|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: UK General Election June 8th 2017
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Might be worth looking at the viewpoint of people who are actually (1) gay and (2) lib dems who have to work in his party
Brian Paddick resigned and David Laws has this to say
Tolerance not enough
quote:
But as a gay man, I do not wish to be “tolerated”. I wish to be respected for who I am. And I want a party leader whose respect for human equality comes before outdated and frankly offensive religious views.
Homophobic attitudes have done enormous damage to our society and to so many millions of citizens over many years. Children are bullied, and some have even taken their lives, and still do. These attitudes are wholly unacceptable to a true liberal – as unacceptable as racism or sexism.
You do not remove homophobia from society by communicating as a political leader that same sex relationships are immoral, but should be “tolerated”.
It is immensely sad to me, as someone brought up in the Christian faith, that Tim cites his Christianity to defend his views on these issues. The Christianity that I know and respect has at its very heart the overriding principle: “love your neighbour as yourself”.
Ultimately to be a party leader, you need to model what your party believes in and show that you think it's good idea and that you're positive about it. Suppose you lead the Green Party and you won't say that fracking is wrong, however hard you're pressed, indeed you have shares in a company that fracks, and personally you never recycle and think it's a waste of time, though it's fine if other people want to do it...
Party leaders are not there to 'tolerate' core values of their parties, they're there to passionately advocate for them. Farron couldn't enthusiastically advocate for a core value in his party - so he wasn't a good fit for his party members and voters.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Might be worth looking at the viewpoint of people who are actually (1) gay and (2) lib dems who have to work in his party
Brian Paddick resigned and David Laws has this to say
Tolerance not enough
quote:
But as a gay man, I do not wish to be “tolerated”. I wish to be respected for who I am. And I want a party leader whose respect for human equality comes before outdated and frankly offensive religious views.
With all possible respect to that author, it seems to me that this is exactly what Farron did. He did put his respect for human equality before his religious views.
[ 15. June 2017, 13:13: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Ultimately to be a party leader, you need to model what your party believes in and show that you think it's good idea and that you're positive about it. Suppose you lead the Green Party and you won't say that fracking is wrong, however hard you're pressed, indeed you have shares in a company that fracks, and personally you never recycle and think it's a waste of time, though it's fine if other people want to do it...
This is nonsense.
The liberal idea of society is that we have to get on with people we each - individually - find offensive. In a liberal society, we seek rules which are to the benefit of all - including those we disagree with and/or who have lifestyles we personally find disgusting.
The alternative is to say that evangelicals are not allowed to be part of mainstream society because their views are so abhorrent, no matter how often they've voted positively for the rights of everyone. Including those whose lifestyles they find disgusting.
quote:
Party leaders are not there to 'tolerate' core values of their parties, they're there to passionately advocate for them. Farron couldn't enthusiastically advocate for a core value in his party - so he wasn't a good fit for his party members and voters.
Tummy rot. In what sense was he somehow unenthusiastic about gay marriage.
This is really a case of shooting your friends because they happen to have chosen to support you for the wrong reasons.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Didn't he vote in favour of equal marriage?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Didn't he vote in favour of equal marriage?
In the words of the summary of his voting record on TheyWorkForYou, "generally": he voted against back in 2007, but has been pretty consistent in voting in favour since, with one absence in 2013 (which was before he became party leader).
ETA: x-posted with TomM
[ 15. June 2017, 13:31: Message edited by: Stejjie ]
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
DaleMaily
Apprentice
# 18725
|
Posted
I'm completely torn on the Farron issue (full disclosure: I am a Lib Dem (lapsed member) who voted for him as party leader, a full year before I became a Christian). My instinct is to agree with Ian Dunt, and this defence of Farron has actually helped me be a lot more tolerant and understanding of Christians who I know are either incredibly conflicted (as I suspect is the actual case with Farron) or who are totally "anti-Gay", but then when I read what David laws has just written I question myself again.
Where I completely agree with Farron is that I do not want my political leaders to be theologians or to lecture me about faith, and the bit that sticks in my throat the most is the hypocrisy of not going round asking every single Christian MP and peer (let's not let the Bishops of the hook!) what they think about it all. I don't want that to happen, but either you do it to everyone or you do it to no-one, right?
