Tim farron

2

Comments

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,024
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    I'm also interested to know whether people would be quite so forgiving if an MP conceded to holding racist and sexist views.

    Not quite the same though is it.

    He privately thinks bum sex between man and man is wrong, but he's happy for guys to get on and shag away.

    Being racist, is, well, being racist.

    Or am I reading this wrong?

    But that is the same as if he thinks [insert sexist view / racist view ] is valid, but believes [insert discriminated sex / race] should be able to continue as they are / in an equal way. Perfectly legal, but it would most likely be incompatible with life in public office.

    Well one is an action (bum sex), and the other is a view on a certain type of people - at least that's how I read it.

    You don't think it is possible to be racist / sexist about actions? It is exactly the same level of prejudice just that the homophobic one is hiding behind religion.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Possibly, but again it's the action.

    Whatever, we're going round in circles. FWIW I didn't back him from the start and I did raise an eyebrow when he was a god botherer, but I figured I ought not to be prejudiced.
    _
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,801
    I suppose the question now is which one of the 'Dynamic 11' is going to take over and lead the Lib Dems to glory? I guess the money must be on Cable now.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    bianchimoon wrote:
    give me a rational thinker over a person that believes in imaginary beings to represent me any day of the week
    No religious person believes in imaginary beings: they believe they exist - and you believe they are imaginary.
  • BelgianBeerGeek
    BelgianBeerGeek Posts: 5,226
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    I suppose the question now is which one of the 'Dynamic 11' is going to take over and lead the Lib Dems to glory? I guess the money must be on Cable now.
    Would quite like to see that. What the LibDems have to do first is get over the Cameron years and stop beating themselves up over it. And stop banging on about Brexit so much - people are bored of the subject.
    Ecrasez l’infame
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    bompington wrote:
    bianchimoon wrote:
    give me a rational thinker over a person that believes in imaginary beings to represent me any day of the week
    No religious person believes in imaginary beings: they believe they exist - and you believe they are imaginary.
    Hey! You can't have that. As any rational thinker knows atheists are right and religious types are wrong. If you have any doubt over that ask an atheist to provide the proof that God doesn't exist! Just not on any thread on here! :wink::D

    Devout atheists are very much bigoted to their beliefs just like the devout Christians. If only we could delete the bigoted from the world we might get on better.

    BTW is it just me or does anyone else get the feeling that anyone expressing religious tendencies of the Christian persuasion in top flight politics is treated like a traitor to democracy or something just a bad? I mean look at the responses to Farron's resignation. Or the attitude to Blair when it looked like he might switch to the Roman church. No wonder Beckett, Blunkett and the other Labour absentees in the compulsion to officiate at gay marriages vote disappeared. Anyone know their belief status?
  • bianchimoon
    bianchimoon Posts: 3,942
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    bianchimoon wrote:
    give me a rational thinker over a person that believes in imaginary beings to represent me any day of the week
    No religious person believes in imaginary beings: they believe they exist - and you believe they are imaginary.
    Hey! You can't have that. As any rational thinker knows atheists are right and religious types are wrong. If you have any doubt over that ask an atheist to provide the proof that God doesn't exist! Just not on any thread on here! :wink::D
    I have nothing to prove... as there is, nothing to prove :wink:
    All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    I suppose the question now is which one of the 'Dynamic 11' is going to take over and lead the Lib Dems to glory? I guess the money must be on Cable now.

    Won't be Cable.
    _
  • alan_sherman
    alan_sherman Posts: 1,157
    Interesting that a 'Christian' country has a party leader harangued out of office because he is a Christian? Wierd

    Cameron, Blair,May all attend church. Even Clegg, who made a fuss about being atheist, attends church very regularly (wife and kids are catholic and need mass attendance record for the school). Why did people take such offence to Farron's beliefs?
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    alan sherman wrote:
    Interesting that a 'Christian' country has a party leader harangued out of office because he is a Christian? Wierd

    Cameron, Blair,May all attend church. Even Clegg, who made a fuss about being atheist, attends church very regularly (wife and kids are catholic and need mass attendance record for the school). Why did people take such offence to Farron's beliefs?
    Because basically you can believe anything you like so long as a) you keep it to yourself and b) you don't commit blasphemy against any of the sacred cows of secularism - gay marriage etc.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/ ... 0615129650
  • The Rookie
    The Rookie Posts: 27,812
    The other stand out for me is that no party has a consistency of beliefs across its entire membership, the Tory split over Europe being an obvious example, so most leaders (like Corbyn with Trident) have to accept a party stance they don't believe in somewhere along the line.

