|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Tim Farron
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
So it seems that all those cynics who thought Mr Farron was telling porky pies when he said he didn't believe gay sex is a sin were in fact correct.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
"There are some who just can't comprehend that somebody can have really strong convictions and be a Bible-believing Christian on the one hand and at the same time really passionately believing in people's rights to make their own choices, which essentially is what liberalism is.".
Those some don't matter to William Rees-Mogg.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
So it seems that all those cynics who thought Mr Farron was telling porky pies when he said he didn't believe gay sex is a sin were in fact correct.
O. M. G. A politician lying? Say it ain't so.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yeah but this is an English conservative evangelical one.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Much as Tim Farron annoys me, and fundamentally as I disagree with him, I think he deserves some credit for looking at his own behaviour during the campaign - deciding it wasn't' good enough, and resigning.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
It's still not clear to me what he does think from that interview.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
"There are some who just can't comprehend that somebody can have really strong convictions and be a Bible-believing Christian on the one hand and at the same time really passionately believing in people's rights to make their own choices, which essentially is what liberalism is.".
You know, I can understand people's scepticism, given how hard the majority, or at least the noisiest part, of "Bible-believing Christians" have, time and time again, resisted legislative attempts to actually allow people to make their own choices. Now it's perfectly plausible (and only fair without evidence to the contrary to assume) that Tim Farron indeed is not of this kidney, but one can rather understand how people might just assume that someone who labels themselves that way is not going to be an ally for LGBT+ rights.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
Can anyone remember when consenting homosexual relationships became legal and no longer a criminal offense?
Which parties supported the change in the law and which tried to vote it down?
And where does the idea that morality can be controlled by law come from? Not Jesus Christ surely. Wasn't he crucified by The Law Enforcers?
[ 10. January 2018, 23:14: Message edited by: RdrEmCofE ]
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
One can rather understand how people might just assume that someone who labels themselves that way is not going to be an ally for LGBT+ rights.
In our soundbite culture you can understand it, yes, but I read that he actually had a record of working for LGBT rights.
The problem wasn't so much what he'd had done or would do, but what he believed. If actions had been the issue then the public (or the media) would've been interested in uncovering all the other things he believed that might have led to the loss of rights, or bad policies, etc., but they weren't.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
One can rather understand how people might just assume that someone who labels themselves that way is not going to be an ally for LGBT+ rights.
In our soundbite culture you can understand it, yes, but I read that he actually had a record of working for LGBT rights.
Mixed bag, from a quick google. Voted for equal marriage but wanted lots of conscience get-outs and protections for people who would deny LGBTI+ people rights.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's still not clear to me what he does think from that interview.
It seems fairly clear to me - he thinks that gay sex is a sin (and by extension seems to think that all right-thinking Christians should think the same) but his liberal values mean that people in society should be allowed to do things he doesn't agree with.
Rather than castigating the man, it'd be good if people could embrace the conservatives who are good enough to state this rather than putting them into the same pile as the most rabid of their compatriots.
But then on a whole bunch of other things he is dead wrong. He's buying into this rubbish that says conservative Christians are somehow discriminated against - when the reality is that he got himself into this mess on his own.
If he had said that had personal opinions but that didn't mean that somehow people who thought differently should be treated unequally, then the electorate could have accepted or rejected his honesty. But wriggling around to try to phrase something in an acceptable soundbite was his own undoing.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's still not clear to me what he does think from that interview.
It seems fairly clear to me - he thinks that gay sex is a sin (and by extension seems to think that all right-thinking Christians should think the same)
I agree that is probably what he wanted his Christian Radio audience to think, and may well be what he thinkgs, and it's certainly how the BBC article is slanting its coverage, but I don't think it's exactly what he said, is it?
I get the feeling that he's still equivocating in the hope that he can always wriggle out of what he said when faced with another, different constituency.
Full disclosure: I have an aunt who attends the same church as Farron. Apparently he is appreciated as an MP.
[ 11. January 2018, 08:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I agree that is probably what he wanted his Christian Radio audience to think, and may well be what he thinkgs, and it's certainly how the BBC article is slanting its coverage, but I don't think it's exactly what he said, is it?