--------------------
The more I get to know the less I find that I understand.
Posts: 48 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Have put a thread in in dead horses on TIm Farron, if people want to copy posts over to that, discussion can be moved out of Purgatory.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
<hostly hat tip>
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Have put a thread in in dead horses on TIm Farron, if people want to copy posts over to that, discussion can be moved out of Purgatory.
Thanks. Here's a link. Please confine discussion of Tim Farron's views on homosexuality to that thread.
</hostly hat tip>
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I'm not sure whether I should be posing this on the dead horse thread. I hope not, as I'm actually asking a different question. Suppose we change Lord Paddick's statement (assuming also that it would have been made by someone else) to:-
quote:
But as a Christian, I do not wish to be “tolerated”. I wish to be respected for who I am.
How do we feel about it then? Do we feel we are entitled to be respected as Christians, or merely tolerated when it doesn't inconvenience anyone else?
Let's give two other examples, deliberately chosen not to have anything to do with any dead horses. Suppose as a Christian local councillor in a multi-cultural ward, I say that with all due politeness, as a Christian, I can't take part in a Diwali ceremony because much though I respect everyone's right to practice their own religion, my faith bars me from practising theirs.
Or suppose in a public enquiry into political shenanigans of some sort, I say that I can't tell lies under oath (or even not under oath) so as to cover up the embarrassment to the party.
Do you feel that as a Christian you are entitled to be respected for your faith, and where that might lead you to - even if other Christians might take a different line to you? Or do you feel that you should be grateful when you allowed to apologise for them, to hold them on sufferance?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We might see the Drumcree march back on.
That'll fill everyone's heart with joy.
Here's an idea: they can do their march as long as it's part of a Gay Pride march. They already have silly costumes...
The Garvaghy Road Residents' Association could cheer them on with shouts of "Ooh, get you!" and , "You go, girlfriend!"
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
The Tory-DUP deal seems to be on hold, given that our beleaguered PM has Other Matters to deal with.
Or is any progress being made? In the news today, Foster was cosying up to the new Taoiseach in the R of I...
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I get the impression from your posts over the last few months, AFZ that unusually, your route to being a Labour Party supporter follows from your being persuaded by Keynsian economics, rather than the more usual route which is the other way round. But as someone outside the bubble of either of the two main parties, I can't see much difference between them in the way both,
a. Equate the national interest and their own, and
b. Assume that their party's survival as such is a matter of the public good.
Hey Enoch,
At the risk of mirroring you, I've been meaning to answer this post but was busy and then the thread moved on. However I do want to answer it.
Honesty requires me to state that I was a Labour supporter long before I had any real understanding of macroeconomics. That, of course means I am subject to confirmation bias. However 'bias' does not equal 'wrong' and my thoughts on economics have deepened in the past few years.
In 1987, I was 9 and that's the first time I can remember any kind of political consciousness. I have essentially been a Labour supporter ever since. Although I only joined the Labour party much later in 2013.
My politics are essentially old-fashioned Christian-Socialism. I approach politics from a perspective that is shaped by my faith. I appreciate and respect people of faith who share my belief in Jesus and come to a different conclusion about politics. I love conversations like that. "The Bible says.... therefore the principal is.... and thus when I approach this issue, I think the proper response is...." These are conversations I love to have.
I only really started reading about economics from around 2005 onwards. Although I studied 20th century history at school and thus had in the background a knowledge of the 1930s depression.
I was naturally skeptical of trickle-down neoliberal theories even in the 1980s but I couldn't put an evidenced-based framework to it until much later. What struck me about Thatcherism was this veneration of greed and the idea that selfishness would drive the economy and at the same time society in a good direction.
At medical school we did a module on epidemiology and public health and in that we touched on health-economics and that has driven my thinking a lot. It is an inescapable conclusion that in some contexts, markets just do not work.
So by the time the crash hit in 2008, I already knew some of the basics of Keynes and had read about Freidman and the so-called Chicago school. I knew vaguely of Krugman and Stiglitz.
