Enoch Burke turns up to school again despite sacking - read OP before posting

He has tried on a general level, although I don't think he's got as far as citing chapter or verse to back up his claim, as the judge continues to remind him that this is completely irrelevant to the injunction and his non-compliance of it.

(https://evoke.ie/2022/09/08/news/teacher-enoch-burke-transgenderism)

The only principle at stake here is how a grown adult should behave in public. You seem happy to excuse his behaviour, others don't.

His beliefs are his own. Nobody can do anything about that. Once he starts to behave in a particular way it becomes an issue.

To use a different example: a person can have a belief (based on whatever influence) that homosexuality should be punishable by death. They won't get in trouble for simply believing that (nobody would even know).

It's if and when they start expressing that belief around their place of work, that it's going to be a problem. "It's my belief" isn't going to be any kind of defence.

I don't really think it's that complicated.

I dont think he is going to get on to the late late show at this point. And I dont think there is a book deal for him in going to jail again, but i suspect they might be his goals.

He is unemployable now for sure, so if he gets fired he is done.

I saw that NUIG story looked him up and look what i got back. They do llok like the love to be victims. He must love jail.

No, that was at the request of the child and their parents.

Burke made a fool of himself at a public event in front of the entire school community and it was quite obvious, unfortunately, what child he wished to single out. That's on Burke. If he'd have just STFU there would have been no problem, the child was not one of his pupils.

Misinformation? Right, yeah. More disingenuous dissembling on your part, more like.

So it was the parents who contacted Burke to inform him that their child was to be referred to as “they”?

Are you sure about that?

Again, from the information publicly available on this, Burke objected to being told to refer to the child in the way requested, rather than protesting about the child themselves. And just in case you or anyone, wrongly, says that I support his views, I don’t, but you don’t get to make up facts.

95% of primary schools in Ireland do exactly that - and require that their staff, believers or not, instruct their pupils that Christianity is factually true.

What a silly post

You're not the first poster to suggest that. So he gets a fine. Then he doesn't pay the fine. Then he's up in court again. Then what, jail? So how does that get us anywhere we're not already at?

It is important to recognize that individuals should not be discriminated against or treated unfairly because of their beliefs, even if those beliefs are different from our own or if we disagree with them. Everyone has the right to hold their own beliefs and should be treated with respect and dignity. At the same time, it is important to consider the needs and rights of all parties involved and to find a solution that is fair and reasonable. Accommodations may be necessary in certain situations in order to allow individuals to fully participate in their job or in society, while still respecting the rights of others. It is important to approach these situations with empathy and to consider the unique circumstances and needs of all individuals involved.

If you go back and read the HD’s post, the poster said Burke “singled out” the child for bullying, he didn’t. Then HD said it was the parents and the child who singled out the child by making the request, but I haven’t seen any report of the parent/child contacting Burke directly. The school on the other hand, did single out the child when all staff were contacted to inform them of how the child wished to be addressed.

This again is more misinformation about Burke, he didn’t single out the child for special treatment, he objected to the schools policy in relation to transgenderism on religious grounds. If the school had sent a circular to staff relating to the policy, and without their being a particular child at the centre of the instruction, his objection would most likely be exactly the same as it goes against his religion, not against a particular individual.

I do agree that he behaved very badly, and should have used the correct forum to dispute the allegations. But come on, let’s stop making **** up.

I doubt they make him much money, but he does have two books self published already: "The Hedonism and Homosexuality of John Piper and Sam Allberry: The Truth of Scripture" and "The Pied Piper: Is John Piper and New Calvinism Destroying the Church?". Both seem to be ragging on Evangelical preacher John Piper, who is a proponent of what is known as "Christian Hedonism" - that's not nearly as exciting as it sounds. It's basically the position that there's nothing wrong with enjoying believing in God - rather than merely seeing it as a duty that pleasure plays no part in. Burke seems to like his belief pleasure free. It should be noted that John Piper isn't gay and doesn't seem to have anything nice to say about homosexuality, so the title of the first book is a bit odd.

Sam Allberry is an Evangelical pastor that identifies as having "same-sex attraction" and claims that this in itself does not prevent one from being a good Christian (once one doesn't act upon it, of course!). This is clearly far too liberal for the bauld Burke to handle, so he wrote a buke.

Edit: and I meant to say that the harassment and disruption they engaged in at Sally Maaz's inquest is absolutely despicable, and that should have been a bigger story than this ridiculous stunt Burke is engaged in now.

A Christian cannot do something that they would view as going against God, as they believe this would be sinful.

This raises the question of whether there is a place for Christians who refuse to compromise their beliefs in the modern day workplace.

Non-Christians may believe that the workplace should come before personal beliefs, but for a Christian, nothing can come before their relationship with Christ.

This raises the question of whether Christians who are unable to compromise on their beliefs should be allowed to work.