    there is no suggestion that Tim Farron treated gays (or the rest of the LGBTx community) any differently, or discriminated against them, and while I'm no supporter I genuinely don't think he would, so for me it was a complete non issue.
    Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    alan sherman wrote:
    Interesting that a 'Christian' country has a party leader harangued out of office because he is a Christian? Wierd

    Cameron, Blair,May all attend church. Even Clegg, who made a fuss about being atheist, attends church very regularly (wife and kids are catholic and need mass attendance record for the school). Why did people take such offence to Farron's beliefs?

    Yeah odd that. Hes not allowed to be an actual Christian but it's ok for Clegg (and lots of other politicians) to pretend to be Christians in order to wangle their own kids places in high performing comprehensive schools that effectively select on religion, postcode and the ability of parents to buy expensive homes in the right catchment area. They can then say they hate selection on educational ability because it's elitist and pretend to believe in the comprehensive education system, just so long as their own kids aren't going through the sh1te state system we all have to put up with. Or you can do a Diane "Type 2" Abbott and put your son through private school and still pretend to be a socialist. Cnuts!
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    bianchimoon wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    bianchimoon wrote:
    give me a rational thinker over a person that believes in imaginary beings to represent me any day of the week
    No religious person believes in imaginary beings: they believe they exist - and you believe they are imaginary.
    Hey! You can't have that. As any rational thinker knows atheists are right and religious types are wrong. If you have any doubt over that ask an atheist to provide the proof that God doesn't exist! Just not on any thread on here! :wink::D
    I have nothing to prove... as there is, nothing to prove :wink:
    Hypocrite!

    You don't have to prove anything but Christians have to prove their belief.

    I don't believe in God but I accept that there is unlikely to he conclusive proof of God or no God. Until there is I will not condemn Farron or others for being Christians.

    I prefer to live and let live. Farron has one instance of voting against gay rights. That vote I believe was made because of one issue. That was criminalization of officials because their religious belief means they do not want to carry out official function involving gay couples IIRC. Personally I can understand that. Officialdom could easily work around that I reckon.

    There does seem to be a hierarchy if rights. Christian rights are way down the list. I hold that opinion despite being a committed atheist from the moment I learnt to question things. As a young child you accept things more at face value. At some point you have a kind of awakening. After that you can't see things the same cut and dry way you once did. You question and develop your own opinions. One that I formed was to do with atheism and opposition to religion/spirituality. Despite that I don't agree with forcing anyone to choose beliefs or career. Choice is a free will thing with beliefs IMHO
  • bianchimoon
    bianchimoon Posts: 3,942
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    bianchimoon wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    bianchimoon wrote:
    give me a rational thinker over a person that believes in imaginary beings to represent me any day of the week
    No religious person believes in imaginary beings: they believe they exist - and you believe they are imaginary.
    Hey! You can't have that. As any rational thinker knows atheists are right and religious types are wrong. If you have any doubt over that ask an atheist to provide the proof that God doesn't exist! Just not on any thread on here! :wink::D
    I have nothing to prove... as there is, nothing to prove :wink:
    Hypocrite!

    You don't have to prove anything but Christians have to prove their belief.
    Christians have nothing to prove as there is, nothing to prove :wink:
    All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Sorry, a bit strong and mis-directed that hypocrite comment.

    My issue with this is the hypocrisy of it all. Farron has been forced out not because of his performance as leader but because of his delay in replying to questions relating to his religious beliefs and it's impact on the direction on gay rights that could be influenced by his party leadership and his beliefs.

    There's no evidence to support the idea he's going to turn the LibDems into the DUP and oppose gay rights. He's never opposed it if you believe the official voting record in the house of commons. The one vote out of many pro gay rights votes that has the potential to imply this was more about not forcing someone to go against their strongly held religious informed views. I'm not even sure that's illiberal.

    Add that to the position many devout atheists hold that religious believers, especially Christians, have to prove their beliefs. IMHO atheism is a belief system too. They cannot be sure they're right so there's only.belief left.

