2017 UK General Election - 8th June

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

Farron has stood down as leader of his party. He hasn't resigned as an MP, and he hasn't disclaimed any interest in ministerial office. There's no suggestion that he thinks his Christian faith is any kind of impediment to his filling those offices.

My reading of his statement is that the real problem was prejudicial assumptions about him as a Christian, leading to questions about his religious beliefs that were a distraction from the campaign the party was trying to run. That was disadvantageous to the party of which he was leader. This in turn tempted him to downplay or deny his Christian faith, which is not something he was happy about in himself.

The takeaway for Farron is not that Christians can't be politicians of integrity. It;s that we don't yet live in a liberal, tolerant society where people are willint to accept that Christians can be politicians of integrity.

No, he clearly said he couldn't compromise his beliefs.

At the start of this election, I found myself under scrutiny again – asked about matters to do with my faith. I felt guilty that this focus was distracting attention from our campaign, obscuring our message.

Journalists have every right to ask what they see fit. The consequences of the focus on my faith is that I have found myself torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader.

A better, wiser person than me may have been able to deal with this more successfully, to have remained faithful to Christ while leading a political party in the current environment.

To be a political leader – especially of a progressive, liberal party in 2017 – and to live as a committed Christian, to hold faithfully to the Bible’s teaching, has felt impossible for me.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, he clearly said he couldn't compromise his beliefs.

Yes, but he felt pressure to do so because his profession of his beliefs was diasdvantageous to his party. Hence, he stood down as party leader.

Basically, the problem is this:

1. Tim Farron thinks (or may think) that gay sex is a sin.

2. This upsets people who think it's a sin to think that gay sex is a sin.

3. This upsets other people, who think it's a sin to think it's a sin to think that gay sex is a sin.

4. This upsets Tim Farron, because it distracts attention from Brexit, which he thinks is a sin.

What could be clearer?

FrancieBrady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

Why? Providing that people are willing to acknowledge the rights of others who disagree?

It just seems that society is illiberal if the bigoted assumption that one can't be a Christian (or a Muslim) and lead a political party. It's no better than suggesting that one can't be gay and lead a political party.

This stuff needs to be called out for what it is.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

He resigned himself - and people are fully entitled to ask what a potential candidate/or party leader would do in a given scenario.

Perhaps it could have benefited from more manners, but there was nothing wrong in wanting to know.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but he felt pressure to do so because his profession of his beliefs was diasdvantageous to his party. Hence, he stood down as party leader.

Basically, the problem is this:

1. Tim Farron thinks (or may think) that gay sex is a sin.

2. This upsets people who think it's a sin to think that gay sex is a sin.

3. This upsets other people, who think it's a sin to think it's a sin to think that gay sex is a sin.

4. This upsets Tim Farron, because it distracts attention from Brexit, which he thinks is a sin.

What could be clearer?

But it shouldn't be a problem at all in a secular society or government.
He couldn't answer - made the decision himself to resign rather than govern in a secular way.

solodeogloria

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He resigned himself - and people are fully entitled to ask what a potential candidate/or party leader would do in a given scenario.

Perhaps it could have benefited from more manners, but there was nothing wrong in wanting to know.

Good morning,

It wasn't about what he would do. He has no intention of passing legislation to force people to be Christian. Last time I checked the Liberal Democrats were also in favour of disestablishing the Church of England. That's a policy I'm leaning towards favouring as a member of that church.

It was about what he believes personally not about what he thinks should be the law of the land. It shouldn't be illegal to disagree with Christians in the same way that it shouldn't be illegal for a Christian to disagree with others.

Sorry - but it's still the result of intolerance. He shouldn't have been made to feel this way about his beliefs in a truly liberal society. Isabel Hardman put it brilliantly in the Spectator.

Edit: we need to quote the speech in context also.

To be a political leader – especially of a progressive, liberal party in 2017 – and to live as a committed Christian, to hold faithfully to the Bible’s teaching, has felt impossible for me. I’m a liberal to my finger tips, and that liberalism means that I am passionate about defending the rights and liberties of people who believe different things to me.

