I don't think you need training if you are honest and compassionate
Chat Forum
Tim Farron
Advertisement
-
Posted 8 months ago #
-
And Farron has now admitted that he does believe homosexuality is a sin and that the wriggly answers he gave were about political expediency. In other words he is the religious bigot many of us said he ws and completely unfit to lead the liberal democrats
The former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has said he regrets telling people he did not believe gay sex was a sin when he was forced to clarify his position during the election campaign.
The MP said he had felt “isolated” and under pressure from his party to say gay sex was not sinful, suggesting he ended up misleading the public about his views.
He said he had spent weeks dodging the question but wanted to draw a line under the issue, which led to him “foolishly and wrongly” giving an answer that was “frankly not right”.
Posted 1 hour ago # -
Hie is trying to claim that his "isolation" was due to a lack of christians around him, and that they didn't understand his "problem". They understood fully, his views on this aren't acceptable with his party, or those who vote for it. And "one of my oldest friends is gay" does not balance out homophobic views… ever.
Posted 1 hour ago # -
I viewed the full interview and it was very strange. I think Farron's main problem is that he is not particularly bright. Surely he knew his views on homosexuality would become an issue around election time, so he can hardly pretend to have been targeted by the media.
I expect to see Farron pop up as the head of an evangelically-funded think-tank soon, hence his recantation.Posted 1 hour ago # -
I got such a kicking on this thread for calling him a homophobic bigot yet here he is outing himself as a homophobic bigot
Posted 57 minutes ago # -
I don't see the problem. He probably thinks loads of things are sins - gluttony/coveting things for instance - so what? He's not advocating punishing anyone for gluttony, or doing anything about it, he just thinks according to a middle eastern relegion it happens to be a sin.
As it happens I also think covetousness is a sin, I could probably find a passage in the Bible to support the idea.
Sin is a meaningless word that has no purpose in the modern world. Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride are all sins. Does anyone care?
If he was advocating death camps for proud people I'd have a problem. If he just thinks pride is a sin, I have no problem at all.
He's welcome to any relegious beleif he wants as long as he doesn't impose it on anyone else, and he didn't, quite the opposite.
I think TGA summed up the whole issue with this post:
"I can't quote a dictionary definition of homophobia off the top of my head, but it's something like an irrational fear or loathing of homosexuals due to their sexuality - along those lines anyway. Farron quite clearly neither loathes, hates or fears homosexuals. A belief that gay sex is a sin, if that's what he believes, does not equate to a hatred or even dislike of gays. As I understand it, in his eyes, someone engaging in gay sex is no more wrong than sins committed by anyone else, including himself. It's disingenuous to think he looks down on or thinks he's better than gay people."
Posted 48 minutes ago # -
It's a problem for me. I'm a
LiberalChurch goer, but he puts me off theLib DemsChristiansPosted 35 minutes ago # -
He's welcome to any relegious beleif he wants as long as he doesn't impose it on anyone else, and he didn't, quite the opposite.
Anti abortion and anti equal rights because of his beliefs is attempting to impose his views on others
Posted 32 minutes ago # -
Sin is a meaningless word that has no purpose in the modern world. Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride are all sins. Does anyone care?
If he was advocating death camps for proud people I'd have a problem. If he just thinks pride is a sin, I have no problem at all.
He's welcome to any relegious beleif he wants as long as he doesn't impose it on anyone else, and he didn't, quite the opposite.
Perhaps he needs you to help him write his speaches as that is a considerably more eloquent explanation than he managed yesterday having had months to formulate exactly what he wanted to say. It still makes no sense, whilst calling jealousy or gluttony a sin probably doesn’t fit with modern usage of language I think with a little introspection we can probably see why they are considered to be not the preferred behaviour. It’s now clear that Farron thinks gay people who have sex are not quite as virtuous as straight people who have sex. No matter how you polish that, it’s not consistent with a big part of the target liberal electorate.I think it is highly relevant whether someone asking to become the leader of the country has strong religious views and how those views might impact policy or culture. If you hold views which are seemingly at odds to your party, or possibly even the country you’d better be good at explaining and justifying them or expect not to get elected!