Well I watched the whole interview - I've summarised it, but I'd be curious to see how else you could interpret it. Interview here
quote:
I get the feeling that he's still equivocating in the hope that he can always wriggle out of what he said when faced with another, different constituency.
Really? I can't see that there is any way back from this.
I suspect meetings he has with gay rights campaigners in the future might be interesting - although I suspect he'd say that he's clarified his personal beliefs but that as a Liberal Democrat he's committed to extending freedom for everyone, including those who do things that he doesn't agree with.
quote:
Full disclosure: I have an aunt who attends the same church as Farron. Apparently he is appreciated as an MP.
I've heard generally that he is considered to be fairly straight speaking. But then AFAIU his constituency is pretty mixed, so I don't think he is going to win much credit if the purpose of this interview was to speak directly to conservative Christian voters.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I watched the whole interview - I've summarised it, but I'd be curious to see how else you could interpret it.
From the BBC excerpt I watched, he said he was sorry he'd said it, but didn't make an assertion: "I believe gay sex to be a sin". Did he?
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
From the BBC excerpt I watched, he said he was sorry he'd said it, but didn't make an assertion: "I believe gay sex to be a sin". Did he?
Well he was asked about that. His answer was complicated.
First he said that everyone was a sinner (in different ways). Then he said that the problem with the language meant that saying something that other people did was sinful meant that it sounded like there was something uniquely bad about them. And he said that there wasn't normally space in the media to discuss the theology of sin.
Then he said that he felt torn between his personal belief and the party that he represented when the media had got hold of the thread of this idea (largely, he said, because they found it interesting rather than malice) and kept tugging on it. And then he said that he'd felt forced to say something that he didn't believe - including this - in order to get this issue off the table so that he could talk about his party's platform at the election.
So I don't think he said that "gay sex is a sin" in as many words, but he certainly said that his statement that it wasn't was wrong - implication that him saying gay sex wasn't a sin was incorrect because he believes that it is.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Agreed. It is implicit, not explicit, though.
Perhaps someone should direct him to a few DH threads...
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
OK, well I think he was fairly clear that he thought that he'd said that he though gay sex was a sin.
[ 11. January 2018, 08:41: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
To me he sounds a lot like where I was a while back:
he thinks gay sex is a sin but that it's not a particularly notorious one, everyone has sinned in some way, the concern is not to go around branding people sinners but to address their issues.
I can also see how using this sort of terminology was bound to get him into trouble sooner or later.
Put another way, I think there's a degree of cognitive dissonance between his instinctive beliefs and his political actions that he has not himself resolved.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How does a homophobe call themselves a liberal?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
By not realising they're a homophobe?
By considering themselves as a sinner to exactly the same degree as anyone else they consider to be a sinner?
By believing that sinfulness does not disqualify sinners of any kind from benefiting from rights or entitle them to be discriminated against?
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So this man would have as unequivocally vigorously pursued LGBT+ rights as C. Everett Koop, Reagan's Surgeon General did? Would he have championed women's reproductive rights too? Whilst opposing abortion? Again, as Koop did? Who would not oppose those rights on non-scientific grounds.
[ 11. January 2018, 09:12: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I've no idea. But I do think that launching "homophobe" as an opening salvo is likelier to entrench people in their positions than to get them thinking.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Indeed. Here? Isn't that what he was? I was. Farron fell in to temptation as Koop and Rees-Mogg do not.
I still have reservations about sexual relations, with regard to promiscuity for a start. However one is preferentially wired creates antipathy for certain configurations. Which reminds me of my favourite gay anecdote. I'm emotionally, existentially conflicted on abortion. And will always defend the right to both.
Blair fiercely separated his public politics and faith. Not graciously admittedly. Unlike Rees-Mogg. I'd like to know how the latter would handle leading the Tory party with regard to women's reproductive and LGBT+ rights, but I imagine he would speak with conviction for the party and abstain in voting. I don't see a problem with that?