There are Christians in politics who take the view that they should impose the tenets of faith on society, but I have not taken that approach because I disagree with it – it’s not liberal and it is counterproductive when it comes to advancing the gospel.

Even so, I seem to be the subject of suspicion because of what I believe and who my faith is in. In which case we are kidding ourselves if we think we yet live in a tolerant, liberal society.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FrancieBrady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

It wasn't about what he would do. He has no intention of passing legislation to force people to be Christian. Last time I checked the Liberal Democrats were also in favour of disestablishing the Church of England. That's a policy I'm leaning towards favouring as a member of that church.

It was about what he believes personally not about what he thinks should be the law of the land. It shouldn't be illegal to disagree with Christians in the same way that it shouldn't be illegal for a Christian to disagree with others.

Sorry - but it's still the result of intolerance. He shouldn't have been made to feel this way about his beliefs in a truly liberal society. Isabel Hardman put it brilliantly in the Spectator.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

But he HAD abstained before and flip flopped. Consequently bringing legitimate questions. I am sorry, you cannot have it both ways here.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/04/election-2017-what-tim-farron-s-stance-gay-rights-and-should-you-vote-lib

murphaph

FTA69 wrote: »

I agree it was total rubbish and typical of a media that smells blood.

If people constantly grilled Muslim MPs about their attitude to homosexuality there'd be uproar.

Probably but I'd have no problem with it. Gays are our equal fellow citizens and have a right to expect their politicians not to despise them or their way of life.

At least we know our gay fellow citizens actually exist. I can't prove any of the similar but different Abrahamic gods exist. I don't have much time for people who believe in a specific god. It's like extremely unlikely that God would choose one group of people to be chosen ones. Imagine you die and stand before the pearly gates and you don't get in because you believed in the slightly different Abrahamic God?

I see them all as middle East death cults that are all well past their sell by dates. If people want to believe in the extremely unlikely that's fine but under no circumstances should real living people play second fiddle to someone's belief that a god that may or may not exist might object to what these real living people do.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

Probably but I'd have no problem with it. Gays are our equal fellow citizens and have a right to expect their politicians not to despise them or their way of life . . .

Of course. But Christians are also our equal fellow citizens, and have a right to expect their politicians not to despise them or their way of life.

There's a fine line here. It's legitimate for the voters, or the media on their behalf, to enquire into a politician's values and beliefs. It's not legitimate to assume that if a politician believes that behaviour X is wrong, he despises people who engage in behaviour X and their way of life.

And, for the record, while I wouldn't support a politician who did despise gays Iand their way of life, I also couldn't support a politician who saw all religions as "middle east Death cults". Frankly, they would match one another in ignorance and bigotry, and I wouldn't care to be represented by either of them.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course. But Christians are also our equal fellow citizens, and have a right to expect their politicians not to despise them or their way of life.

There's a fine line here. It's legitimate for the voters, or the media on their behalf, to enquire into a politician's values and beliefs. It's not legitimate to assume that if a politician believes that behaviour X is wrong, he despises people who engage in behaviour X and their way of life.

And, for the record, while I wouldn't support a politician who did despise gays Iand their way of life, I also couldn't support a politician who saw all religions as "middle east Death cults". Frankly, they would match one another in ignorance and bigotry, and I wouldn't care to be represented by either of them.

Most reasonable people wouldn't necessarily assume that he 'despises' anyone.
He wasn't able to clearly state that he could govern/legislate in a secular way. And in fairness to him - he did the only honourable thing.

You are about to see more challenges of this type as the DUP come under scrutiny. It is already being hotly debated everywhere on social media.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but he felt pressure to do so because his profession of his beliefs was diasdvantageous to his party. Hence, he stood down as party leader.

Basically, the problem is this:

1. Tim Farron thinks (or may think) that gay sex is a sin.

2. This upsets people who think it's a sin to think that gay sex is a sin.

3. This upsets other people, who think it's a sin to think it's a sin to think that gay sex is a sin.

4. This upsets Tim Farron, because it distracts attention from Brexit, which he thinks is a sin.

What could be clearer?

We have someone who is in a position to change laws with his vote in parliament. He has not voted in any way to limit the rights of any group of people, yet it is clear this is against his personal belief.

