Tim Farron puts God before Politics

[Pavilionaire]

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.

It's not just as simple as agreeing with gay sex and gay marriage. It's also about agreeing to gays in the military, adopting kids, holding high office etc. And there was a time when being gay could open up a politician to blackmail. Internationally - given the rest of the world aren't as liberal as the UK - that could still present problems too.

I think that many party leaders would still disagree with full equality and recognition for LGBT in all areas. Indeed, the DUP's views show that prejudice still occurs in mainstream UK politics.

 

[Triggaaar]

It's not just as simple as agreeing with gay sex and gay marriage. It's also about agreeing to gays in the military, adopting kids, holding high office etc.

But none of that is related to the Farron/god issue is it. His problem is that when asked if being gay was a sin, he refused to answer, implying that he thought it was (because the bible says it is). If he had just said no, he sees no problem with being gay, and like most British Christians he didn't agree with every word of the bible, there'd be no problem would there?

 

[hart's shirt]

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.

That can be true. But what about the other points and examples I raised about changes of opinions and positive examples of MPs with beliefs?

Should politicians be required then to list all of their own personal beliefs (and none) in anything in order for the voter to form a better picture of who would be representing them? And would the importance of this be placed before policies? Does it ultimately matter to anyone other than the person concerned?

With the actions of his vote, Farron didn't think his personal views should matter more than same-sex marriage. Despite this, he still felt pressurized by a media more concerned with soundbites than substance. That's more concerning for me.

 

[Pavilionaire]

But none of that is related to the Farron/god issue is it. His problem is that when asked if being gay was a sin, he refused to answer, implying that he thought it was (because the bible says it is). If he had just said no, he sees no problem with being gay, and like most British Christians he didn't agree with every word of the bible, there'd be no problem would there?

Some people want everything black and white? I get Farron's beliefs - he is willing to tolerate homosexuality, but is unable to defend it, respect it or promote acceptance of it.

In the past his stance would have been perfectly normal for a UK political leader and would still acceptable for much / most of the electorate because those beliefs don't affect much of government business of the day, but those times have changed and it would appear tolerance is now no loner enough.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

All this is well and good, but the alternatives were May or Corbyn. I mean really you lot are picking at the bones of a devil amongst devils.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

That can be true. But what about the other points and examples I raised about changes of opinions and positive examples of MPs with beliefs?

Should politicians be required then to list all of their own personal beliefs (and none) in anything in order for the voter to form a better picture of who would be representing them? And would the importance of this be placed before policies? Does it ultimately matter to anyone other than the person concerned?

With the actions of his vote, Farron didn't think his personal views should matter more than same-sex marriage. Despite this, he still felt pressurized by a media more concerned with soundbites than substance. That's more concerning for me.

On the other issues I take your point. Everyone can change their views and we often moderate strong conviction as we get older and wiser with the realization that alternative views hold as much merit as our own. Religious belief often rests though on codes established hundreds/thousands of years ago so it is a worry in politicians. Equally I also recognize that someone else's belief is none of my business but I wouldn't vote for anyone with medieval views on homosexuality and women.

 

[btnbelle]

Why is it all so complex. We evolved both physically from apes and mentally from good human instinct. We are all learning to love more without the need to call on supernatural deities, who our ancestors invented to answer questions, that once had no answer.

Surely Tim would be better off if he had ditched his religion rather than his job?

I guess it was his choice. I accept others rights to choose their own beliefs, as long as they don't push it onto people. If people choose any brand of religion then practice it quietly. I am going to accept his choice and move on.

 

[Buzzer]

That can be true. But what about the other points and examples I raised about changes of opinions and positive examples of MPs with beliefs?

Should politicians be required then to list all of their own personal beliefs (and none) in anything in order for the voter to form a better picture of who would be representing them? And would the importance of this be placed before policies? Does it ultimately matter to anyone other than the person concerned?

With the actions of his vote, Farron didn't think his personal views should matter more than same-sex marriage. Despite this, he still felt pressurized by a media more concerned with soundbites than substance. That's more concerning for me.

I think though that you've not got why Farron resigned. Lord Paddick, an openly gay Lib Dem peer, quit and other gay party members had expressed their anger at being led by a man who was "tolerating" them and who believes their sexuality is a sin. Farron understood this and the offence it was causing. He didn't quit because of media pressure but rather pressure from his own party and especially those within it who felt like Paddick and Laws.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

On the other issues I take your point. Everyone can change their views and we often moderate strong conviction as we get older and wiser with the realization that alternative views hold as much merit as our own. Religious belief often rests though on codes established hundreds/thousands of years ago so it is a worry in politicians. Equally I also recognize that someone else's belief is none of my business but I wouldn't vote for anyone with medieval views on homosexuality and women.