I was at a certain totally inclusive church in Waterloo one Sunday evening, after services, there was a video running which ironically showed a kitten as symbolic of emotional fluffiness in response to more serious issues. A gay guy said in the perfect conversational silence, "Ooh no. I don't like pussy.".
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
And this is supposed to prove what, exactly?
The fact is that we live in a community where others do things we find abominable. And no doubt we do things we find abominable.
A liberal surely ultimately wants the most freedom for the most people. He wants people to be free to do the thing he finds abominable, because he recognises that in trying to control what other people do and think, he runs the risk of the reverse happening when the wind changes.
Farron might be a horrible homophobe, but if he is then the issue isn't so much how that is an issue with relation to his Evangelical Christianity as much as how it is a contradiction with his stated liberal values.
According to his own definition, he thinks the person who engages in gay sex is not more or less sinful than the person who refuses to accept Jesus as redeemer.
The fact that he thinks Hindus and Muslims sin by rejecting Jesus does not make him an anti-Hindu or islamophobe - if by his actions he shows that he is going to stand up for equal rights of worship for non-Christians.
Calling someone who has a position about sex being sinful a homophobe devalues the term.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
OK. What would the LGBT+ community call it? That's an open question. I don't think it does devalue it. Traditional, magisterial and conservative Christianity is homophobic surely? It fears homosexuality. And declaring, even privately, anyone a sinner for not sinning in any meaningful way, is hostile. Phobic. No?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Not according to the French Court of Cassation.
In a ruling handed down just a couple of days ago in a case concerning former minister Christine Boutin, conservative Catholic and darling of the con-evos for her ultraconservative positions, it overturned a ruling for incitement to hatred on the grounds of quoting Leviticus 18:22: quote:
«le propos incriminé, s’il est outrageant, ne contient néanmoins pas, même sous une forme implicite, d’appel ou d’exhortation à la haine ou à la violence à l’égard des personnes homosexuelles»
The declaration in question may be insulting, but does not call for or encourage violence against homosexuals, or do so by implication.
I don't like Christine Boutin one bit but I think the court is right on both free speech and public order grounds.
I have got in trouble on here before for referring to "the LGBT+ community" as it has rightly been pointed out to me that do so is to consider individuals as a uniform whole. That said, I don't think it would be right for any such community to dictate the boundaries of the term "homophobia".
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by RdrEmCofE quote:
Can anyone remember when consenting homosexual relationships became legal and no longer a criminal offense?
In England & Wales the 1967 Sexual Offences Act of 1967 legalised homosexual acts in private between consenting males aged 21 and over.
The act specifically didn't cover the armed forces or the merchant navy.
Scotland has its own legal system and homosexuality was legalised there in February 1981. Similarly, Northern Ireland legalised in 1982.
Lesbianism (or rather lesbian relationships) have never been against the law in the UK: this is widely attributed to Queen Victoria who, when presented with legislation on homosexual acts, refused to believe there would be same-sex sexual relationships between women. Whether or not that is apocryphal I don't know, but the fact remains that gay women have never been the subject of official sanction.
Although the recommendation was that the age of consent should be the same as for heterosexual sex, this wasn't the case until two changes: in 1994 the Conservative government reduced the age to 18 after an amendment from one of its ministers (Edwina Currie) to lower it to 16 met resistance. The change to 16 came in under the Labour government in 2000 but they had to use two Parliament Acts to do it (effectively it means that the government can't be gainsaid) and that act equalised the age in Scotland and Northern Ireland as well.
quote:
Which parties supported the change in the law and which tried to vote it down?
The Bill put before Parliament was not a government bill, and votes on it were not along party lines but taken as "free" votes. In essence the proposal to change the law cut across party lines - so, for example, the MP responsible for introducing the 2nd Reading to the Commons was the conservative MP for Lancaster, while many who spoke in favour of it were Labour MPs.
quote:
And where does the idea that morality can be controlled by law come from? Not Jesus Christ surely. Wasn't he crucified by The Law Enforcers?
The Ten Commandments! For what else is Thou shalt not commit adultery if not a statute about morality?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
"There are some who just can't comprehend that somebody can have really strong convictions and be a Bible-believing Christian on the one hand and at the same time really passionately believing in people's rights to make their own choices, which essentially is what liberalism is.".