So the problem isn't what his belief is, its that he has not been following his beliefs and voted that way. Why? Seems to me that he has tried to hide his true feelings and voted against himself not to lose votes.

Leroy42

People claim that he has the right to believe whatever he wants, and surely people have the right to question that and whether or not such belief's would impact on his decision making.

He tried to skirt around the answer, deflect and defend. Does he believe that gay sex is a sin?

Or to put it in real terms (ie not dressed up in religious niceties) does he believe that people who engage in gay sex have done something wrong. If you think someone is doing something wrong would you not try and limit the damage. Does thinking that they are doing something wrong means he believes that they should change or have to somehow repay for their wrong behaviour

Nobody said that being Christian means he can't lead his party, have you looked at the background of the PM's to date? But just like we don't accept leaders who make up policy based on nothing more that a hunch, saying that gay sex is wrong with nothing more than "I believe" to back up your position should be open to question.

FrancieBrady

Enzokk wrote: »

We have someone who is in a position to change laws with his vote in parliament. He has not voted in any way to limit the rights of any group of people, yet it is clear this is against his personal belief.

So the problem isn't what his belief is, its that he has not been following his beliefs and voted that way. Why? Seems to me that he has tried to hide his true feelings and voted against himself not to lose votes.

He has abstained on legislating on issues he had a religious conflict with though.
And a cynic might suggest he altered course to get elected and into a position of power.
Scrutiny in that instance was entirely legitimate.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

We have someone who is in a position to change laws with his vote in parliament. He has not voted in any way to limit the rights of any group of people, yet it is clear this is against his personal belief.

So the problem isn't what his belief is, its that he has not been following his beliefs and voted that way. Why? Seems to me that he has tried to hide his true feelings and voted against himself not to lose votes.

Good morning,

You misunderstand secularism and liberalism then.

It's possible to be a Christian and to vote for the rights of others to disagree with you. Britain isn't a theocracy. I've quoted the wider context in Tim Farron's resignation speech. The issue isn't that he wasn't able to vote for the rights of others but rather that he couldn't lead a party in a country that is increasingly intolerant of his identity in Christ.

That's sad, and it is intolerance. It's an indictment of society rather than Tim Farron.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

You misunderstand secularism and liberalism then.

It's possible to be a Christian and to vote for the rights of others to disagree with you. Britain isn't a theocracy. I've quoted the wider context in Tim Farron's resignation speech. The issue isn't that he wasn't able to vote for the rights of others but rather that he couldn't lead a party in a country that is increasingly intolerant of his identity in Christ.

That's sad, and it is intolerance.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Isn't May religious? A Cameron before her. And Brown. The head of State is the leader of the Church.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

We have someone who is in a position to change laws with his vote in parliament. He has not voted in any way to limit the rights of any group of people, yet it is clear this is against his personal belief.

So the problem isn't what his belief is, its that he has not been following his beliefs and voted that way. Why? Seems to me that he has tried to hide his true feelings and voted against himself not to lose votes.

Well, no. You're assuming that if I think behaviour X is wrong, I must also think that the state should legislate to restrict, forbid or discourage behaviour X.

But this is simplistic and incorrect. I might think that it is wrong for you to cheat on your girlfriend/boyfriend, for example, but it doesn't follow that I must think the state shou;d forbid or punish cheating of this kind. I might think that its wrong for you to say certain things, but if I'm a believer in free speech I won't go on to conclude that the state should stop you; in fact I will believe that the state has a duty to defend your right to say them.

We have no reason to think that Tim Farron's "personal belief" requires him to limit the rights of any group of people. On the contrary, he says that his personal belief is that he should defend the rights and liberties of people whose beliefs are different to his own.

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are about to see more challenges of this type as the DUP come under scrutiny.

Yes, and proper order.

No worries for the DUP - their founder stated on the record that the Pope is the Antichrist. Indeed, he heckled the Pope for being the Antichrist in the European Parliament. The Crown Prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire ejected him from the European parliament for it.

No-one need be in any doubt about where the DUP stands.