In the past few years, there is no doubt that neokeynsian theory has been vindicated. If you look at what was written in 2008-10 about what would happen if nations did x or y, the predictions have been incredibly reliable. People who argue that economists are just astrologist are guilty of a lazy stereotype and haven't bothered to look at what economics is or does.
That's not to say there isn't a problem with the politicisation of economics. In the US this is framed as the debate between 'fresh-water' and 'salt-water' economists. Simon Wren-Lewis, who I had read a lot claims that there is incredible agreement among macroeconomists these days, particularly on the key questions of austerity and brexit. I do feel sorry for economists, they can't do direct experiments and have to complile data the best they can (as is more often true in medicine that people realise; which is why it took a generation to show that smoking causes lung cancer). And their field is inevitably much more corruptible by political leanings than most; because of the close links with economics and policy. I had for a long time back skeptism about the effect the IMF had a lots of countries it 'helped.' The IMF throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s caused a lot of harm to poor countries. For me the winning argument is that if you look at Chicago School economics, the Maths is beautiful but the real world evidence completely undermines it. Ricardian Equivalence is a great example of this. It makes sense but people and societies do not behave that way and hence it's irrelevant. It make be apocryphal but I understand that Ricard himself said so.
There is also a public-perception issue; not least because the media like to get comment from 'city-economists' who aren't economists in the academic sense at all and that serves to give a very distorted view of economics. Their job is to make money for hedge-funds or banks or whatever. That's very different from studying an economy more widely.
If you asked me 20 years ago about something like say the top rate of tax, I would have said that I was content with 40p. Not because I thought the rich shouldn't pay more - the moral argument for that is clear to me but because I understood that increasing rates would result in smaller revenue and hence would be pointless. I have since learned that the evidence for the Laffer curve shows that the reduction in revenue levels is much at higher than previously claimed rates and probably around 70% marginal rates. And that's before we get into how unearned income is taxed at much lower rates.
It becomes even more profound when you read Stiglitz's deconstruction of how we are making our economy ever-more rent-seeking based.
So it would be unfair to say that my economics/politics is purely a result of following the evidence but I have become more and more convinced over the past few years. It's not just about social justice, it's also what makes economic sense. Unfettered capitalism will impoverish the majority of us, just as much as communism did.
I became a member of the Labour party because of David Cameron. In 2013 he gave a conference speech in which he claimed economic success for his policies as well as brilliance for public services and success in welfare reform. I was so angry that he could (and indeed did) run of this totally false platform, that I joined the Labour party.
So, it's a bit complicated. I would not claim to be an economist but reading and understanding evidence is part of my daily professional life and I am convinced that Austerity is a dangerous idea and that extreme inequality is a very bad thing in just economic terms.
One final thought from what now is an over-long post: a lot of the arguments used against Keynesian economics are ad absurdum. What I mean is, for example on the Laffer curve you'll hear people say; "What about having a tax rate of 100%, I bet you that won't bring in any revenue" or "You can't help but have inequality, it's the ability to work for rewards and enjoy them that drives the economy in the first place. Why if I work harder should I not have more than my neighbour who only works half the time?" This is a completely flawed argument - not least because they could both be turned round "How about a 0% tax rate, I bet that won't bring in any revenue..." but moreover because they are strawmen based on an ignorance of evidence. There is a Laffer-curve effect - if marginal tax rates are too high then they discourage work due to the perceived lack of return and ultimately result in lower revenue. I don't think anyone disputes the concept but the evidence does not show that 50% tax rates are a problem. Similarly Stiglitz is not arguing for communism but he has the evidence that shows that extreme inequality is not a natural phenomenon but the result of how we construct markets and furthermore beyond a certain point, the costs to the wider society are significant and indeed much greater than the benefit to the individual.
YMMV
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Let's give two other examples, deliberately chosen not to have anything to do with any dead horses. Suppose as a Christian local councillor in a multi-cultural ward, I say that with all due politeness, as a Christian, I can't take part in a Diwali ceremony because much though I respect everyone's right to practice their own religion, my faith bars me from practising theirs.
Or suppose in a public enquiry into political shenanigans of some sort, I say that I can't tell lies under oath (or even not under oath) so as to cover up the embarrassment to the party.
