ATS: Education Secretary Stands by Link to Opus Dei

The British Education Secretary has come under fire for her association with the secretive Catholic organization Opus Dei. Ruth Kelly, who is known to have attended Opus Dei meetings but hasn't revealed whether or not she's an actual member, maintains that her faith is a private matter that has no bearing on her official duties. Concerns have been voiced that her beliefs could affect her judgment, particularly regarding sex education in schools, although Ms Kelly denies this.



This story has resonance with the many ATS threads regarding alleged Masonic influence on public life, and to calls for public officials to declare their affiliations with these types of groups.

I don't know enough about Opus Dei to form an opinion regarding Ms Kelly, but surely we can’t exclude everyone who has personal religious beliefs from holding public office. Ms Kelly appears well qualified for her new post, and perhaps judgment would be better withheld until she’s had a chance to prove her abilities.

Does anyone think that being associated with Opus Dei is "worse" in this respect than an association with any other religious group or sect, and/or does this have something to do with the NWO?

Related News Links:
www.opusdei.org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Opus Dei and Catholic fundamentalism

[edit on 20-1-2005 by TrickmastertricK]

While I don't persoanlly agree with opus dei's interpertaton of christianinty I see nothing wrong with appointing a minister who is a member. however in europe religon is a dirty word unless you are a muslim so who knows?

The only problem i can see is if her personal beliefs conflict with the education of Britains students...

Why is it people in europe seem to think that a christian can not seperate thier religous beliefs from thier job duties?
It seems as if just because you have a persoanl belief they seem to think you will automatically impose it upon your profesion.
Like that italian minister whpo though homosexuality is immoral, Just because thats his belief doesn't mean he was going to use his position to persecute gays.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Why is it people in europe seem to think that a christian can not seperate thier religous beliefs from thier job duties?
It seems as if just because you have a persoanl belief they seem to think you will automatically impose it upon your profesion.
Like that italian minister whpo though homosexuality is immoral, Just because thats his belief doesn't mean he was going to use his position to persecute gays.

Because Bush and lots of members on here have proved they cannot?

Really Kriz?
Show me an instance of where Bush has violated the constitution due to his religous beliefs.
Show me one instance.

Have you never listened to the man speak? He is driven in his motives by his faith in god. He has said so many times himself.

I didn't say he wasn't driven by his faith, However being motivated by faith is not against the law. Can you show an example of his faith causing him to break the law?
Can you show an example of his faith causing him to do something in opposition to the constitution?

Originally posted by mwm1331
Why is it people in europe seem to think that a christian can not seperate thier religous beliefs from thier job duties?
It seems as if just because you have a persoanl belief they seem to think you will automatically impose it upon your profesion.
Like that italian minister whpo though homosexuality is immoral, Just because thats his belief doesn't mean he was going to use his position to persecute gays.

It is NOT just people in Europe that realize this. Christianity does not allow for one to abandon or set aside their christian morals simply because their employment demands them of it. In this case, as the education minister, he has a very good oppertunity to use his views as he does his job. This could seriously affect decisions that may or may not have been made differently by another person. Specifically on the topic of sex education. Example: The proper "Christian" standpoint is abstenance (sorry for spelling), period. If that education minister doesn't take a hard stance on that issue, and allows for birth control methods to be taught, then he has most definately abandoned his faith's requirements. Now dont get me wrong, I am not Christian and don't personally have this stance, but I am illustrating a point. People who ARE christian DO have this stance, at least the hard core ones.

So what your saying Logan then is that christians aren't either smart enough to realise that thier religous views and official government positions may not be compatible and that in thier role as a government minister they are required to enforce policy regardless of whther they persoanlly agrre with it or professional enough to leave thier personal beliefs at home?

If thats the case then why did John Kerry a catholic, support abortion?

I think that Kerry attempted as best he could to stay out of that mudpit of a topic. I haven't put a lot of thought into this, so please don't immediately slam me into the wall (I can tell this topic is already hot to begin with).

I don't think it's quite as black & white as it seems.
I believe that a person's religious belief system does not necessarily have to conflict with holding public office that requires them to not step on the toes of those who do not necessarily believe in the same thing that they do, because for me personally...my beliefs do not require me to force my faith on others. My personal belief comes down to choice, and leaving that choice to others. That's why it's called pro-choice by myself and those who are like-minded, rather than pro-life. But, of course, it all comes down to the individual. I'm not in public office, but if I were, that is the approach that I would take as far as mixing my religion with my hypothetical holding of any office. I think that's what being a "LIBERAL" is all about it. (Never could figure out why that's used as a bad word...that's what America is supposed to be all about).

I'm not entirely sure that Bush is sincere in his faith.

Isn't it possible that it's a front? Perhaps he was advised by Daddy to assume it in order to seal his victory...even all that money might not have been enough to get an (expletive deleted) like him elected.

imho, of course.

Why is it that everyone is allowed to live and act on their beliefs but christians? We all live and work and make decisions according to what we believe, or what we think is right or wrong. And if we're all so "pro-choice", why is it that "choice" is only for people who believe and act the way you do? Christians are expected to swallow all that " secular humanists", and or "liberals" have to say and do without question - why can't christians be afforded the same rights and respect. Is "pro-choice" only for the people who belive and act the way you do ? Now that seems a bit unfair and downright wrong.

Originally posted by valancy
Why is it that everyone is allowed to live and act on their beliefs but christians? We all live and work and make decisions according to what we believe, or what we think is right or wrong. And if we're all so "pro-choice", why is it that "choice" is only for people who believe and act the way you do? Christians are expected to swallow all that " secular humanists", and or "liberals" have to say and do without question - why can't christians be afforded the same rights and respect. Is "pro-choice" only for the people who belive and act the way you do ? Now that seems a bit unfair and downright wrong.

This has been covered thoroughly in at least one other thread.

Who says christians aren't allowed to live & act on their beliefs? Perhaps a few nutcases, but by & large christians are and do.

There is no conspiracy!!

Why is it that everyone is allowed to live and act on their beliefs but christians? We all live and work and make decisions according to what we believe, or what we think is right or wrong. And if we're all so "pro-choice", why is it that "choice" is only for people who believe and act the way you do? Christians are expected to swallow all that " secular humanists", and or "liberals" have to say and do without question - why can't christians be afforded the same rights and respect. Is "pro-choice" only for the people who belive and act the way you do ? Now that seems a bit unfair and downright wrong.

I promise you that I'm not putting anyone specifically into this category (However, if you do fall into this category, you'll know who you are )

I have read, and heard of many instances where anti-abortion(choice) zealots have attempted any means they could to prevent an abortion from taking place. From bombings, to kidnappings, to murder. Yet, rarely does one hear of a pro-choice nut forcing someone to have an abortion...?

(I am through with the quote above, and further statements are absolutely not directed at you, Valancy)

The Christians who believe that abortion is never to be an option are entirely valid in that belief. I can understand where you are coming from. But never let it be twisted that because abortions are taking place, it is those pro-life Christians that are being persecuted. It...it just doesn't make sense. "My faith leads me to believe that people should put the butter on their bread face-down. But when they put their butter on top, I'm being persecuted...". There is no persecution going on there. (And don't even think about twisting my words into sounding as though I've just compared abortion to putting butter on a peice of bread. These statements are regarding the principle of simply allowing one group to believe differently than others.)