Being the leader of the Lib Dems is a bit different. If Farron felt it was incompatible with being a Christian, he should stand down.

Enzokk

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He has abstained on legislating on issues he had a religious conflict with though.
And a cynic might suggest he altered course to get elected and into a position of power.
Scrutiny in that instance was entirely legitimate.

Yes, and he has since said he has regrets over some votes that he has taken. Seems to me its just talk from his side to win votes. I like him, but if he believes gay sex is a sin then he should stick to his principles. He shouldn't cynically try to hide this to win votes.

solodeogloria wrote: »

You misunderstand secularism and liberalism then.

It's possible to be a Christian and to vote for the rights of others to disagree with you. Britain isn't a theocracy. I've quoted the wider context in Tim Farron's resignation speech. The issue isn't that he wasn't able to vote for the rights of others but rather that he couldn't lead a party in a country that is increasingly intolerant of his identity in Christ.

That's sad, and it is intolerance.

No, the problem was that his personal beliefs are contradicting his parties beliefs. This is an issue that his fellow party members are concerned about and why he is questioned about it.

Look, if he was able to the liberal thinker he wants you to think he is then he would have had no problem in answering the question on whether he believes gay sex is a sin. He could have just said to look at my voting history that shows I am able to separate my religious beliefs from my political stances. But he couldn't do that now, could he?

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

No, the problem was that his personal beliefs are contradicting his parties beliefs.

You are not seriously suggesting that the Lib-Dems have a policy document on whether gay sex is a sin?

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

No, the problem was that his personal beliefs are contradicting his parties beliefs. This is an issue that his fellow party members are concerned about and why he is questioned about it.

Look, if he was able to the liberal thinker he wants you to think he is then he would have had no problem in answering the question on whether he believes gay sex is a sin. He could have just said to look at my voting history that shows I am able to separate my religious beliefs from my political stances. But he couldn't do that now, could he?

Good morning,

It is entirely irrelevant to whether or not he can govern effectively. I think he made the right call to distinguish between his personal beliefs and secular governance.

There's no reason why a Christian should receive any more scrutiny than any other member of parliament if any other faith or none if they are willing to defend the liberties of others to disagree and live contrary to the gospel.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

Isn't May religious? A Cameron before her. And Brown. The head of State is the leader of the Church.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is the leader of the Church of England. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state.

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

It is entirely irrelevant to whether or not he can govern effectively. I think he made the right call to distinguish between his personal beliefs and secular governance.

There's no reason why a Christian should receive any more scrutiny than any other member of parliament if any other faith or none if they are willing to defend the liberties of others to disagree and live contrary to the gospel.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Exactly. So why are you worried that he was questioned over this?

It seems that it is because it is his religious belief and therefore is outside of questioning. His religious belief should be treated the same as any other position he holds. What is the basis for it, does it stand up to scrutiny, if he followed it through what impact would it have, and has he considered other peoples evidence and on what basis has he dismissed them.

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Archbishop of Canterbury is the leader of the Church of England. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state.

She is the "Supreme Governor of the Church of England", and by law is required to be a communicant member of it.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, no. You're assuming that if I think behaviour X is wrong, I must also think that the state should legislate to restrict, forbid or discourage behaviour X.

But this is simplistic and incorrect. I might think that it is wrong for you to cheat on your girlfriend/boyfriend, for example, but it doesn't follow that I must think the state shou;d forbid or punish cheating of this kind. I might think that its wrong for you to say certain things, but if I'm a believer in free speech I won't go on to conclude that the state should stop you; in fact I will believe that the state has a duty to defend your right to say them.

We have no reason to think that Tim Farron's "personal belief" requires him to limit the rights of any group of people. On the contrary, he says that his personal belief is that he should defend the rights and liberties of people whose beliefs are different to his own.

But his votes doesn't reflect this now does it. Why did he vote against the Equality act in 2007? Why did he abstain from the third reading of the Marriage Bill when he voted for it earlier? Why did he regret these votes after he became leader?

Seems to me that he became a lot more liberal once he became leader of the Libdems. That is fine, I have no problem with his views. Everyone is entitled to it. Don't try to hide your views for votes though or change them just because you are leader.