Do you feel that as a Christian you are entitled to be respected for your faith, and where that might lead you to - even if other Christians might take a different line to you? Or do you feel that you should be grateful when you allowed to apologise for them, to hold them on sufferance?
In the first instance I'd say that a Christian who couldn't attend a Hindu event with the same kind of condescending goodwill as an atheist at a Remembrance Day service was probably not best placed to serve as a councillor for a local authority with lots of Hindus.
In the second instance I'd say "what the hell has that got to do with Christianity?" The late Jo Cox was a Humanist, and I cannot for the life of me imagine her lying on oath to gain some transient political advantage for the Labour Party. I've no idea what the late Alan Clark believed about the Great Perhaps - not very much, tied up with an affection for the language of the Prayer Book, would be my best guess - but he famously humiliated his Parliamentary Colleagues rather than perjure himself. Not lying generally and not lying on oath in particular is really an example of, to coin a phrase, something where we have more in common than that which divides us.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't know, personally I find the idea that councillors or elected officials should be available to go to any given religious service quite offensive.
It is one thing listening to constituents of all religious hues and where necessary fighting for their rights. Quite another participating in their religious services.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know, personally I find the idea that councillors or elected officials should be available to go to any given religious service quite offensive.
It is one thing listening to constituents of all religious hues and where necessary fighting for their rights. Quite another participating in their religious services.
My MP, a committed Christian, is regularly seen at places of worship other than Christian churches. I cannot see a problem with attending as an observer and someone wanting to learn and to show respect. That's different from participating in religious services, I think. After all, many MP's are atheist / agnostic - can they not, with due conscience, attend?
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't have any problem with someone volunteering or wanting to attend religious services to gain understanding of different communities. But I do have a problem if that is an expectation and if someone is judged negatively because they choose not to go to a religious service for any reason.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't have any problem with someone volunteering or wanting to attend religious services to gain understanding of different communities. But I do have a problem if that is an expectation and if someone is judged negatively because they choose not to go to a religious service for any reason.
I'd think less of my MP - or any MP - if they didn't attend at least the mainstream religious communities' celebrations. No one's asking them to say the Nicene Creed or declare that there's Only One God. They're there because they represent those people in parliament, and it's important, if not critical at this time, for everyone to feel part of their community.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't have any problem with someone volunteering or wanting to attend religious services to gain understanding of different communities. But I do have a problem if that is an expectation and if someone is judged negatively because they choose not to go to a religious service for any reason.
I'd think less of my MP - or any MP - if they didn't attend at least the mainstream religious communities' celebrations. No one's asking them to say the Nicene Creed or declare that there's Only One God. They're there because they represent those people in parliament, and it's important, if not critical at this time, for everyone to feel part of their community.
There was a time not that long ago when the RCC forbade its members from attending Protestant services or even entering a Protestant church. Should people have not voted for RC politicians for following their Church's teachings back then? If not, why are things different today for members of religious traditions that frown upon participating in religious services of traditions outside their own?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'd think less of my MP - or any MP - if they didn't attend at least the mainstream religious communities' celebrations. No one's asking them to say the Nicene Creed or declare that there's Only One God. They're there because they represent those people in parliament, and it's important, if not critical at this time, for everyone to feel part of their community.
I would certainly expect MPs to meet with religious communities and would think it sensible to be seen at relevant events like a post-fast meal, a church fete etc. But for me it is ridiculous to expect a conservative Jew to attend a charismatic pentecostal service or a mainstream Muslim to attend a service at a local (Muslim or other) sect or an Evangelical to attend a service at a Sikh temple. If one wouldnt expect a Jew or a Muslim to do it, why is there pressure for an Evangelical to?
[ 18. June 2017, 06:09: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I have no idea whether my Jewish MP attends non-Jewish religious services and I have no idea how you would even find out such a thing.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
"If one wouldn't expect". How do you think it would received if Sadiq Khan didn't attend a rememberance day service, or a cathedral memorial service for the victims of a terrorist attack¹ ?
