Tim Farron puts God before Politics

DavidinSouthampton · Jun 15, 2017

Neville's Breakfast said:
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.

I would give absolutely no account at all to the religious views of any individual, unless it was the reason for some of their policies. A "Christians against Muslims" party or candidate, for example would not get my vote. Somebody advocating the ending of the right to abortion or condemning gay sex or marriage specifically would not get my vote, just as nobody who advocated bringing back capital punishment would ever get my vote for reasons of conscience.

Before this election just past, a body called the JPIT - Joint Public Issues team - which works on behalf of the Methodist, Baptist and United Reformed Churches and the Church of Scotland was urging people to vote and highlighting justfour areas to think about in light of one's faith. Gay sex/marriage was not one of them,

The four areas were:
 The UK’s relationship with the European Union 
Migration, forced displacement and the UK asylum system 
Poverty and economic inequality in the UK 
The UK’s role in the world.

Other things likely to figure in people's thinking within the Churches are environmental matters and Climate Change.

There's a link to it here, if anybody is interested: http://www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/General-Election-2017-issues-PDF.pdf
It's telling people to think about things, not about what conclusions to reach or how to vote.

sir albion · Jun 15, 2017

Christ I'm so bored of religion these days......

Neville's Breakfast · Jun 15, 2017

hart's shirt said:
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.

I guess we all just apply our own standards when placing our vote. It can certainly be argued that Farron did initially stand by his principles although at some point he seems to have begun denying his own faith for which there is ironically a scriptural precedent around Easter time (there, I knew my catholic primary school education would come in handy at some
point). It could be argued though that sticking to religious principles in the face of the offense it causes is not necessarily a sign of strong character. You mentioned Donald Trump and I have little doubt he has strong principles but they are not to be admired (in my opinion anyway).
I take it you are most concerned in this by the apparent removal of someone from office for privately held views ?

Neville's Breakfast · Jun 15, 2017

DavidinSouthampton said:
I would give absolutely no account at all to the religious views of any individual, unless it was the reason for some of their policies. A "Christians against Muslims" party or candidate, for example would not get my vote. Somebody advocating the ending of the right to abortion or condemning gay sex or marriage specifically would not get my vote, just as nobody who advocated bringing back capital punishment would ever get my vote for reasons of conscience.

Before this election just past, a body called the JPIT - Joint Public Issues team - which works on behalf of the Methodist, Baptist and United Reformed Churches and the Church of Scotland was urging people to vote and highlighting justfour areas to think about in light of one's faith. Gay sex/marriage was not one of them,

The four areas were:
 The UK’s relationship with the European Union 
Migration, forced displacement and the UK asylum system 
Poverty and economic inequality in the UK 
The UK’s role in the world.

Other things likely to figure in people's thinking within the Churches are environmental matters and Climate Change.

There's a link to it here, if anybody is interested: http://www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/General-Election-2017-issues-PDF.pdf
It's telling people to think about things, not about what conclusions to reach or how to vote.

I'm afraid I find that rather worrying. The church ,in my opinion, is not qualified to involve itself
in those issues. In much the same way it is not and never has been qualified to involve itself in the pastoral care
of young people and yet that has not stopped it from doing so with disastrous consequences.

DavidinSouthampton · Jun 15, 2017

Neville's Breakfast said:
I'm afraid I find that rather worrying. The church ,in my opinion, is not qualified to involve itself
in those issues. In much the same way it is not and never has been qualified to involve itself in the pastoral care
of young people and yet that has not stopped it from doing so with disastrous consequences.

If the Church isn't qualified to involve itself in the pastoral care of people - young or otherwise - I don't know who is. The main concept of most faiths is caring for people, and particularly the most vulnerable. For all the child abuse stuff which has gone on in the past - which is appalling - there has also been a great deal of good straightforward and extremely successful nurturing of young people, including down to full-time caring through things like Barnardo's and the National Childrens' Home.

And in terms of the Church "not involving itself in those issues", I totally disagree and don't see why anybody should find it worrying. If it is about "The Church and Politics don't mix", then it was Archbishop Desmond Tutu who said "Those who say the Church and Politics don't mix is reading a different bible to me". It was people's religious convictions which led to the end of Apartheid in South Africa, and which facilitated a relatively peaceful transition - it would have been a lot worse without the Truth and reconciliation committee. (it was of course twisted religious beliefs from the Afrikaaners which led to apartheid in the fist place as well).

And the Civil Rights movement in the USA was driven by religious convictions about justice and equality - the REVEREND Martin Luther King and others. It was religious notions of justice which led the Tolpuddle Martyrs to do what they did, which was one of the factors which led to the founding of the Trade Unions and eventually the Labour Party. People might moan about those two institutions now, but the world in agricultural Dorset was a very, very different place in the early nineteenth century to what it is now.