You know, I can understand people's scepticism, given how hard the majority, or at least the noisiest part, of "Bible-believing Christians" have, time and time again, resisted legislative attempts to actually allow people to make their own choices. Now it's perfectly plausible (and only fair without evidence to the contrary to assume) that Tim Farron indeed is not of this kidney, but one can rather understand how people might just assume that someone who labels themselves that way is not going to be an ally for LGBT+ rights.
I have some, but limited, sympathy for Tim Farron on this. First because I've not seen anything to suggest he's quite as principled as made out, and second because he's entirely correct about the difficulties of expressing a principled position in a media environment dominated by sound-bites and an expectation that complex issues can be distilled into short Tweets.
On the first point, "There are some who just can't comprehend that somebody can have really strong convictions and be a Bible-believing Christian on the one hand and at the same time really passionately believing in people's rights to make their own choices, which essentially is what liberalism is" sounds fantastic to me. I get that he has a personal conviction, based on his reading of the Bible and the teaching of his church, that homosexual acts are sinful; I happen to disagree that being "Bible believing" automatically brings one to that conclusion. His statements about everyone being a sinner, not focusing on particular sins etc are right on. He's also right that the word "sin" is unlikely to be interpreted in a way different to his usage by a theologically illiterate populace (with theological illiteracy extending into large parts of the church). I also accept that as a Liberal then he's on solid ground stating that his personal convictions shouldn't inform public policy and legislation.
The problem I have is that I don't think he's consistent. By attempting to include a whole host of exceptions into same sex marriage legislation he attempted to allow for discrimination under some circumstances. Of course, it's a tight rope - as a Liberal should he be restricting the rights of some churches to refuse to conduct same sex weddings? Is that not also imposing something on others?
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
And where does the idea that morality can be controlled by law come from? Not Jesus Christ surely. Wasn't he crucified by The Law Enforcers?
The Ten Commandments! For what else is Thou shalt not commit adultery if not a statute about morality?
A statute about inheritance, and ensuring a clear line of succession?
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
No, it doesn't wash that it is to do with inheritance or a clear line of succession for the simple reason that Jewishness passes down the maternal line.
Now while adultery may make it difficult to know who has fathered a child the very nature of pregnancy and birth makes it very clear who is the mother.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
No, it doesn't wash that it is to do with inheritance or a clear line of succession for the simple reason that Jewishness passes down the maternal line.
Then why did Jesus tell a parable about two sons, one of whom goes to his father demanding his share of the inheritance? Or, why did Jacob steal his brothers birthright? Israel (the people) is named after a man. The Jewish claim is to be the children of Abraham, not Sarah. It's all patriarchal, property and name passing from father to sons.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
My apologies to the LGBT+ community if I should just be saying gay.
Alan. Farron said what he said, that you find fantastic, and I agree it's fine separation of 'church' and state; Sadiq Khan manages it, after the event. Why couldn't he say it at the time or some other more robust implicitly faithful response? That's a rhetorical question. He hadn't been coached right.
There's still the issue that 'church' that is hostile to LGBT+ inclusion for reasons of conscience and/or faith is hostile. And fair game.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
No, it doesn't wash that it is to do with inheritance or a clear line of succession for the simple reason that Jewishness passes down the maternal line.
The last few chapters of Judges, dealing with the was between the tribe of Benjamin and the other tribes, is clear that back then the belonging to whatever tribe was down the paternal line, at leas so far as which tribe you belonged to. The passing down the maternal line looks like a modern development.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The fact is that we live in a community where others do things we find abominable. And no doubt we do things we find abominable.
A liberal surely ultimately wants the most freedom for the most people. He wants people to be free to do the thing he finds abominable, because he recognises that in trying to control what other people do and think, he runs the risk of the reverse happening when the wind changes.
Farron might be a horrible homophobe, but if he is then the issue isn't so much how that is an issue with relation to his Evangelical Christianity as much as how it is a contradiction with his stated liberal values.
