
"The Da Vinci Code" - the hoax behind the code.
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/davinci.htm
Did Constantine Invent the Divinity of Jesus?
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/144/story_14496_1.html
For somebody who has just a splinter of knowledge about how the Holy Trinity appears in the New ànd even in the Old Testament, this claim about Constantine inventing the Divinity of Jezus is a big laugh.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm not saying that everything in Brown's book is accurate - I don't know one way or the other, and I'm not too bothered - like you say, it's fiction.
You read that crap ? I thought you valued the truth ...
The "Da Vinci Code" is a anti-Roman-Catholic propaganda product.
Do you believe that crap, which is fiction according to the author ?
"The Da Vinci Code" - the hoax behind the code.
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/davinci.htm
Opus Dei exists, and does stand for a return to 'traditional' catholicism, and I don't think anyone who supports that sort of view should be in charge of anyone's education. 'Mainstream' catholicism struggles enough with the modern educational agenda.
Originally posted by Redmikehttp://www.opusdei.org/art.php?w=32&p=7017
Opus Dei came to prominence with Dan Brown's book the Da Vinci Code. They're basically a fundamentalist wing of the catholic church (if that's not a contradiction - is there a non-fundamentalist wing??).
Anyway, would you trust these people with your child's education? It seems that the new education secretary - the person responsible for education in E ...[text shortened]... and Wales is a member of Opus Dei, and doesn't seem to think there's a conflict of interests.
I'm not saying you have to believe it. But you should at least have read it.
Originally posted by Redmike
I'm not saying that everything in Brown's book is accurate - I don't know one way or the other, and I'm not too bothered - like you say, it's fiction.
Opus Dei exists, and does stand for a return to 'traditional' catholicism, and I don't think anyone who supports that sort of view should be in charge of anyone's education. 'Mainstream' catholicism struggles enough with the modern educational agenda.
A lot of people do not know what the real teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are and why they are the way they are.
These teachings go deeper than the usual one-liners we are served in the modern media. You really have to make an effort to understand how things relate to eachother. Most people just don't care about a truth that goes beyond how do I get a job or how much money I need for my next holiday.
The most important misunderstanding about the Churche's teachings is that people think they are designed to oppress them. On the contrary, the teachings are aimed at the happiness, the real lasting happiness, of people.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI didn't say that I hadn't read the book - I have. I'd heard of Opus Dei well before this book, having ben unfortunate enough to have a catholic education.
http://www.opusdei.org/art.php?w=32&p=7017
I'm not saying you have to believe it. But you should at least have read it.
I'm really not bothered about whether members of Opus Dei whip themselves or any of the other outlandish aspects of Brown's book.
The fact is they are extremely reactionary organisation, and I wouldn't want anyone with links to this organisation running any part of any government.
Originally posted by ivanhoeAs I've said, I'm well aware of the church's teachings. My point is that even the mainstream church has 'diificulties' with many aspects of the modern education agenda. For someone with more fundamentalist views, there has to be a conflict of interests.
A lot of people do not know what the real teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are and why they are the way they are.
These teachings go deeper than the usual one-liners we are served in the modern media. You really have to make an effort to understand how things relate to eachother. Most people just don't care about a truth that goes beyond how do I ...[text shortened]... contrary, the teachings are aimed at the happiness, the real lasting happiness, of people.
Originally posted by RedmikeDo you think devout Muslims should be kept out of Government as well?
I didn't say that I hadn't read the book - I have. I'd heard of Opus Dei well before this book, having ben unfortunate enough to have a catholic education.
I'm really not bothered about whether members of Opus Dei whip themselves or any of the other outlandish aspects of Brown's book.
The fact is they are extremely reactionary organisation, and I wouldn't want anyone with links to this organisation running any part of any government.
Originally posted by RedmikeWhy should there be?
Anyway, would you trust these people with your child's education? It seems that the new education secretary - the person responsible for education in England and Wales is a member of Opus Dei, and doesn't seem to think there's a conflict of interests.
All you've told us so far is:
1. The Opus Dei is a "fundamentalist" organisation that preaches a return to traditional Catholicism.
Questions:
(a) What do you mean by "fundamentalist"?
(b) What do you mean by traditional Catholicism?
2. The Education Secretary is a member of the Opus Dei and does not think there's a conflict of interest.
Questions:
(a) Why should there be?
(b) What evidence do you have of the current Education Secretary misusing Government machinery to pursue Opus Dei interests?
(c) Later, you state that no member of the Opus Dei should be a part of the Government. Is this a general injunction against people of strong beliefs being part of the Government? Or is it against Opus Dei in particular.
3. Mainstream Catholicism has problems with the modern educational agenda.
Questions:
(a) What are the components of the "modern educational agenda" that mainstream Catholicism has problems with?
(b) What is the purpose of an educational agenda in the first place?
(c) Do you believe that citizens must not be critical of the state educational agenda?
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe catholic church has problems with, amongst other things, the sex education agenda in modern schools.
Please elaborate.
In terms of other faiths, I'd say that anyone who had such a fundamentalist faith would have a conflict of interests, and shouldn't be able to carry out certain government posts. If their faith makes them vehemently opposed to something their expected to implement, they can't do the job properly. Regardless of which particular imaginary friend they believe in.
Its not about degrees of devoutness - its about degrees of fundamentalism.