These are the same values which should be influencing Christians and their approach to politics, elections and voting now - Justice, peace, fairness, equality, not bigotry and judgementalism, which many people think it is about.

Rant over - well it's not really a rant, because rant implies angry, and I'm not. I just care about this particular aspect of life. It's probably more a sermon, so sorry about that.

Neville's Breakfast · Jun 15, 2017

DavidinSouthampton said:
If the Church isn't qualified to involve itself in the pastoral care of people - young or otherwise - I don't know who is. The main concept of most faiths is caring for people, and particularly the most vulnerable. For all the child abuse stuff which has gone on in the past - which is appalling - there has also been a great deal of good straightforward and extremely successful nurturing of young people, including down to full-time caring through things like Barnardo's and the National Childrens' Home.

And in terms of the Church "not involving itself in those issues", I totally disagree and don't see why anybody should find it worrying. If it is about "The Church and Politics don't mix", then it was Archbishop Desmond Tutu who said "Those who say the Church and Politics don't mix is reading a different bible to me". It was people's religious convictions which led to the end of Apartheid in South Africa, and which facilitated a relatively peaceful transition - it would have been a lot worse without the Truth and reconciliation committee. (it was of course twisted religious beliefs from the Afrikaaners which led to apartheid in the fist place as well).

And the Civil Rights movement in the USA was driven by religious convictions about justice and equality - the REVEREND Martin Luther King and others. It was religious notions of justice which led the Tolpuddle Martyrs to do what they did, which was one of the factors which led to the founding of the Trade Unions and eventually the Labour Party. People might moan about those two institutions now, but the world in agricultural Dorset was a very, very different place in the early nineteenth century to what it is now.

These are the same values which should be influencing Christians and their approach to politics, elections and voting now - Justice, peace, fairness, equality, not bigotry and judgementalism, which many people think it is about.

Rant over - well it's not really a rant, because rant implies angry, and I'm not. I just care about this particular aspect of life. It's probably more a sermon, so sorry about that.

No problem. I am arguing that the church is not qualified because that is factually correct. You may feel that religious faith is qualification in itself but there is no comparison with the professionalism of fully trained and
full time public servants. As to the other examples of religious involvement in public life you
mention it is a similar argument to that used by Hamas in the West Bank where a wealthy church provides help to the poor but with strings attached. I would argue that this is exploitation because the poor pay by letting social conservatism in to their
lives. The C of E may be a cuddly and distinctly ungodly version of religion but it is still a means of control.

Invicta · Jun 15, 2017

Will he have enough time to be an MP still and draw the salary ?

hart's shirt · Jun 15, 2017

Neville's Breakfast said:
I guess we all just apply our own standards when placing our vote. It can certainly be argued that Farron did initially stand by his principles although at some point he seems to have begun denying his own faith for which there is ironically a scriptural precedent around Easter time (there, I knew my catholic primary school education would come in handy at some
point). It could be argued though that sticking to religious principles in the face of the offense it causes is not necessarily a sign of strong character. You mentioned Donald Trump and I have little doubt he has strong principles but they are not to be admired (in my opinion anyway).
I take it you are most concerned in this by the apparent removal of someone from office for privately held views ?

I could well be wrong, but I'm not sure Farron did deny his faith.
It seemed pretty clear at the end of his resignation speech when he quoted Isaac Watts, the lyricist of 'When I Survey The Wondrous Cross'.
For him to have given up what he'd worked all his life in politics to achieve, it must've been "so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all."

There was a reference to Trump and his tweets, but that wasn't meant to be in any way an indication of any support for him. It was meant purely as a commentary on the increased importance placed on style over substance, a sad indictment of our times. When politicians pay more attention to their stylists, media advisers and spin doctors rather than the electorate, something's gone wrong.

I don't believe Farron was removed from office - he resigned. But what was clear from his resignation speech was that he felt under pressure from outside influences who were more interested in his beliefs than his policies.

One hopes the same things don't happen to Dan Walker - a Baptist Christian who's a creationist and chooses to obey the Sabbath by not working on Sundays. Would this stop him from being able to present Football Focus objectively on the Albion in the Premiership? Would it stop him from presenting Breakfast News? I don't think so as those are his own beliefs. It shouldn't matter.

DavidinSouthampton · Jun 15, 2017

Neville's Breakfast said:
No problem. I am arguing that the church is not qualified because that is factually correct. You may feel that religious faith is qualification in itself but there is no comparison with the professionalism of fully trained and
full time public servants. As to the other examples of religious involvement in public life you
mention it is a similar argument to that used by Hamas in the West Bank where a wealthy church provides help to the poor but with strings attached. I would argue that this is exploitation because the poor pay by letting social conservatism in to their
lives. The C of E may be a cuddly and distinctly ungodly version of religion but it is still a means of control.