As I've noted earlier, the question isn't whether Tim Farron is entitled to hold certain views privately, it's whether he's entitled to hold a position of political leadership and whether his devotion to the rights of others is strongly committed, half-hearted, or outright insincere.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
No, it doesn't wash that it is to do with inheritance or a clear line of succession for the simple reason that Jewishness passes down the maternal line.
Then why did Jesus tell a parable about two sons, one of whom goes to his father demanding his share of the inheritance? Or, why did Jacob steal his brothers birthright? Israel (the people) is named after a man. The Jewish claim is to be the children of Abraham, not Sarah. It's all patriarchal, property and name passing from father to sons.
Tracing Judaism through the maternal line is a relatively modern (and in Judaism "relatively modern" means "since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE") phenomenon. A simple read of those Old Testament lists of lineages is enough to confirm this.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The fact that he felt compelled to lie about what he truly believes, to deny it - it's not a 'mistake' - would indicate, in the same mirror, insincerity about devotion to the rights of others.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
Surely it is possible for a politician to hold strong religious views regarding his own conduct, yet not be seeking to impose those same views on others in the form of legislation or repeal of statutes?
I think this was another case of media journalists manipulating exposure on the subject of THEIR choice, in order to score cheap political points or sabotage a political message by attacking the person delivering it and diverting attention to irrelevant side issues.
An effective but underhanded, deceitful, scurrilous ploy, damaging to truth and democracy. We saw a lot of it on the Brexit campaign.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nobody asked him to step in to the arena. He should have been better prepared.
Might this be Purgatorial?
[ 11. January 2018, 16:28: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Surely it is possible for a politician to hold strong religious views regarding his own conduct, yet not be seeking to impose those same views on others in the form of legislation or repeal of statutes?
It's theoretically possible, but it should be noted that there's a vast gulf between "not be seeking to impose those same views on others in the form of legislation or repeal of statutes" and "zealously protecting the rights and dignity of others". If a political party is ostensibly zealous about the rights of gay citizens, having a leader whose support is historically tepid and mostly consists of platitudes rather than actions, that would seem to be problematic. As I stated earlier:
quote:
If you're gay (or just someone who cares about how gay people are treated) are you going to support a leader who's support of your rights as a citizen is grudging, half-hearted, and unreliable? You might, if that was the only support on offer, but those days are gone.
Given that in the article Ricardus linked to Farron basically "admitted his answers had been motivated, partly, by political expediency" (a quote from the article, not a direct quote from Farron himself) I don't think its wrong conclude Farron would, if the situation presented itself, be similarly "expedient" about curtailing the rights of homosexuals. Not because it's something he particularly wants, but because it's a bargaining chip he doesn't particularly care about.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
One can rather understand how people might just assume that someone who labels themselves that way is not going to be an ally for LGBT+ rights.
In our soundbite culture you can understand it, yes, but I read that he actually had a record of working for LGBT rights.
Mixed bag, from a quick google. Voted for equal marriage but wanted lots of conscience get-outs and protections for people who would deny LGBTI+ people rights.
Well, the CofE itself has a 'get-out'. Is it suitable for any member of that denomination to lead a political party?
Mrs May and Mr Cameron are Anglicans who both approve of SSM, but it could be argued that their adherence to a huge institution (much larger than the one to which Mr Farron belongs) that denies LGBT+ people rights is undesirable at the very least.
I imagine that many people have left the CofE because of its official stance. Others would say that the CofE's stance is good reason for it to be disestablished. If our Anglican politicians don't argue publicly against the CofE does that make their commitment to LGBT+ rights suspect?
It seems unfair to make Mr Farron carry the blame for religious attitudes that we allow powerful institutions to hold. (But it does seem that the Lib Dems' purpose is to be punished for views that exist in high places elsewhere!)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
He lied. It's fair.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Surely it is possible for a politician to hold strong religious views regarding his own conduct, yet not be seeking to impose those same views on others in the form of legislation or repeal of statutes?
