Originally posted by lucifershammerBy 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.
Originally posted by Redmike
[b]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 m ...[text shortened]... holds strongly to a position different from the status quo must be ineligible for office.
[/b][/b]
I don't think I said this. I said I didn't know whether some aspects of Brown's book were accurate. Ideologically, I know exactly what Opus Dei is about. As to their more bizarre practises, I couldn't really care.
There are certainly plenty of mainstream catholics who have a relatively relaxed view on sex education. They might want their own kids opted out, but are happy to see other kids taught the normal agenda.
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?
I don't think I'm advocating that at all. Frrstly, I'm not advocating anyone be barred. What I'm saying is that if a person holds strong beliefs, they shouldn't be given a brief which would conflict with this. For example, you wouldn't appoint a pacifist as defence secretary. You wouldn't appoint an islamic fundamentalist or a strong pro-israel supporter as your foreign secretary. Etc.
As I don't see a conflict of interests, I think a committed socialist would make a good chancellor. The difference is s/he would be in power as part of a socialist government anyway.
I didn't say it will bring more balance; I only said that [b]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. [/b]
I quote what you said, I think it speaks for itself:
"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 Redmike
There are certainly plenty of mainstream catholics who have a relatively relaxed view on sex education. They might want their own kids opted out, but are happy to see other kids taught the normal agenda.
I think we may be mixing terms here. If by "mainstream Catholic", you mean the average Catholic on the street, then you're probably right. I was talking about "faithful Catholics".
I don't think I'm advocating that at all. Frrstly, I'm not advocating anyone be barred. What I'm saying is that if a person holds strong beliefs, they shouldn't be given a brief which would conflict with this. For example, you wouldn't appoint a pacifist as defence secretary. You wouldn't appoint an islamic fundamentalist or a strong pro-israel supporter as your foreign secretary. Etc.
Now, that depends on two factors:
(a) Whether the Govt actually endorses (wholly or partially) the person's strong beliefs (e.g. the socialist Chancellor of a socialist Govt)
or
(b) Whether the Govt believes the person is capable of keeping his/her personal preferences aside and execute his/her duties in line with Govt policy
One of these conditions must be violated for the person to be deemed unfit for a particular office.
I didn't say it will bring more balance; I only said that [b]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 quote what you said, I think it speaks for itself:
"Given the existing state of education policy, Ruth Kelly's personal faith is only likely to bring more balance to sex education, not less."[/b]
Actually, it does speak for itself - notice the word "likely" in there?
There are certainly plenty of mainstream catholics who have a relatively relaxed view on sex education. They might want their own kids opted out, but are happy to see other kids taught the normal agenda.
I think we may be mixing terms here. If by "mainstream Catholic", you mean the average Catholic on the street, then you're probably right. I was talking about "faithful Catholics".
I don't think I'm advocating that at all. Frrstly, I'm not advocating anyone be barred. What I'm saying is that if a person holds strong beliefs, they shouldn't be given a brief which would conflict with this. For example, you wouldn't appoint a pacifist as defence secretary. You wouldn't appoint an islamic fundamentalist or a strong pro-israel supporter as your foreign secretary. Etc.
Now, that depends on two factors:
(a) Whether the Govt actually endorses (wholly or partially) the person's strong beliefs (e.g. the socialist Chancellor of a socialist Govt)
or
(b) Whether the Govt believes the person is capable of keeping his/her personal preferences aside and execute his/her duties in line with Govt policy
One of these conditions must be violated for the person to be deemed unfit for a particular office.
I'd disagree on b). That might be a reason for not appointing a person, but a person is unfit if the people decide they can't keep their personal preferences aside and execute his/her duties in line with Govt policy. Just because Tony B thinks its ok dosesn't make it so.
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 quote what you said, I think it speaks for itself:
"Given the existing state of education policy, Ruth Kelly's personal faith is only likely to bring more balance to sex education, not less."
Actually, it does speak for itself - notice the word "likely" in there?
Yes, but I don't see anything about being within the bounds of cabinet. It is very simple - you said she was likely to change what happens about sex education (bring more balance, you'll agree, is a change?).
Originally posted by Redmike1. It's not just Tony who has to think she's right, the party has to think she's right for the job.
There are certainly plenty of mainstream catholics who have a relatively relaxed view on sex education. They might want their own kids opted out, but are happy to see other kids taught the normal agenda.
I think we may be mixing terms here. If by "mainstream Catholic", you mean the average Catholic on the street, then you're probably right. I was talki ...[text shortened]... o change what happens about sex education (bring more balance, you'll agree, is a change?).[/b]
2. If the people think she's not right, they should vote against the Govt at the next election.
That's how democracy works.
As to the Cabinet approval bit, you'll need to put together what I've said from two posts.
Originally posted by lucifershammerSorry, but it is just Tony who appoints the cabinet. Nothing to do with the party.
1. It's not just Tony who has to think she's right, the party has to think she's right for the job.
2. If the people think she's not right, they should vote against the Govt at the next election.
That's how democracy works.