    Then you add in his voting record. He turns up to vote for gay rights. A lot don't including labour bigwigs. Credit to Corbyn and McD, they have attended all their votes except for a handful, any 88% attendance and voting for. Abbott, Blunkett, Beckett and others seem to be absent a lot on that topic.

    PS whoever linked to the "they work for you" website has a lot to answer for. I'm wasting way too much time looking at it. It's too much fun! Reminds me, time to check my MP out. :D
  • bianchimoon
    bianchimoon Posts: 3,942
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Sorry, a bit strong and mis-directed that hypocrite comment.

    no offence taken :)
    All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    bianchimoon wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    bianchimoon wrote:
    give me a rational thinker over a person that believes in imaginary beings to represent me any day of the week
    No religious person believes in imaginary beings: they believe they exist - and you believe they are imaginary.
    Hey! You can't have that. As any rational thinker knows atheists are right and religious types are wrong. If you have any doubt over that ask an atheist to provide the proof that God doesn't exist! Just not on any thread on here! :wink::D
    I have nothing to prove... as there is, nothing to prove :wink:
    Hypocrite!

    You don't have to prove anything but Christians have to prove their belief.

    I don't believe in God but I accept that there is unlikely to he conclusive proof of God or no God. Until there is I will not condemn Farron or others for being Christians.

    I prefer to live and let live. Farron has one instance of voting against gay rights. That vote I believe was made because of one issue. That was criminalization of officials because their religious belief means they do not want to carry out official function involving gay couples IIRC. Personally I can understand that. Officialdom could easily work around that I reckon.

    There does seem to be a hierarchy if rights. Christian rights are way down the list. I hold that opinion despite being a committed atheist from the moment I learnt to question things. As a young child you accept things more at face value. At some point you have a kind of awakening. After that you can't see things the same cut and dry way you once did. You question and develop your own opinions. One that I formed was to do with atheism and opposition to religion/spirituality. Despite that I don't agree with forcing anyone to choose beliefs or career. Choice is a free will thing with beliefs IMHO

    I intrinsically have a problem with the leader of our country potentially making decisions based upon what God told them to do. If they are mildly religious I have no issue.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    My MP consistently voted for military action against Daesh but against the formalizing in law/strengthening of the military covenant. For Trident. 50:50 on closer EU integration. Against formalizing right to start of eu citizens already living here.

    Hmmmm! Interesting. I've heard he's a nice, down to earth guy too.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    bianchimoon wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    bianchimoon wrote:
    give me a rational thinker over a person that believes in imaginary beings to represent me any day of the week
    No religious person believes in imaginary beings: they believe they exist - and you believe they are imaginary.
    Hey! You can't have that. As any rational thinker knows atheists are right and religious types are wrong. If you have any doubt over that ask an atheist to provide the proof that God doesn't exist! Just not on any thread on here! :wink::D
    I have nothing to prove... as there is, nothing to prove :wink:
    Hypocrite!

    You don't have to prove anything but Christians have to prove their belief.

    I don't believe in God but I accept that there is unlikely to he conclusive proof of God or no God. Until there is I will not condemn Farron or others for being Christians.

    I prefer to live and let live. Farron has one instance of voting against gay rights. That vote I believe was made because of one issue. That was criminalization of officials because their religious belief means they do not want to carry out official function involving gay couples IIRC. Personally I can understand that. Officialdom could easily work around that I reckon.

    There does seem to be a hierarchy if rights. Christian rights are way down the list. I hold that opinion despite being a committed atheist from the moment I learnt to question things. As a young child you accept things more at face value. At some point you have a kind of awakening. After that you can't see things the same cut and dry way you once did. You question and develop your own opinions. One that I formed was to do with atheism and opposition to religion/spirituality. Despite that I don't agree with forcing anyone to choose beliefs or career. Choice is a free will thing with beliefs IMHO

    I intrinsically have a problem with the leader of our country potentially making decisions based upon what God told them to do. If they are mildly religious I have no issue.
    Where is the evidence if that in his voting record or his appearances in debates or anywhere?

    BTW I think it was Blair who made a comment about his Christian beliefs informing his decisions. Now he was running the country at the time and at war with Muslim states/opponents too. Indeed I think it was in an interview justifying one if his dodgy decisions to support the USA in another military campaign.