Posted 31 minutes ago # -
Sexual sin has always had a special place in the hierarchy of sinfulness within the evangelical church.
Sin is not a meaningless word to them, because although in theory we are all sinners in one form or another, being a bit envious or wrathful doesn't seem to raise many red flags, whereas I can remember (from my distant and misguided youth as a member of an evangelical congregation) church members who had admitted an adulterous relationship being dragged up the front on a Sunday for a bit of public shaming, and members who admitted being homosexual being expelled from the community.
Don't remember many of the fat churchgoers getting the same treatment.
Evangelical Christianity isn't like the mix and match of the CofE, where stuff that makes you a bit unpopular or uncomfortable in wider society can be jettisoned. You either betray your teachings, and the expectations of your church that you spread those teachings, or you express some views that, frankly, ARE intolerant, and, if voiced from high office, potentially harm the status of a significant minority group.
Farron was struggling to bridge two worlds that cannot be bridged, and failing to satisfy the requirements of either. He was a poor choice for leader, forced on the LibDems because they had no-one else who wanted the job.
Posted 30 minutes ago # -
Anti abortion and anti equal rights because of his beliefs is attempting to impose his views on others
Kind of irrelevant to a debate about "is it ok to be a party leader if you think some things are sins" but from wikipedia:
"He currently holds a 90.4% rating on the issue of same sex marriage according to the website Public Whip."
Posted 28 minutes ago # -
It’s now clear that Farron thinks gay people who have sex are not quite as virtuous as straight people who have sex.
I suspect that Farron thinks that *everyone* has committed sins of some kind. If someone want's to post a comprehensive list of sins we'd probably find he's right. Fortunately in the modern world nobody gives a toss about sin, and we all cheerfully go about committing sins without the slightest concern or impediment.
Posted 23 minutes ago # -
And Farron has now admitted that he does believe homosexuality is a sin
TBF to Farron, this was his issue, in that he thinks everyone's a sinner...However, his defence that the media would be uninterested in his nuanced viewpoint about homosexuality is feeble. Rees-Mogg has as deeply held religious convictions as apparently does Farron, and yet manages to vote and speak accordingly. For Farron to then say that he wouldn't have been understood; ergo he had to lie speaks volumes of his disingenuousness (is that even a word?)
Hopefully soon to be a forgotten figure.
Posted 21 minutes ago # -
Except evangelical groups are still trying to influence UK policy. This one, which believes that homosexuals can be 'cured', funded an intern in the offices of a number of supportive MPs including Mr Farron.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/13/gay-cure-christian-charity-mps-interns
It. Stinks.
Posted 20 minutes ago # -
For me the issue is credibility as a person. From my personal standpoint, and I admit it is a very bias one, if someone is so infected with fairy dust that they hold what to me are abhorrent views because his favourite book tells him to and he insists on not questioning its veracity, I would not trust his intellect and independence as a thinking man enough for him to be a national leader. Therefore he is not fit for office of a party that (in theory) hope to be elected to power.
For me it would be no different to a flat earther who in every other way was entirely rational leading a party.
Posted 17 minutes ago # -
I think it is highly relevant whether someone asking to become the leader of the country has strong religious views and how those views might impact policy or culture. If you hold views which are seemingly at odds to your party, or possibly even the country you’d better be good at explaining and justifying them or expect not to get elected!
Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister of Canada from 1968 to 1984, and in that time, decriminalised homosexuality, declared that 'the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation', loosened laws on abortion, and introduced the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - amongst other things.
He was seen - and is still seen - as a model liberal.
He was also a devout Catholic, but no one knew just how much so until he passed away in 2000. His son, Justin, is also a practicing Catholic.