Someone else's beliefs become your business when they seek your vote.

 

[East Preston Gull]

I think though that you've not got why Farron resigned. Lord Paddick, an openly gay Lib Dem peer, quit and other gay party members had expressed their anger at being led by a man who was "tolerating" them and who believes their sexuality is a sin. Farron understood this and the offence it was causing. He didn't quit because of media pressure but rather pressure from his own party and especially those within it who felt like Paddick and Laws.

Shame paddick and Laws could not show much tolerance either. Tolerance appears to be a one way Street these days.

As someone on Radio 4 said this morning. If he had won 50 seats then they would have tolerated him for another 5 years.

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

 

[hart's shirt]

On the other issues I take your point. Everyone can change their views and we often moderate strong conviction as we get older and wiser with the realization that alternative views hold as much merit as our own. Religious belief often rests though on codes established hundreds/thousands of years ago so it is a worry in politicians. Equally I also recognize that someone else's belief is none of my business but I wouldn't vote for anyone with medieval views on homosexuality and women.

Yes, I agree with you that views can and frequently do change with age and that, for the majority, age is a maturing process where dogmatic views can decline. For instance, it's interesting to note the comparatively young ages of the perpetrators of recent attacks - with certain notable exceptions (the 66 year old baseball shooter), a certain age demographic is overly-represented. So in some ways, and despite all physical evidence to the contrary, age can be our friend here at least in respect to maturing of views.

Would your voting be primarily based on their views and still come in front of any policies that they were supporting, even policies that you were in support of? Surely if someone else's belief was, as you say, none of your business, it wouldn't matter what they believed if their policies matched those of your own. To clarify and balance things up, I would ask the same question to a voter with any religious belief who voted negatively towards a secular candidate primarily as a result of the candidate's perceived lack of faith despite supporting their policies enough for them to cast their vote favourably.

 

[Buzzer]

Shame paddick and Laws could not show much tolerance either. Tolerance appears to be a one way Street these days

I think that's a little unfair. I'm not sure why or how they should have acted differently. As far as I can tell, Paddick didn't demand Farron's resignation nor did he go public with a rant against Farron's beliefs, he gave his explanation quite rationally. He resigned because as a gay man he couldn't work under someone who had those beliefs. I think it's perfectly reasonable and I wouldn't describe it as showing an intolerance of Farron's views.

I think everyone has the right to hold racist views and as long as they keep those views to themselves and don't try to act upon them then there is no law being broken. I wouldn't much like to work under someone who I knew to be racist though. Am I also being intolerant?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I think that's a little unfair. I'm not sure why or how they should have acted differently. As far as I can tell, Paddick didn't demand Farron's resignation nor did he go public with a rant against Farron's beliefs, he gave his explanation quite rationally. He resigned because as a gay man he couldn't work under someone who had those beliefs. I think it's perfectly reasonable and I wouldn't describe it as showing an intolerance of Farron's views.

I think everyone has the right to hold racist views and as long as they keep those views to themselves and don't try to act upon them then there is no law being broken. I wouldn't much like to work under someone who I knew to be racist though. Am I also being intolerant?

As someone mentioned previously he only resigned after the election and the Lib Dems had made little impact. So happy to work with him in some circumstances. If the Lib Dems had won twenty seats I expect he would still be in his post. I won't discriminate against his actions but suggest he is just like most other politicians straight or gay, a political opportunist. Expect to see him back when a new Leader is announced.

 

[hart's shirt]

I think though that you've not got why Farron resigned. Lord Paddick, an openly gay Lib Dem peer, quit and other gay party members had expressed their anger at being led by a man who was "tolerating" them and who believes their sexuality is a sin. Farron understood this and the offence it was causing. He didn't quit because of media pressure but rather pressure from his own party and especially those within it who felt like Paddick and Laws.