Why did this always come up in interviews? This is obviously something that is quite prominent with him as journalists ask him about it all the time. They get the information that he has the views and he has obviously shared them privately. Otherwise how would people know he thinks gay sex is a sin?

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Archbishop of Canterbury is the leader of the Church of England. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state.

Good morning,

Not entirely true. The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and the wider Anglican communion. It's more a civil title than a specifically religious one.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is the principal religious leader of the Church of England and the first among equals in leadership of the wider Anglican Communion.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FrancieBrady

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Archbishop of Canterbury is the leader of the Church of England. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state.

The monarch was always the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, has that changed?

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Archbishop of Canterbury is the leader of the Church of England. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state.

You are of course quite correct.

The queen is merely the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The point I was making was the solodeogloria is making out that being christian is somehow a negative in the UK when it is clear that throughout history and today being christian is not held against anybody and in many cases is seen as a positive.

The fact that it is less so that previously, is hardly a case for claiming a witchhunt

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Exactly. So why are you worried that he was questioned over this?

It seems that it is because it is his religious belief and therefore is outside of questioning. His religious belief should be treated the same as any other position he holds. What is the basis for it, does it stand up to scrutiny, if he followed it through what impact would it have, and has he considered other peoples evidence and on what basis has he dismissed them.

Farron made it clear that he thought questions about his religious beliefs were legitimate. What is not legitimate is the assumption - made again and again in this very thread - that he can be assumed to want to implement/enforce his religious beliefs through his political office or role. And, while questions about his beliefs are in principle legitimate, what is definitely problematic is questions motivated by an unspoken assumption or implication that this is his agenda.

This is a delicate and nuanced area. But what's definitely not true is what was asserted earlier in this thread; that Farron has conceded that he is a hypocrite, or that Farron's political position as a Liberal is at odds with his faith as a Christian.

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are not seriously suggesting that the Lib-Dems have a policy document on whether gay sex is a sin?

Why was there concerns in the Libdems about his views then and him being leader of the party?

What Tim Farrons stance gay rights and should you vote lib

One senior party figure at the time compared Farron’s opposition to the Sexual Orientation Regulations “after the bed and breakfast case” to denying “a black person in the southern states of America” a room.

“What would we think about people who said, ‘no, my principles are not to serve this person?’ We would say it’s completely intolerable,” they told me. “Surely we’ve got to say the same thing for people who happen to love one another, who are of the same sex? And Tim voted against. He’s supposed to be the leader of a liberal party.”

Leroy42

So what, we are supposed to park a persons beliefs on the basis that they won't impact on their thinking?

What do we base anything on if not their stated position and record of voting?

He has said himself that his beliefs cause an issue with the party he leads. So find a party that suits your beliefs. It really isn't that difficult.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

Farron made it clear that he thought questions about his religious beliefs were legitimate. What is not legitimate is the assumption - made again and again in this very thread - that he can be assumed to want to implement/enforce his religious beliefs through his political office or role. And, while questions about his beliefs are in principle legitimate, what is definitely problematic is questions motivated by an unspoken assumption or implication that this is his agenda.

This is a delicate and nuanced area. But what's definitely not true is what was asserted earlier in this thread; that Farron has conceded that he is a hypocrite, or that Farron's political position as a Liberal is at odds with his faith as a Christian.

Can you explain his voting record? Why did he vote against the equality act in 2007?

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

Farron made it clear that he thought questions about his religious beliefs were legitimate. What is not legitimate is the assumption - made again and again in this very thread - that he can be assumed to want to implement/enforce his religious beliefs through his political office or role. And, while questions about his beliefs are in principle legitimate, what is definitely problematic is questions motivated by an unspoken assumption or implication that this is his agenda.

This is a delicate and nuanced area. But what's definitely not true is what was asserted earlier in this thread; that Farron has conceded that he is a hypocrite, or that Farron's political position as a Liberal is at odds with his faith as a Christian.

If you take the emotive content out of the word 'hypocrite' it is fairly precisely what he described himself to be.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

Can you explain his voting record? Why did he vote against the equality act in 2007?

That would certainly have been a legitimate question to put to him. Did anyone put it to him, and if so what answer did he give?