As to the Cabinet approval bit, you'll need to put together what I've said from two posts.
I agree that people should vote against the government. Doesn't mean someone is fit for any job their given meantime.
Look - its a simple contradiction. You said:
a) Ministers have little control over what their department does;
b) Ruth Kelly would bring some balance to the sex eduction agenda.
Just doesn't add up.
Originally posted by Redmike
Sorry, but it is just Tony who appoints the cabinet. Nothing to do with the party.
In theory, yes. In practice, no.
I agree that people should vote against the government. Doesn't mean someone is fit for any job their given meantime.
You're saying no one should be assigned a position which might have a conflict of interest. Of course, there is only a conflict of interest if the Govt has a conflicting policy for the same portfolio. And even if there is, the person is not unfit if he/she can perform to Govt expectations. You can judge a person for their actions, not their beliefs.
Look - its a simple contradiction. You said:
a) Ministers have little control over what their department does;
b) Ruth Kelly would bring some balance to the sex eduction agenda.
Just doesn't add up.
I never said (a). I merely said that ministers do not have unilateral control; i.e. with no accountability to anyone else. There's no contradiction.
I don't think I'm advocating that at all. Frrstly, I'm not advocating anyone be barred. What I'm saying is that if a person holds strong beliefs, they shouldn't be given a brief which would conflict with this. For example, you wouldn't appoint a pacifist as defence secretary. You wouldn't appoint an islamic fundamentalist or a strong pro-israel supporter as your foreign secretary. Etc.You could surely find some conflict of interest with whatever cabinet post she was offered, so you are effectively asking for a ban. In a sense I think the direction of your attack is slightly misguided. If the British people had expressed our democratic desire to clamp down on abortion, stem cell research, IVF, sex education and provision of contraception, then there would be no conflict of interest at all in Ruth Kelly's appointment. But the fact is that the British people don't believe in these kind of things and didn't think they were voting for them when they elected the Labour party.
Rich.
Originally posted by lucifershammerSorry, but in theory and in practise, the PM appoints the cabinet.
Originally posted by Redmike
[b]Sorry, but it is just Tony who appoints the cabinet. Nothing to do with the party.
In theory, yes. In practice, no.
I agree that people should vote against the government. Doesn't mean someone is fit for any job their given meantime.
You're saying no one should be assigned a position which ...[text shortened]... have unilateral control; i.e. with no accountability to anyone else. There's no contradiction.[/b]
I'm saying that conflicts of interests should be anticipated, and the person shouldn't be appointed to a the relevant job. I think the person is unfit if their personal convictions are contrary to what their department is meant to be doing. They wouldn't be in politics if they didn't want to pursue their own individual agenda
You said
a) "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."
b) Ruth Kelly would bring some balance to the sex eduction agenda.
On the one hand tyou're saying she has to have cabinet approval to change policy, on the other she'll bring some balance. Maybe its just semantics, but that looks contradictory to me.
Originally posted by Redmike
I'm saying that conflicts of interests should be anticipated, and the person shouldn't be appointed to a the relevant job.
(Refer the post in which I state the factors of fitness/unfitness for a post) In the case of (a), there is no conflict of interest at all.
I think the person is unfit if their personal convictions are contrary to what their department is meant to be doing.
Clearly, in the case of (b) from the afore-mentioned post, the person is still not unfit for the office.
I am reminded of a scene from John Grisham's The Last Juror. A Christian woman is being interviewed for the jury at a murder trial. When asked if her personal beliefs against the death penalty means that she will be unwilling to vote for that penalty if the defendent is found guilty, her reply goes along the lines of, "I know perfectly well what the law is and I will follow it".
You said
a) "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."
b) Ruth Kelly would bring some balance to the sex eduction agenda.
On the one hand tyou're saying she has to have cabinet approval to change policy, on the other she'll bring some balance. Maybe its just semantics, but that looks contradictory to me.
You're fishing for a contradiction here.
First, I didn't say she "would" bring [more] balance to the sex education agenda; I said she's only likely to bring more balance, not less. In other words, the likelihood/probability of her bringing more balance is higher than that of her bringing less balance. I have not said anything about the likelihood of her maintaining status quo.
Second, let's assume for a moment that she does bring more balance. There is only a contradiction if the direction of more balance is in disagreement with Cabinet policy. Do you have any reason to believe that the Cabinet disagrees with that direction?
Originally posted by lucifershammerI think we'll need to agree to differ on the notion of whether someone is fit for a particular office.
Originally posted by Redmike
[b]I'm saying that conflicts of interests should be anticipated, and the person shouldn't be appointed to a the relevant job.
(Refer the post in which I state the factors of fitness/unfitness for a post) In the case of (a), there is no conflict of interest at all.
I think the person is unfit if thei ...[text shortened]... abinet policy. Do you have any reason to believe that the Cabinet disagrees with that direction?
In terms of the contradiction, it seems simple enough. If she brings more 'balance', then she's changing things in the direction of her personal convictins.