---
¹ Church Times
[ 18. June 2017, 07:38: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
The other question is how many religious communities actually want people who aren't of their religion to turn up at their religious observations. I think the idea that we must welcome everyone through the door at all costs is a distinctly Christian, and perhaps even distinctly Protestant, idea.
I remember hinting to an Orthodox Jewish friend that I would be interested in attending a service at the synagogue, and his response was that if I was interested then the best thing to do would be to go on one of the guided tours, not on the Sabbath, that the synagogue offers.
[ 18. June 2017, 08:12: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The problem is that remembrance services (whether the annual 11th November services, or one off services to mark a particular event) are services for the wider community (ie: beyond just the particular congregation and affiliates of that place of worship). We have a strong element of civic religion in the UK (and, probably most nations), which is often focussed on local churches, in areas where other religions are strongly represented places of worship for those religions will also fill that role. It's part of the role of the MP to be present for these civic events, and quite often a very specific one (eg: on Remembrance Sunday they will be expected to be at the service at the war memorial, if they were to attend the service at the local Baptist church which stayed within the building and didn't bring in anyone other than the regular congregation they'd get told off for not doing it properly (even though the same people wouldn't dream of telling the Baptists that they didn't mark Remembrance properly).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
"If one wouldn't expect". How do you think it would received if Sadiq Khan didn't attend a rememberance day service, or a cathedral memorial service for the victims of a terrorist attack¹ ?
---
¹ Church Times
I think the time is coming when remembrance services will either be secular or multi-religious. Even there, I have no problem with anyone, including an MP, who doesn't attend. Because there is no compulsion in religion.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Imagine is the Baha'i had a remembrance event. Muslims genuinely believe them to be a corrupted form of Islam, so does a Muslim MP have to attend it?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
A pagan is doing something in dark room with candles and funny clothing.. oh wait, never mind.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Though civic religion is a very different beast to any particular religion - and certainly for people in public office does carry some element of compulsion. When the people expect their MPs to be in attendance, and to do so with a particular attitude, then there is compulsion for anyone seeking to be re-elected. We see it in media clamouring if someone doesn't wear a poppy (or, even worse, wears a white one), doesn't wear a tie to a Remembrance service, is not the first at the scene of a tragedy to view the field of flowers and teddy bears, doesn't show enough grief over the death of a celebrity ...
Civic religion isn't tied into any particular religion (though in the UK would often centre on the church as a focal point for formal expressions) and is held by people of all faiths and none.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Those events are religious services though, if you think politicians should attend them out of duty and solidarity - I don't see how it is different than them attending - at request - a civic event for another faith. It is not that politicians are expected to be regular attenders at religious services, they are expected at civic events of rememberance and celebration basically.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
There was a time not that long ago when the RCC forbade its members from attending Protestant services or even entering a Protestant church. Should people have not voted for RC politicians for following their Church's teachings back then?
Certainly vote for RC politicians who thought their church's rules were crap and were going to ignore them in this instance.
Catholicism runs deep in the legal profession in NE England, and Catholic lawyers regularly pitched out to Protestant lawyers' funerals, contrary to the rules.
In other words, don't vote for a knobber.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
In other news: quote:
London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, has arrived at a church service to remember those who have lost their lives and those who remain missing. The service is at St Clement Notting Dale church, which has been used as a relief centre.
Source, Gruaniad.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
But I've not said that people shouldn't go to religious services if they want to, I've said that I can't see the logic in expecting an elected official to do so.
I know Muslims who have no problem going to churches, I know others who wouldn't want to go into one. I can't see why the latter should come under pressure to do so.
[ 18. June 2017, 14:15: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
Many years ago, part of my work as a community development worker was to visit and worship with Pentecostal churches. The services were not to my liking, although I was a Christian at the time. Once it became known who I was, invariably I was invited to sit up on the platform and to ‘bring a greeting or message’: I did not approve of this but felt compelled to go along with it.
I had occasion to visit a Pentecostal church some few years after I became non-theist: I wanted to pay respects to the memory of their pastor. On this visit I made it clear that I did not wish to sit up front with the VIP’s: I felt that this this was not understood.