How can someone so ideologically opposed to, say, contraception possibly do a good job as education secretary (or health or international aid for that matter)?
Equally, a pacifist wouldn't make a very good defence secretary.
Edit: Your 3rd post appeared while I typed this reply, but I think I've covered the points - let me know if you disagree.
Originally posted by RedmikeLet's start with some basics:
The catholic church has problems with, amongst other things, the sex education agenda in modern schools.
In terms of other faiths, I'd say that anyone who had such a fundamentalist faith would have a conflict of interests, and shouldn't be able to carry out certain government posts. If their faith makes them vehemently opposed to something their expected ...[text shortened]... ed while I typed this reply, but I think I've covered the points - let me know if you disagree.
1. Every citizen or group of citizens has the right to critically evaluate any aspect of Government policy (not just education) - this is part of the process of democracy.
Hence, the Catholic Church has the right to criticise those aspects of Govt policy that run contrary to human dignity and justice - such as those pertaining to euthanasia, abortion, sexual education etc.
2. The purpose of a Govt is not just to maintain policy, but also to shape it.
3. In a Govt with a Cabinet system (as in the UK), all members are collectively responsible for the policies of the Govt.
4. The Prime Minister and the ruling party have the right to allocate and re-assign portfolios to various elected members of the party.
Hence, if the Education Secretary steps out of line with the rest of Govt, she will be moved elsewhere. Also, if she refuses to implement Govt policy on certain matters, she can be removed from her post.
5. In a democracy, the Govt represents the majority aspirations of the population.
Hence, if the people feel that a particular Govt does not represent their aspirations, they can vote them out of power at the next election.
6. The role of the Education Secretary is not just to prescribe syllabi, but also administer the management of schools, funding, IT investment etc.
Now, onto specifics:
The Church "problem" with current education policy wrt sexual education focuses on three aspects:
1. The implicit "glorification" of sex and the emphasis on the "pleasure" aspect of sex with lack of emphasis on the loving, commitment aspects.
In other words, we're selling sex to teenagers.
2. The over-emphasis on the ability of contraceptives and condoms to prevent pregnancy and STD (including AIDS) without referring to limitations or reliability; and also the under- or non-emphasis of abstinence and fidelity.
3. The non-existence of education regarding the side- and after-effects of abortion.
Given the existing state of education policy, Ruth Kelly's personal faith is only likely to bring more balance to sex education, not less.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI think I've a reasonable understanding of how the political system in the UK works, but thanks for your input.
Let's start with some basics:
1. Every citizen or group of citizens has the right to critically evaluate any aspect of Government policy (not just education) - this is part of the process of democracy.
Hence, the Catholic Church has the right to criticise those aspects of Govt policy that run contrary to human dignity and justice - such as thos ...[text shortened]... y, Ruth Kelly's personal faith is only likely to bring more balance to sex education, not less.
If Ruth Kelly's views are anything like those of Opus Dei, then there must be a conflict of interests. Yes, there's collective responsibility, but it would be a nonsense to suggest that a government minister has no control over the direction and implementation of the collective policy in their department. Of course they do - otherwise we'd just let the unelected civil servants do it.
You seem to accept this point later on when you claim her faith will 'bring more balance to sex education'.
I don't really want to get into the whole debate about the church and sex education etc - it'll just cloud the point I'm making about conflict of interests. Suffice to say that I don't share your view.
Originally posted by Redmike
If Ruth Kelly's views are anything like those of Opus Dei, then there must be a conflict of interests.
By your own admission, you do not seem to know much about the Opus Dei (except that it's controversial and advocates a return to "traditional Catholicism" ). Given this, I am surprised how you can make such a statement.
The beliefs of the Opus Dei are the same as that of the Catholic Church at large. The "traditionalism" is only in its practices. Any faithful Catholic would have exactly the same set of beliefs, especially about defined doctrines around contraception, intercourse and abortion. (Catholics can validly differ on their views about smoking, for instance).
In other words, you seem to be advocating that all faithful Catholics be barred from public office.
May I ask if a committed socialist should be barred from being Chancellor of the Exchequer as well? Or is your view limited only to religion?
Yes, there's collective responsibility, but it would be a nonsense to suggest that a government minister has no control over the direction and implementation of the collective policy in their department.
Of course I'm not arguing the minister does not have control; but the minister does not have unilateral control of his/her department - so no minister can drive his/her department's policy independent of the Govt / Cabinet policy as a whole.
You seem to accept this point later on when you claim her faith will 'bring more balance to sex education'.
I didn't say it will bring more balance; I only said that if her personal faith influences department policy, it would be in the direction of more balance. Further (from what I've written above) her personal faith can only influence department policy if the rest of the Cabinet is in agreement with it.
I don't really want to get into the whole debate about the church and sex education etc - it'll just cloud the point I'm making about conflict of interests. Suffice to say that I don't share your view.
While I see your concern, the process of democracy has enough safe-checks to ensure that no long term policy change can be effected without the approval of the people. You're free not to share my view, but I must point out that, according to your logic, no person who holds strong views on Government policy should be allowed to take public office. Hence, neither a socialist nor a supporter of the free market can hold the position of Chancellor. Neither a pro-lifer nor an abortionist can head the department of Health. In other words, any person who holds strongly to a position different from the status quo must be ineligible for office.
[/b]
