Tim Farron puts God before Politics

[Neville's Breakfast]

Resigned as Lib Dem leader stating he can't be both a 'committed Christian' and lead a political party.

Admirable stance in this day and age.

Isn't his stance that he can't be a committed Christian and lead the Liberal Party ? His views on homosexuality put him closer to the Far Right.

 

[Buzzer]

Isn't his stance that he can't be a committed Christian and lead the Liberal Party ? His views on homosexuality put him closer to the Far Right.

No. It does not put him closer to the far right. As he, Fidel Castro and countless others have shown, homophobia is not the preserve of a single ideology, it operates at all points in the political spectrum. The same is true of anti-Semitism and sexism.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

No. It does not put him closer to the far right. As he, Fidel Castro and countless others have shown, homophobia is not the preserve of a single ideology, it operates at all points in the political spectrum. The same is true of anti-Semitism and sexism.

Fair enough. Perhaps the difference is that the typical Liberal Democrat voter is going to be harder to convince with a homophobe as leader. Fidel Castro's public didn't have much choice

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Well it is for some, surely? I'd in no way accuse all Christian's of being homophobes you can't deny that there are branches of Christianity that are anti-gay. Not that that is any different from other groupings in society I guess.

Yes, it is for some. I probably didn't put it very well. The main point of what I was trying to say is that it is not a mandatory part of the package.

In fact far from it. Most people I know from within the Churches are liberally minded about it. Personally, it's not exactly top of my agenda.

 

[Buzzer]

Fair enough. Perhaps the difference is that the typical Liberal Democrat voter is going to be harder to convince with a homophobe as leader. Fidel Castro's public didn't have much choice

Ha! I think you're right there! Trouble is, I really don't think that Tim Farron sees himself as homophobic. He's certainly not a bigot and you can see he has struggled with his conscience on this one and done what he thinks is the right thing despite his deeply held religious convictions and fair play but David Laws is right, in my opinion anyway, that we should now have reached a point where someone's sexuality shouldn't matter one jot. We'll get there one day.

 

[Buzzer]

Yes, it is for some. I probably didn't put it very well. The main point of what I was trying to say is that it is not a mandatory part of the package.

In fact far from it. Most people I know from within the Churches are liberally minded about it. Personally, it's not exactly top of my agenda.

I'd go further and say that the liberalism of the CoE, here in England has long been a sanctuary for gay men and women. I'm sure you're aware of him already but the ex-keyboardist from the Communards, the Rev Richard Coles is very open about both his sexuality and his faith and has happily reconciled both.

Edit: [MENTION=29192]Brighton Lines[/MENTION] and I discussed this recently and he was saying that he was told by a local vicar that a large proportion of Brighton's CoE clergy are gay. As you say, it isn't a big deal because who people choose to love and what they do behind closed doors is no-one else's business.

 

[hart's shirt]

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of homophobia is "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia
Oxford's definition is "Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/homophobia

Voting in favour of same-sex marriage could hardly be describe as dislike, irrational fear, aversion to or prejudice against homosexual people.
Discrimination? Farron used his position and voted to end it.

Whatever people may feel about him, his personal views, his decision to step down as leader or whether it was right for him to lead a political party in the first place, to label Farron as homophobic based on the above definitions simply doesn't appear to have any basis for truth.

(One may consider that that spurious accusations of homophobia can be used as one-size, fits-all mallets against anyone holding any views not consistent with the prevailing culture and thinking, regardless of whether they are personal or not. But that is, of course, a different point for consideration.)

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of homophobia is "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia
Oxford's definition is "Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/homophobia

Voting in favour of same-sex marriage could hardly be describe as dislike, irrational fear, aversion to or prejudice against homosexual people.
Discrimination? Farron used his position and voted to end it.

Whatever people may feel about him, his personal views, his decision to step down as leader or whether it was right for him to lead a political party in the first place, to label Farron as homophobic based on the above definitions simply doesn't appear to have any basis for truth.

(One may consider that that spurious accusations of homophobia can be used as one-size, fits-all mallets against anyone holding any views not consistent with the prevailing culture and thinking, regardless of whether they are personal or not. But that is, of course, a different point for consideration.)

His voting record is not the issue. He has been rather equivocal when asked whether he believes homosexuality is a sin. His position moved from a refusal to answer to a denial of it being a sin. Why was it so difficult for him to come up with an answer? With religion on the rise again we may have more people seeking to represent us who hold views on such matters taken from scripture rather than the 21st century. It is legitimate to question these people.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Maybe Tim Farron was the obstacle for the LibDems going back into coalition with the Tories

Come on Ernest, that's total bollocks! The whole party unites on their refusal to even contemplate any sort of talks with Theresa May. If one good thing has come out of the 2017 GE for the Lib Dems it's to demonstrably kill the allegation that they are Tory apologists / facilitators.