Yes, I think it is. As it happens, I am a straight man with politics that are basically Liberal and theology which is fairly conservative. It took me a long time to come round to the idea of SSM and I know that many of my Baptist colleagues still don't hold with it (yes, I appreciate that many here will disagree with their view - I'm just stating "how things are").
However there is, I think, a difference between saying something in a church context and promulgating a public policy. For this reason I believe it is perfectly possible for a conservative Christian to assert that the Bible teaches a "traditionalist" position as far as sexuality and marriage are concerned while [i]at the same time/i] strongly favouring and even promoting a very different position among the population at last.
By the way, I am not one of those people who say that "we should keep religion out of politics". On the one hand our faith must shape our viewpoints (which can indeed lead to tensions, as we may see with the new Minister for Women); on the other hand, religious voices should certainly be heard, among many others, by the Government of a secular society.
I sense that the media prefer a more simplistic approach. And - from what I've read about Tim's interventions - he answered their questions in ways which have ultimately proved unhelpful.
[ 12. January 2018, 14:18: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
How do you square that with his vote against extending anti-discrimination law to cover sexual orientation? That would seem like are record of working against LGBT rights.
Looks that way ... but has his thinking perhaps changed since then? It was more than 10 years ago and there has been quite a sea-change of opinions within the churches during that time.
First off, I'm not sure how compatible SvitlanaV2's assertion of Mr. Farron having a "record of working for LGBT rights" is with justifications along the lines of "it was more than 10 years ago". Either his history is relevant or it isn't. For my part I'm more concerned with actual actions than cheap rhetoric that can easily be adjusted if there's "a sea-change of opinions".
Political parties exist to enact agendas. If we accept that the Liberal Democrats are in favor of protecting the rights of homosexuals against discrimination it would seem prudent for them to be led by someone who is actually interested in that goal. The best that can be said for Mr. Farron is that his statements on the matter are ambivalent and his voting record dubious. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to the leadership of a political party.
[ 12. January 2018, 15:15: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In our soundbite culture you can understand it, yes, but I read that he actually had a record of working for LGBT rights.
How do you square that with his vote against extending anti-discrimination law to cover sexual orientation? That would seem like are record of working against LGBT rights.
He seems to have had a varied voting record, but the link says that 'on the whole' he's voted for gay rights.
However, the issue of LGBT+ rights is now so broad that almost anyone could fall on the 'wrong' side with respect to some aspect of the issue. Mrs May doesn't come off as an unvarnished champion of total equality in her voting record.
I think Mr Farron's essential personal problem was lacking the cunning to be a party leader. You have to know which way the wind is blowing, and look as if you're part of the changing landscape. Who knows or cares what's really happening in your soul if you're able to sell the public your commitment to liberation, etc.? He seemed to think he had a get-out clause on this, which is pretty odd.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think Mr Farron's essential personal problem was lacking the cunning to be a party leader. You have to know which way the wind is blowing, and look as if you're part of the changing landscape. Who knows or cares what's really happening in your soul if you're able to sell the public your commitment to liberation, etc.?
You're right - but what a sad comment, which seems to imply that a person of conviction and integrity cannot be a party leader. No wonder the great British public have lost faith in politicians.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Another fine false dichotomy you've gotten yourselves into.
Farron LIED. I don't see May or Corbyn doing that. Koop didn't.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
You can be a person of conviction and integrity (that's why Corbyn appeals to so many). What you can't be is a swivel-eyed fundie pretending to be a liberal, which is what Farron looks like (key word here being "looks", I'm sure it's more complex than that). Conviction counts for little if your convictions cause revulsion in much of the population, and the section that might agree with you think you're a wishy-washy backslider.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I agree about Corbyn. But whether people will actually vote for him is another matter. Probably depends more on how much mess the Tories make.
The 'commitment and integrity' of 'fundy' politicians is obviously of no use in British secular society - unless they can keep it under cover and convincingly present a more palatable image. Note that Mr Blair didn't join the RCC until after he left office!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I agree about Corbyn. But whether people will actually vote for him is another matter.
He already got more votes than any Labour leader since 1997. You can obviously come up with as many reasons as you like for that, and for why it wasn't enough.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