It is entirely possible to separate what you believe to be true in terms of faith from what you believe to be the domain of the state.
Posted 16 minutes ago # -
Also a liar and a charlatan then.
What a pleasant chap.
Posted 16 minutes ago # -
Except evangelical groups are still trying to influence UK policy.
So really the debate should be which relegions shuld be banned from public office. I'm guessing you'd go any that think Sodomy is a sin: Islam and evangelical Christianity for starters. Any others?
Posted 16 minutes ago # -
From my personal standpoint, and I admit it is a very bias one, if someone is so infected with fairy dust that they hold what to me are abhorrent views because his favourite book tells him to and he insists on not questioning its veracity
I am glad you concede that this is a very biased opinion, convert, because it is an almost-absurd reflection of what mainstream Christians - and probably mainstream believers of most faiths - actually believe.
You may be describing some evangelical/fundamentalist politician in the USA, but certainly not any leader in the UK that I recognise.
Posted 14 minutes ago # -
So really the debate should be which relegions shuld be banned from public office
No absolutely none. BUT they should be consistent. Tim's issue is that Evangelical Christianity is incompatible with many issues on the Liberal Left hence his stumbling nonsense over this, he's trying to bridge two camps that simply cannot come together.
Hold religious views as a political party if you wish, go to the public with those views; survive or die via the ballot.
Posted 12 minutes ago # -
Sexual sin has always had a special place in the hierarchy of sinfulness within the evangelical church.
In which case Farron should have been asked if he thought sexual sins were worse than all the other sins. I suspect he could have offered a clear and emphatic 'no' to that question and everyone would be happy.
Posted 12 minutes ago # -
Saxon rider - Farron is an evangelical and the bible being 100% true and must be followed at all times is his position.
Yes its not the mainstream COE belief. He is an evangelical fundamentalist by his ownwords
Posted 11 minutes ago # -
outofbreath - Member
I don't see the problem.
My flabber is entirely ungasted.
Posted 11 minutes ago # -
It is entirely possible to separate what you believe to be true in terms of faith from what you believe to be the domain of the state.
Yes it is - But not for Farron as his voting record shows and so do his public pronouncements
Posted 9 minutes ago # -
There's no need for a ban - simply pointing out the incompatibility of his deeply held views with UK social policy seems to have done the trick.
As above, as long as the electorate knows that the politician involved is either
a) actively seeking to implement policies in line with his rather distasteful beliefs
or
b) a hypocrite who will even deny what he personally believes to achieve high officethen the ballot box will take care of the rest.
I've got no problem with anyone aiming for high office, as long as the people know exactly what they are getting. Tim Farron equivocated between two incompatible positions, and has paid the price.
Posted 9 minutes ago # -
I am glad you concede that this is a very biased opinion, convert, because it is an almost-absurd reflection of what mainstream Christians - and probably mainstream believers of most faiths - actually believe.
You may be describing some evangelical/fundamentalist politician in the USA, but certainly not any leader in the UK that I recognise.
But Farron was no mainstream Christian. He is an unrepentant evangelical. He might have survived in the states but fortunately he got found out here.
Posted 6 minutes ago # -
It's a problem for me. I'm a Liberal, but he puts me off the Lib Dems.
I like him as a politician. I don't feel he has what it takes to be the party leader.
Posted 3 minutes ago # -
b) a hypocrite who will even deny what he personally believes to achieve high office
I hope you're not suggesting (and I genuinely can't tell if you are or not) that if a religious person runs for office without trying to impose their beliefs, that he or she is being a hypocrite.
A true liberal believes in the separation of Church and State. It is possible, therefore, to hold personal beliefs derived from one's religious tradition, and also believe that it is neither possible nor even desirable to impose those beliefs on the people. Especially through legislation! That would be coercive at best and dictatorial at worst.
Posted 3 minutes ago #
Advertisement
Advertisement
Reply
You must log in to post.