 

[Buzzer]

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of homophobia is "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia
Oxford's definition is "Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/homophobia

Voting in favour of same-sex marriage could hardly be describe as dislike, irrational fear, aversion to or prejudice against homosexual people.
Discrimination? Farron used his position and voted to end it.

Your definition says that it is an irrational fear, aversion OR discrimination. It's not all 3 that defines it but any of those. I think it's clear from Tim Farron's belief that homosexuality is a sin means that ultimately he would prefer it if there were no homosexuals. Fair play to him for voting for equality despite that but I still think that believing it is a sin makes him homophobic.

 

[Triggaaar]

Resigned as Lib Dem leader stating he can't be both a 'committed Christian' and lead a political party.

Admirable stance in this day and age.

Wouldn't it be admirable to take that stance before an election (particularly had he been expected to do well), rather than after an election where he failed miserably?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Wouldn't it be admirable to take that stance before an election (particularly had he been expected to do well), rather than after an election where he failed miserably?

Wouldn't it have been good if he took that stance before becoming a politician?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

If only he'd been called anything other than 'Tim'. Being called 'Tim' amounts to a roadmap to lifelong mediocrity. Insisting on being called 'Timothy' just makes things infinitely worse

 

[Sussex Nomad]

If only he'd been called anything other than 'Tim'. Being called 'Tim' amounts to a roadmap to lifelong mediocrity.

Tim 'nice but' Dim, really, really suits here.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Tim 'nice but' Dim, really, really suits here.

 

[Triggaaar]

Indeed, I think it would be hard for any party leader with strong religious convictions of any faith not to crack if pressed on LGBT issues.

Why? You can believe in god and at the same time disagree with parts of the bible. Many vicars don't believe in Adam and Eve for example.

 

[Buzzer]

What annoys me most about all the anti-gay rhetoric and legislation is that it is often done in the name of protecting children. In Russia, they've now got the law coded as against "the promotion of homosexuality". Clause 28 was exactly the same here in the UK. Teenage children are screwed up enough already that no-one would willingly choose to be gay and have to deal with all that entails. A little bit of education and understanding that it's okay to feel the way they do is not promoting it anymore than campaigns to end the stigma of mental health issues promotes or encourages that. There's also a subtext with people claiming to protect children that they believe homosexuality equates to paedophilia.

 

[Murray 17]

Did no one tell him he didn't need to resign.......seeing as god isn't real n all?

I don't rate the man, and as every other sentence he muttered in the first two weeks of the campaign contained the phrase, "hard Brexit", he came across as a bit of a one policy politician.

However, comments like these, which completely disrespect and belittle someone's religion, are unnecessary. You clearly aren't religious, and that's your choice, but TF is, and I respect him for putting his beliefs before his own personal advancement.

 

[hart's shirt]

His voting record is not the issue. He has been rather equivocal when asked whether he believes homosexuality is a sin. His position moved from a refusal to answer to a denial of it being a sin. Why was it so difficult for him to come up with an answer? With religion on the rise again we may have more people seeking to represent us who hold views on such matters taken from scripture rather than the 21st century. It is legitimate to question these people.

I think it's reasonable to assume that politicians' views can change from non-committal to one of a clearer stance.

Farron's not on his own by any means here - Obama's position changed in relation to same-sex marriage.

Consider this from 2008, the year of his election:
"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman....Now, for me as a Christian...it is a sacred union. God's in the mix."
http://time.com/3702584/gay-marriage-axelrod-obama/

There have always been been those with religious faith in Parliament. William Wilberforce (Independent) served as an MP before his conversion to Christianity. With many of the MPs having vested interests in the slave trade, Wilberforce used his position to further the good of humanity being guided by his religious beliefs. It took him 20 years to do so, but few if any could argue that his impact was for good even if it was fired with a zealous belief.

Is an active, living faith incompatible with politics? Wilberforce showed that it wasn't back then.

Perhaps Parliament is crying out for more MPs from all parties who are motivated by something other than their own self-interest and popularity.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I think it's reasonable to assume that politicians' views can change from non-committal to one of a clearer stance.

Farron's not on his own by any means here - Obama's position changed in relation to same-sex marriage.

Consider this from 2008, the year of his election:
"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman....Now, for me as a Christian...it is a sacred union. God's in the mix."
http://time.com/3702584/gay-marriage-axelrod-obama/

There have always been been those with religious faith in Parliament. William Wilberforce (Independent) served as an MP before his conversion to Christianity. With many of the MPs having vested interests in the slave trade, Wilberforce used his position to further the good of humanity being guided by his religious beliefs. It took him 20 years to do so, but few if any could argue that his impact was for good even if it was fired with a zealous belief.

Is an active, living faith incompatible with politics? Wilberforce showed that it wasn't back then.

Perhaps Parliament is crying out for more MPs from all parties who are motivated by something other than their own self-interest and popularity.

As a non believer I would be more comfortable being represented by someone who upholds modern secular views rather than zealous belief. Religion often comes with a lot of anti gay and anti women baggage and I find it quite distasteful.