The media certainly seem to have played a part here:

Extracts of Farron's own words from his resignation speech (my italics):

"From the very first day of my leadership, I have faced questions about my Christian faith. At the start of this election, I found myself under scrutiny again - asked about matters to do with my faith. I felt guilty that this focus was distracting attention from our campaign, obscuring our message. Journalists have every right to ask what they see fit. The consequences of the focus on my faith is that I have found myself torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader. I seem to be the subject of suspicion because of what I believe and who my faith is in. In which case we are kidding ourselves if we think we yet live in a tolerant, liberal society."
http://mailchi.mp/libdems/farron-resigns-as-lib-dem-leader?e=8517bbee3e

Support came from Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury who tweeted:
"Tim Farron honourable & decent. Regardless of party if he can't be in politics media & politicians have questions."
https://twitter.com/JustinWelby?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Yes, I agree with you that views can and frequently do change with age and that, for the majority, age is a maturing process where dogmatic views can decline. For instance, it's interesting to note the comparatively young ages of the perpetrators of recent attacks - with certain notable exceptions (the 66 year old baseball shooter), a certain age demographic is overly-represented. So in some ways, and despite all physical evidence to the contrary, age can be our friend here at least in respect to maturing of views.

Would your voting be primarily based on their views and still come in front of any policies that they were supporting, even policies that you were in support of? Surely if someone else's belief was, as you say, none of your business, it wouldn't matter what they believed if their policies matched those of your own. To clarify and balance things up, I would ask the same question to a voter with any religious belief who voted negatively towards a secular candidate primarily as a result of the candidate's perceived lack of faith despite supporting their policies enough for them to cast their vote favourably.

It's a really interesting question.In reality I have probably unknowingly voted for people in the past who did/do have religious views I find incompatible with my own secular values. If I know about it though then I think I would vote against them regardless of other issues we had in common because I think it insulting to people around me. I need to take more responsibility for researching the backgrounds of prospective political representatives. Perhaps we all should.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

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.

It's not local to me, but I was told once recently that one of the dioceses in the South-east (the one that includes Croydon) would fall apart if it were not for gay clergy. And I doubt whether it is alone.

 

[Buzzer]

The media certainly certainly seem to have played a part here:

Extracts of Farron's own words from his resignation speech (my italics):

"From the very first day of my leadership, I have faced questions about my Christian faith. At the start of this election, I found myself under scrutiny again - asked about matters to do with my faith. I felt guilty that this focus was distracting attention from our campaign, obscuring our message. Journalists have every right to ask what they see fit. The consequences of the focus on my faith is that I have found myself torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader. I seem to be the subject of suspicion because of what I believe and who my faith is in. In which case we are kidding ourselves if we think we yet live in a tolerant, liberal society."
http://mailchi.mp/libdems/farron-resigns-as-lib-dem-leader?e=8517bbee3e

Support came from Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury who tweeted:
"Tim Farron honourable & decent. Regardless of party if he can't be in politics media & politicians have questions."
https://twitter.com/JustinWelby?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

I can only go by Paddick's words but it sounds like it was Farron's inability or refusal to state clearly his beliefs when questioned during the election that has caused him to resign. Maybe Farron and Paddick had previously had conversations where Farron had said something different.

And as for the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments he has missed the point entirely. Tim Farron can still play a part in politics and hold those beliefs. Just look at the DUP for instance who have much more entrenched views. Farron's views are not incompatible with a being a politician. What is incompatible is him leading a national democratic party with LGBT members who don't want a boss who "tolerates" them.

I'm with you completely that Tim Farron should not be forced out of public life for his beliefs esp. as he has shown that he is able to put these aside in the name of equality.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This



Plus this



Equals this



He became leader out of a sense of wanting to be leader.

He quit after being stuffed in an election.

Situation normal . . . .

 

[hart's shirt]

It's a really interesting question.In reality I have probably unknowingly voted for people in the past who did/do have religious views I find incompatible with my own secular values. If I know about it though then I think I would vote against them regardless of other issues we had in common because I think it insulting to people around me. I need to take more responsibility for researching the backgrounds of prospective political representatives. Perhaps we all should.

Thanks for clarifying, NB. I'd agree with you that there's a real need to look at the people concerned of all parties regardless of political persuasion. Then again, it has been known for politicians of all parties to be economical with the truth, so there's always the danger with too much intrusion of politicians simply saying what the people want to hear. An aural version of the classic family photoshoot by the garden gate after a scandal, as it were.

It's fascinating to consider that whilst Farron knew his views were increasingly counter-cultural, he still felt the courage to express them. In a political environment where a Presidential tweet is increasingly more popular and interesting then the truth, Farron may be one of the last politicians to place his own real faith before his career and personality.

 

[Triggaaar]

Some people want everything black and white? I get Farron's beliefs - he is willing to tolerate homosexuality, but is unable to defend it, respect it or promote acceptance of it.

I'm fine with that. I think most are fine with that. And we won't vote for him.

those times have changed

Indeed. Bye Tim