The point I’d make here is that an MP visiting some churches and places of worship is seen as a VIP and treated as such. (How many times have you seen an MP sitting anywhere other than in the front row at a community gathering?) I’m sure this must get tricky at times, but it’s their job and I suggest they have to go along with it. To refuse an invitation would be considered offensive, I suspect. I doubt that many MP’s would refuse.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The other question is how many religious communities actually want people who aren't of their religion to turn up at their religious observations. I think the idea that we must welcome everyone through the door at all costs is a distinctly Christian, and perhaps even distinctly Protestant, idea.
It's also the cornerstone of Sikhism.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think the idea that we must welcome everyone through the door at all costs is a distinctly Christian, and perhaps even distinctly Protestant, idea.
Seriously? This reflects neither an awareness of the history of Christianity or Protestantism nor a significant knowledge of other religions.
Very few ask for identification cards as one enters.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think the idea that we must welcome everyone through the door at all costs is a distinctly Christian, and perhaps even distinctly Protestant, idea.
Seriously? This reflects neither an awareness of the history of Christianity or Protestantism nor a significant knowledge of other religions.
Very few ask for identification cards as one enters.
Re-reading my post I was not very clear.
In the Church of England there is a sort of expectation that the primary means by which people will become Christian is by attending Sunday services. The Sunday service must be made as accessible as possible to outsiders*, so that they will keep coming and Christianity will eventually rub off on them. Consequently, there is pressure to see services as being 'for' outsiders and to encourage outsiders to come in.
My understanding - and you are right that this is based on very limited experience - is that if I wanted to become Jewish or Muslim or even Catholic, then the primary entrance point to the faith would be via the rabbi or the imam or the priest, who would then educate me in the tenets of the faith. I would go to services, but it would be part of that education. IOW, the service is 'for' insiders, and I'd be there because I'm part of their internal course of study.
Obviously there are few religions that would actually bar the doors of their places of worship to outsiders, and few religions that would discourage outsiders from expressing interest, but I think there are also few religions where the primary means by which outsiders are expected to express interest is by turning up to their rituals.
* Sorry, can't think of a better word.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think the idea that we must welcome everyone through the door at all costs is a distinctly Christian, and perhaps even distinctly Protestant, idea.
Seriously? This reflects neither an awareness of the history of Christianity or Protestantism nor a significant knowledge of other religions.
Very few ask for identification cards as one enters.
Re-reading my post I was not very clear.
In the Church of England there is a sort of expectation that the primary means by which people will become Christian is by attending Sunday services. The Sunday service must be made as accessible as possible to outsiders*, so that they will keep coming and Christianity will eventually rub off on them. Consequently, there is pressure to see services as being 'for' outsiders and to encourage outsiders to come in.
My understanding - and you are right that this is based on very limited experience - is that if I wanted to become Jewish or Muslim or even Catholic, then the primary entrance point to the faith would be via the rabbi or the imam or the priest, who would then educate me in the tenets of the faith. I would go to services, but it would be part of that education. IOW, the service is 'for' insiders, and I'd be there because I'm part of their internal course of study.
Obviously there are few religions that would actually bar the doors of their places of worship to outsiders, and few religions that would discourage outsiders from expressing interest, but I think there are also few religions where the primary means by which outsiders are expected to express interest is by turning up to their rituals.
* Sorry, can't think of a better word.
Sorry to go too far with this tangent, but would your description above of the Church of England apply also to nonconformist and nondenominational churches in England? What about Protestant churches in other countries that did not emerge from the Church of England or any other Established Church (aside from the RCC) - like the Huguenots in France, Anabaptists in Continental Europe, Protestants in Latin America, Asia, and Africa that come from churches not founded by Western missionaries?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I don't really have enough experience to say, sorry.
I suspect it's probably more typical of the Church of England simply because there are more circumstances in which a random outsider is likely to start attending. Firstly the aforementioned civic services, secondly because they want their children to go to a church school, thirdly because they want to get married in an Anglican church that isn't their parish church.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
To return to the subject of the election, a new Survation poll suggests that Labour have taken a 3 point lead over the Tories and now stand at 44%. Which still shows the two main parties as being in a strong position in terms of voters. The same poll translated here into seats suggests that the SNP would lose another 8 seats to 27, Labour would go up to 308 and the Tories down to 283. In other words another hung parliament. Personally I would like to see hung parliaments become the norm, so any party seeking to implement a manifesto would be required to consult with those of other views. That would hopefully prevent any extremist pushes to left or right.