Let's say that the cabinet's position is that every pupil should get free apple pie every day. 100% in favour of that policy. A new member of the cabinet is appointed, who happens to oppose free apple pie, but supports the idea of free apples for every pupil. If the cabinet then adopts a balanced policy of giving people the choice between free apple pie or free apples, then the new cabinet member has brought some balance. They've moved the policy in line with their personal agenda.
If there is no balance before, and a new appointment brings balance, then this is a change.
If this is only a likeliehood, then I can settle for that.
She's likely to move the agenda (ie likely to bring more balance, to use your term) in the direction of her agenda. That, in my opinion, makes her unfit for the office.
Originally posted by RedmikeAlright, let's "agree to disagree" on the criteria for fitness/unfitness for office.
I think we'll need to agree to differ on the notion of whether someone is fit for a particular office.
In terms of the contradiction, it seems simple enough. If she brings more 'balance', then she's changing things in the direction of her personal convictins.
Let's say that the cabinet's position is that every pupil should get free apple pie every ...[text shortened]... your term) in the direction of her agenda. That, in my opinion, makes her unfit for the office.
As to your apple/pie analogy, I still think you're fishing for a contradiction because the Cabinet changed its policy, to which the new minister now adheres. Yes, the new minister played a critical role in the changing of that policy, but that is true of any Cabinet change of policy. It's extremely unlikely you'll see a Cabinet where every single member changes his/her mind about a particular policy simultaneously. What you're forgetting is that the new member is as much a part of the Cabinet (which is, after all, a committee of sorts) as anyone else. If you think there is a contradiction, then every single time a new cabinet member proposes a change in Cabinet policy, there is a contradiction.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, but in this case, the policy difference is such that any move towards the new policy is a 'bad thing', in the opinion of all but the conservative elements in society (mainly the catholic church).
Alright, let's "agree to disagree" on the criteria for fitness/unfitness for office.
As to your apple/pie analogy, I still think you're fishing for a contradiction because the Cabinet changed its policy, to which the new minister now adheres. Yes, the new minister played a critical role in the changing of that policy, but that is true of ...[text shortened]... single time a new cabinet member proposes a change in Cabinet policy, there is a contradiction.
So, the bringing of balance is undesirable.
If it was just apple pies or apples, it wouldn't matter.
The differences between Ruth Kelly's religious convictions and the cabinet policy on what her department should be doing are vast.
Originally posted by Redmike
Yes, but in this case, the policy difference is such that any move towards the new policy is a 'bad thing', in the opinion of all but the conservative elements in society (mainly the catholic church).
Now we're talking about opinions here, not objective criteria for fitness or contradiction.
So, the bringing of balance is undesirable.
How can "balance" be undesirable, especially when one of the universally recognised mandates for education is that it be balanced?
Let's switch the shoe to the other foot. There might be schools in conservative America that teach that evolution is just a theory, or even ones that do not teach evolution at all. A new education head there wants to bring more balance by including evolution in the curriculum. What do you say?
If it was just apple pies or apples, it wouldn't matter.
The differences between Ruth Kelly's religious convictions and the cabinet policy on what her department should be doing are vast.
If that is the case, then you should have nothing to worry about - Tony / the Cabinet will pull the plug on her if she pursues a policy contradictory to Cabinet policy.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIts not about opinions - its about being strongly opposed, on religious grounds, to a set policy which is not only government policy but also generally accepted by the majority of the population. She has views on these matters which can only be described as extreme.
Originally posted by Redmike
[b]Yes, but in this case, the policy difference is such that any move towards the new policy is a 'bad thing', in the opinion of all but the conservative elements in society (mainly the catholic church).
Now we're talking about opinions here, not objective criteria for fitness or contradiction.
So, ...[text shortened]... the Cabinet will pull the plug on her if she pursues a policy contradictory to Cabinet policy.
In some things, there's no need for balance. In matters of health, for example, there is generally a way to do things which is the best way. Such methods will be generally accepted, though some religious groups will have problems with it.
Take blood transfussions for example. These are generally accepted as a suitable medical method in certain circumstances. Some religious groups object, but they're generally available. We don't want/need a balanced view of whether transfussions are right or not. But do you think a Jehovah's Witness would be a good person to run the blood transfusion service?
There are plenty of issues on which balance is undesirable.
Re the creationism/evolution debate. If the local policy is to teach creationism, then I don't imagine they'd have got the job of education head in the 1st place. In this case, though, there are 2 competing arguements, so balance is appropriate and should be encouraged.
Originally posted by RedmikeOK, let's get down to specifics here - exactly which aspects of the [sex] education policy do you think/fear she is going to alter and how?
Its not about opinions - its about being strongly opposed, on religious grounds, to a set policy which is not only government policy but also generally accepted by the majority of the population. She has views on these matters which can only be described as extreme.
In some things, there's no need for balance. In matters of health, for example, there i ...[text shortened]... hough, there are 2 competing arguements, so balance is appropriate and should be encouraged.