The people who produce the sort of stuff I provided a link to will often have worked as researchers or in MP's political offices or the like in the past. They could well be qualified, therefore, in that sense. But are we not all, as voters, capable of thinking about the issues?
I work for the Churches in this sort of broad area. I have a wife and two daughters who are in public service - a principal of a sixth form college, a Doctor and a seniorish officer figure in a local council. It's not direct experience, but one learns. Those doing this sort of stuff on a national basis will have serious engagement with government.
If things are done locally by Churches in this country, I appreciate that on occasion there might be strings attached. If there are, I totally agree with you that it is exploitation, and I would abhor it. The best of such work - and I would hope most of it - is totally without strings. A food bank helps people of any faith and none who are referred to it by people (usually secular figures) and so it is for everyone, not just the faithful.

The best of Churches' (and faith Communities) support is offered purely out of care and concern, not a fevered attempt to convert.

GT49er · Jun 15, 2017

Tim Farron puts God before Politics

No great loss to the Lib Dem cause. Don't suppose God's bothered much, one way or the other, either.........

nickbrighton · Jun 16, 2017

Pavilionaire said:
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.

NO Tolerance is not good enough. Would you say the same if it was Jews, ethnic minorities, etc. Oh I don't like Black/Jewish/French/or whatever having sex, but I Tolerate them. This is casual homophobia, and we are sick of it. Why should I be Tolerated? Its saying that we are not as good as he is, we are not as valued,our relationships are second class. By believing and stating that it is acceptable to tolerate LGBT people is him saying I believe they are second class,not as good as "normal" people . Trust me , we have a bloody hard time as it is, especially youngsters finding it difficult coming to accept their sexuality because of comments like his and having political leaders effectively saying we are second class is simply not good enough.

Big G · Jun 16, 2017

Lenny Rider said:
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.

Like it matters....Lib Dums are insignificant...and that bloke is even more insignificant!!!

El Presidente · Jun 16, 2017

Neville's Breakfast said:
I'm afraid I find that rather worrying. The church ,in my opinion, is not qualified to involve itself
in those issues. In much the same way it is not and never has been qualified to involve itself in the pastoral care
of young people and yet that has not stopped it from doing so with disastrous consequences.

It's the choir boys fault. They dress provocatively in those little outfits. They know exactly what they're doing, the little teases.

Neville's Breakfast · Jun 16, 2017

DavidinSouthampton said:
The people who produce the sort of stuff I provided a link to will often have worked as researchers or in MP's political offices or the like in the past. They could well be qualified, therefore, in that sense. But are we not all, as voters, capable of thinking about the issues?
I work for the Churches in this sort of broad area. I have a wife and two daughters who are in public service - a principal of a sixth form college, a Doctor and a seniorish officer figure in a local council. It's not direct experience, but one learns. Those doing this sort of stuff on a national basis will have serious engagement with government.
If things are done locally by Churches in this country, I appreciate that on occasion there might be strings attached. If there are, I totally agree with you that it is exploitation, and I would abhor it. The best of such work - and I would hope most of it - is totally without strings. A food bank helps people of any faith and none who are referred to it by people (usually secular figures) and so it is for everyone, not just the faithful.

The best of Churches' (and faith Communities) support is offered purely out of care and concern, not a fevered attempt to convert.

I'm sure that you and others have the best of intentions and do some very good work. My concerns are with the lack of central planning and regulation. Resources are allocated by the church according to their priorities (rather than being democratically accountable) and the work is carried out by volunteers again only accountable to the church and lacking the checks that would be carried out on full time public officials. Similar applies to all non governmental charity work. It is not
something I am comfortable with. As I say though, I do acknowledge the good intentions of many in the church.

OzMike · Jun 16, 2017

Can't see the problem myself, preaching bulls**t either way.

neilbard · Jun 16, 2017

The boy realised it was time to hang his boots up when he was upstaged by a guy dressed as a fish finger. :shrug:

Raleigh Chopper · Jun 16, 2017

brianwade said:
I m sure he was just an escaped Spitting Image puppet and not a real human being . Mind you the Lib Dems are used to behaving like puppets ...

Funny you should mention puppets because you never see Tim Farron and Daddy Woodentop in the same room do you.

One for the oldies right there.

Tricky Dicky · Jun 16, 2017

GT49er said:
Tim Farron puts God before Politics

Don't suppose God's bothered much, one way or the other, either.........

As he/she doesn't exist, it doesn't really matter either way.

Your Mum · Jun 16, 2017

neilbard said:
The boy realised it was time to hang his boots up when he was upstaged by a guy dressed as

...your mum.

rocker959 · Jun 16, 2017

Indeed

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Tim Farron puts God before Politics

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

The ONLY Gay in Brighton

Well-known member

Well-known member

Hedging up

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Share this page