(Genuine enquiry: I don't know the answer to this.)

But not asking that question, and instead asking if he thought gay sex was a sin, on the unspoken assumption that that would account for his vote on the Equality Act - that would be prejudicial.

ancapailldorcha

Enzokk wrote: »

Can you explain his voting record? Why did he vote against the equality act in 2007?

According to this, it was because the marriage equality act discriminated against transgender persons. He tried to remove the offending part of the act but failed.

https://twitter.com/stephentall/status/854436765242884098

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

That would certainly have been a legitimate question to put to him. Did anyone put it to him, and if so what answer did he give?

(Genuine enquiry: I don't know the answer to this.)

But not asking that question, and instead asking if he thought gay sex was a sin, on the unspoken assumption that that would account for his vote on the Equality Act - that would be prejudicial.

All I can see is that he has said that he regrets his votes against the equality act and not voting on the third reading of the marriage act.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

According to this, it was because the marriage equality act discriminated against transgender persons. He tried to remove the offending part of the act but failed.

https://twitter.com/stephentall/status/854436765242884098

I cannot find the specific reason why he voted against the equality act in 2007. All he has said is it was because of an amendment that was not accepted. There has been nothing to show the amendment he wanted to add, only a vague explanation on what happened.

So if I understand his thinking, he wanted extra protections but because he couldn't get the amendment approved he voted against the whole act. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater come to mind.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/20/interview-tim-farron-addresses-anti-gay-voting-record-and-calls-for-church-of-england-to-be-disestablished/

Didn’t you vote against the Sexual Orientation Regulations?

I don’t think I did. I think in 2007 or 08…

On the 2007 law, you did. It’s where that protection comes from. You cited your ‘extreme liberal point of view’ at the time.


Well, I’ve changed my position since then.

My take on stuff like the cake issue, which was not live at that point, and the B&B issue, which had become live – it is un-Christian to turn people away from your establishment. You should not, if you offer services, be in the situation where you are discriminating.

The issue about the Equality Act stuff – it’s about who has got the right to silence certain people… Tolerance is not about putting up with people you agree with. You don’t tolerate those people – it’s about co-existing with people you really don’t agree with.

We had an amendment that I think was defeated, which tried to deal with some of the issues about protections. My recollection is that amendment was not accepted – I could not therefore support the [Sexual Orientation] regulations.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

The point I was making was the solodeogloria is making out that being christian is somehow a negative in the UK when it is clear that throughout history and today being christian is not held against anybody and in many cases is seen as a positive.

Solo has said he is an Evangelical, he may not be talking about your Sunday smells and bells Anglican, he may mean being an Evangelical like himself or Farron is a negative.

And I would agree. The CofE crew are indistinguishable from us atheists in day to day terms, and we all look a bit sideways at Evangelicals.

murphaph

I'll tell you what though...now I'm starting to understand the leap of faith solo is prepared to make on Brexit. ðŸ˜

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

Why was there concerns in the Libdems about his views then and him being leader of the party?

What Tim Farrons stance gay rights and should you vote lib

There were concerns that his beliefs were affecting his actions, which is reasonable. And Farron handled the questions very poorly.

Reading that link, he had forgotten at least some of his votes on equality legislation. After being reminded, he was asked if his religion was a factor. He said no. He was asked if he believed gay sex was a sin. He fudged, and said he did not believe it was a sin to be gay, but left the gay sex question hanging. Given that he had voted against or abstained on equality legislation, this left the impression that maybe he voted or abstained because of his religious views on gay sex.

If he had stated plainly, as Peregrinus suggested upthread, that in his religion gay sex is regarded as a sin, but like the sin of adultery, his Liberal view is that this is a sin which the State has no business policing, I think he would have been fine.

He would still have to remember his voting record and be able to defend it, and show how it reflects his Liberal views and not his religion, but he would at least be able to answer these questions without fudge.

blanch152

Enzokk wrote: »

Yes, and he has since said he has regrets over some votes that he has taken. Seems to me its just talk from his side to win votes. I like him, but if he believes gay sex is a sin then he should stick to his principles. He shouldn't cynically try to hide this to win votes.