    But that's acceptable and he wasn't forced out of actually running the country. A third, fourth or fifth rated party has to kick their leader out because he hasn't denied his accusers over his religious beliefs strong enough or quick enough. And Farron has and had no chance of running the country too.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Sorry if I'm coming across confrontational but i believe he has been unfairly treated by his party. I also believe religious belief shouldn't be a bar on political positions at any level.

    It sounds like his opponents smelt blood and used religion to deal the fatal blow. His record I don't think was sufficient to dump him so they used religion even though there was no justification to it.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    A useful lesson pour encourager les autres, of course
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    I think he came across as a decent bloke, but not the strong leader the Lib Dem desperately need to get some consensus. The all religion/gay thing was total press nonsense, in the same way as Corbyn's terrorist friends and nuclear button reluctance was complete and utter nonsense. He did the right thing in resigning, but not because of his religion, but rather because he failed to gain ground where the tories lost and that is a massive missed opportunity.
    left the forum March 2023
  • singleton
    singleton Posts: 2,523
    It's a shame if this is evidence that we will tolerate anything and everything except Christianity.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Singleton wrote:
    It's a shame if this is evidence that we will tolerate anything and everything except Christianity.

    It isn't, so I wouldn't worry about that.
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Sorry if I'm coming across confrontational but i believe he has been unfairly treated by his party. I also believe religious belief shouldn't be a bar on political positions at any level.

    It sounds like his opponents smelt blood and used religion to deal the fatal blow. His record I don't think was sufficient to dump him so they used religion even though there was no justification to it.

    If the DUP get into power with the Tories then the light will be shone on their ideas and beliefs and there will be a lot of MPs who are going to be collateral damage.

    From memory the LibDems lost a few from Cabinet when their misdemeanours came to light.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Homosexuality gets barely a mention in the bible, its not even one of the 10 commandants, the bible doesn't specify one sin is worse than another (murder aside) i really dont know why farron got hung up on something that is a church/religious issue, not biblical.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    mamba80 wrote:
    i really dont know why farron got hung up on something that is a church/religious issue, not biblical.
    I really don't think he did - correct me if I'm wrong but he never made a big deal of it, it turned into such a big issue because he was hounded by the press who wouldn't let it lie.

    BTW, how many times should the bible say something is wrong before Christians have to agree? 5? 10? 20?
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    FFS he voted for gay rights.How many times must his voting reference of 6 for gay rights and 1 abstention for what is possibly liberal reasons. Hardly anti-gay.

    Can we just face this for what it is? Any senior politician with strong religious beliefs is anti-gay according to press and public no matter whether that's true or not. If anything it's a form of prejudice based on a stereotype that doesn't apply here.

    The truth is party members wanted him out. How to do it? Criticise his election performance? He didn't set the world alight but he still built on the decimation of his party under Clegg (a "true leader" with a big presence). Was that really enough reason to force resignation?

    The media wants a target or a political scalp. I reckon at the beginning they thought Corbyn. He did well so it's May, Tories scared of getting kicked out. Failing that it'll be LibDems and Farron.

    Now what? Who's your next leader? The one with leadership presence? Your Ashdown, Kennedy or Clegg? Cable? Are the LibDems trying to undo even the small steps forward they've made under Farron?
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    FFS he voted for gay rights.How many times must his voting reference of 6 for gay rights and 1 abstention for what is possibly liberal reasons. Hardly anti-gay.

    Can we just face this for what it is? Any senior politician with strong religious beliefs is anti-gay according to press and public no matter whether that's true or not. If anything it's a form of prejudice based on a stereotype that doesn't apply here.

    The truth is party members wanted him out. How to do it? Criticise his election performance? He didn't set the world alight but he still built on the decimation of his party under Clegg (a "true leader" with a big presence). Was that really enough reason to force resignation?

    The media wants a target or a political scalp. I reckon at the beginning they thought Corbyn. He did well so it's May, Tories scared of getting kicked out. Failing that it'll be LibDems and Farron.

    Now what? Who's your next leader? The one with leadership presence? Your Ashdown, Kennedy or Clegg? Cable? Are the LibDems trying to undo even the small steps forward they've made under Farron?

Categories