If political cooperation became the order of the day, perhaps we could have some kind of electoral reform in order to make the House of Commons democratic, which it usually isn't in our present system, where David Cameron was able to form a government on 37% of the popular vote.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
That could well result in a Labour/SNP pact with a working majority of about 20 (assuming SF continue to stay at home). It could be messy, but better that an alliance with the (spit) DUP.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Personally I would like to see hung parliaments become the norm, so any party seeking to implement a manifesto would be required to consult with those of other views. That would hopefully prevent any extremist pushes to left or right.
Whether the extremists play a role is going to depend on the numbers. With >10-15 seats needed for a majority then a deal with a larger third party becomes an option (in the current HofC that would be LibDem and/or SNP/PC). With a smaller number of seats needed then we get the current situation of Ulster Unionists carrying the balance.
It would take strong third parties (strength in terms of personal resolution of leading members) for it to work though. The party that supports a minority government needs to be able to deliver something of value to their voters (and, to be seen doing that) - otherwise they face the same response from their voters that the LibDems had after the 2010-15 coalition.
But, yes, I would also like to see the normal situation being minority governments where the government needs to build support from members of other parties by being able to convince some of them that their policies will be best for the country. Which I think we are very likely to see if the SNP and PC can consistently take >30 seats between them and the LibDems continue to recover lost ground, even under a FPTP system. Of course, a more proportional electoral system (even AV) would more or less guarantee that - though it would cut the number of SNP seats, it would also boost LibDem and should get some more Greens (also possibly some of the unwanted extremist nutters like UKIP - but if people support them then even UKIP should get some MPs).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
FPTP is supposed to *protect* us against being ruled by extremist nutters... at least, that's what all the pundits told us when we had the AV referendum.
And yet here we are.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
AV probably wouldn't, but single-member constituencies elected by STV probably would. Any MP would need 50%+ of the vote, and most votes for fringe parties would aggregate towards the middle as they're eliminated from the count.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I saw a headline about David Davis being tipped as 'interim' Tory leader, hence PM, after May. This would really turn it into a farce, a kind of gameshow, where the prize is to be Prime Minister, for quite a short time, and then the next episode begins.
If you believe in karma, then the UK is paying off some huge karmic debt to the demons who we have offended. Well, it's as good an explanation as any.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Isn't single member constituencies elected by STV exactly AV.
Yep.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
The Irish multimember constituency system has a lot to be said for it It also gets one away from make-weight party list members as in Scotland, who don't actually represent any electors.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The Irish multimember constituency system has a lot to be said for it It also gets one away from make-weight party list members as in Scotland, who don't actually represent any electors.
We have a combined system - small single member constituencies and larger multimember constituencies. So, our list members represent those who vote for them just as much as the other MSPs, and as much as in the Irish system.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is not that politicians are expected to be regular attenders at religious services, they are expected at civic events of rememberance and celebration basically.
I think a lot of this depends on the precise nature of the religious service. Consider the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. This was, of course, a Christian service, in a large, well-known, Christian building.
There were plenty of non-Christians there: representatives of other faiths, leaders of Muslim countries, etc., etc.
They were present, and they stood out of respect at times when standing was happening, but they did not sing hymns, and nobody would expect them to.
Were I to be a politician (don't worry - I have no intention of entering politics), I would be happy to represent the civic authority at some religious celebration or commemoration held by a group of my constituents. But I'm not going to be endorsing their faith, and I'm not going to be worshiping according to their beliefs.
Very much, in fact, like my current behaviour as a foreigner in the US. I'll stand and remove any headgear I happen to be wearing whenever any anthem-singing or flag-saluting is happening, but my hands remain at my sides, and I don't recite the pledge, because it would be a lie.
So if Politician-Me was invited to some kind of religious activity at the local mosque/temple/whatever, I'd want to make enquiries about what I would be expected to do, and what significance those actions hold for members of the faith in question before I came to their event.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