It only matters whether he believes gay sex should be illegal.

It is a matter of fact that for a Catholic, gay sex is a sin, the Church has said so. You can't be a Catholic and believe otherwise, but lots of things are sins. Coveting your neighbour's wife is a sin, but do you think they can outlaw that?

A Little Pony

Tim Farron is a white guy and a Christian. He doesn't believe in Islam, so of course he is going to get hounded by the media and made to justify his beliefs.

Leroy42

A Little Pony wrote: »

Tim Farron is a white guy and a Christian. He doesn't believe in Islam, so of course he is going to get hounded by the media and made to justify his beliefs.

May is white, christian and a woman, yet somehow became the PM!

c_man

Well not a surprise but that's definitely the LibDems written off for me. I voted for them last week but never again. It's getting a smaller and smaller field!

FrancieBrady

Leroy42 wrote: »

May is white, christian and a woman, yet somehow became the PM!

What colour is Jeremy Corbyn? Because I could have sworn he was white and christian too.

c_man

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What colour is Jeremy Corbyn? Because I could have sworn he was white and christian too.

I don't think so...

ArmaniJeanss

A Little Pony wrote: »

Tim Farron is a white guy and a Christian. He doesn't believe in Islam, so of course he is going to get hounded by the media and made to justify his beliefs.

So you reckon if a brownskinned Muslim became leader of one of the 2 big parties that his views on LGBT wouldn't be queried and analysed? That's seems very unlikely to me, its something the media of the opposing side would leap straight onto during an election.

FrancieBrady

c_man wrote: »

I don't think so...

True that. Wuz it coz he was white then?

c_man

FrancieBrady wrote: »

True that. Wuz it coz he was white then?

JC is a straight, white, old man who is a career politician. He got hounded about his associations with terrorists, horrible regimes and dodgy characters. That was a disgrace. Farron being hounded about what he may or not think in his religious views, that was totally legit and correct.

A Little Pony

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Tim Farron is a white guy and a Christian. He doesn't believe in Islam, so of course he is going to get hounded by the media and made to justify his beliefs.

So you reckon if a brownskinned Muslim became leader of one of the 2 big parties that his views on LGBT wouldn't be queried and analysed? That's seems very unlikely to me, its something the media of the opposing side would leap straight onto during an election.

No chance. That would be 'Islamophobia', can't afford to unleash the wrath.

Leroy42

A Little Pony wrote: »

No chance. That would be 'Islamophobia', can't afford to unleash the wrath.

But you seem to be suggesting, along with Solodeogloria, that Christians are in some way being persecuted.

He's white, male & christian seems to the line.

This is despite the fact that the vast majority of senior politicians in the UK, Ireland, US etc etc are all white and Christian (with the split male/female finally starting to be worked on).

As far as the evidence shows, being white and Christian is not being persecuted.

Farron has not resigned because he is white, male or Christian. He resigned because his beliefs did not fit in with the party he was leading.

A Little Pony

Leroy42 wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

No chance. That would be 'Islamophobia', can't afford to unleash the wrath.

But you seem to be suggesting, along with Solodeogloria, that Christians are in some way being persecuted.

He's white, male & christian seems to the line.

This is despite the fact that the vast majority of senior politicians in the UK, Ireland, US etc etc are all white and Christian (with the split male/female finally starting to be worked on).

As far as the evidence shows, being white and Christian is not being persecuted.

Farron has not resigned because he is white, male or Christian.  He resigned because his beliefs did not fit in with the party he was leading.

You are confusing on people being born into Christianity and actually believing in Christ. I don't like Tim's politics, it's verging of traitorous with him but he actually believes in it and was hounded over it. I'd like to see future interrogation of Muslim MPs on what they think of abortion or homosexuality or gay marriage.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

You are confusing on people being born into Christianity and actually believing in Christ. I don't like Tim's politics, it's verging of traitorous with him but he actually believes in it and was hounded over it. I'd like to see future interrogation of Muslim MPs on what they think of abortion or homosexuality or gay marriage.

This 'hounded' word again.
Was Corbyn 'hounded' before the election?