T W A U ... The Chase....today's...
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Tim Farron
62 Answers
I'm surprised there have been no threads on Tim Farron's resignation tonight as Lib Dem leader. It sounded to me he is saying it's because of the way the media is focusing too much on his Christanity. Is that the only reason do we think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fiction-factory. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
dannyk13
As an aside to this - yesterday morning Lord Paddick resigned as the Lib Dems Home Affairs spokesman due to Farron's views on gay sex.
http://
Then of course, a few hours later Farron resigned.
Talk about bad timing on Paddick's part!
As an aside to this - yesterday morning Lord Paddick resigned as the Lib Dems Home Affairs spokesman due to Farron's views on gay sex.
http://
Then of course, a few hours later Farron resigned.
Talk about bad timing on Paddick's part!
Whilst, ideally, religion should play *no* part in Politics I think it is unrealistic to expect all 650 MPs to be atheists.
I feel a bit sorry for TF. He always struck me as being a decent bloke even though his politics weren't mine. He had a good record for backing 'equality' regardless of his personal views. I was certainly uncomfortable watching him being regularly ambushed by the press on the matter of his opinion of gay sex. His best friend is a gay man and TF was the first person he came out to.
Strange times we are living in....
I feel a bit sorry for TF. He always struck me as being a decent bloke even though his politics weren't mine. He had a good record for backing 'equality' regardless of his personal views. I was certainly uncomfortable watching him being regularly ambushed by the press on the matter of his opinion of gay sex. His best friend is a gay man and TF was the first person he came out to.
Strange times we are living in....
The question about Sadiq Kahn is academic, as we cannot get inside the man's head. Presently, all we really have to go on is his answer to the question. So far as I know he hasn't done anything now or in the past to suggest that he was lying. If he says he supports gay rights, I'm happy to believe him until evidence turns up otherwise.
But as AOG said previously, the problem does not begin and end with Sadiq Khan. As a rule of thumb, muslim leaders are not held to account over the homophobia inherent in their religion in the way that Christians are, and they ought to be. Plenty of British citizens are gay, and they deserve to have their basic rights protected from religions which, going by scripture, are out to harm them.
Also (for once) I'm not sure that bringing up muslims is necessarily a diversion in this thread, which is about how far public figures and aspiring leaders need to questioned about their religious views. Personally I think Farron's treatment by the press was fair and even desirable, and I wish it happened more often.
But as AOG said previously, the problem does not begin and end with Sadiq Khan. As a rule of thumb, muslim leaders are not held to account over the homophobia inherent in their religion in the way that Christians are, and they ought to be. Plenty of British citizens are gay, and they deserve to have their basic rights protected from religions which, going by scripture, are out to harm them.
Also (for once) I'm not sure that bringing up muslims is necessarily a diversion in this thread, which is about how far public figures and aspiring leaders need to questioned about their religious views. Personally I think Farron's treatment by the press was fair and even desirable, and I wish it happened more often.
Kromovaracun
I think it's a bit of a diversion, because Farron's case was fairly unique. We are not surprised religious leaders from all denominations to be anti-gay, because...well, that's rules laid out in their books of faith.
Imams, priests, vicars - I don't think they should be challenged about their beliefs on gay sex, but any person of faith should be challenged because they need to demonstrate to what degree their faith impacts their ability to treat everyone fairly and equitably.
And I agree - this should apply to public officials of all faiths.
I think it's a bit of a diversion, because Farron's case was fairly unique. We are not surprised religious leaders from all denominations to be anti-gay, because...well, that's rules laid out in their books of faith.
Imams, priests, vicars - I don't think they should be challenged about their beliefs on gay sex, but any person of faith should be challenged because they need to demonstrate to what degree their faith impacts their ability to treat everyone fairly and equitably.
And I agree - this should apply to public officials of all faiths.
Something we should consider here...
Perhaps the reason Farron resigned wasn't so much to do with the scrutiny from the media, but because he genuinely felt that his faith and views were incompatible with those of his party.
If he found that he couldn't be both honest to his personal and political principles, then what he has done in resigning should be seen as one of the most honourable political stands of recent times.
I wonder how many other politicians have the moral capacity to do something like that?
Perhaps the reason Farron resigned wasn't so much to do with the scrutiny from the media, but because he genuinely felt that his faith and views were incompatible with those of his party.
If he found that he couldn't be both honest to his personal and political principles, then what he has done in resigning should be seen as one of the most honourable political stands of recent times.
I wonder how many other politicians have the moral capacity to do something like that?
Mr Farron's agony of conscience is one of the primary reasons I remain an atheist, untroubled by this sort of aguish which Christians inflict on themselves as part of their chosen path.
They spend their every waking minute agonising over perceived transgressions which keep them distanced from the joy and happiness their God is supposed to provide for them.
I was interested to read Mr Farron say that he is, quote, “A liberal to my fingertips …” when clearly he is not. He is a Christian, and adapting that faith means any notions of liberalism are definitely out of the equation.
Instead you must fuss and anguish about the rights and wrongs of your fellow man, wrestle with your own conscience, and follow a set of rules laid down for you, which, as in Mr Farron’s case, prevent you from reconciling your faith and your life and profession.
Faith is a matter of degree – and Mr Farron’s devout outlook prevents him from leading a party which endorses freedoms of choice which his faith does not permit him to enjoy.
The only difference now, is that the dichotomy between his beliefs and his urge for power have been exposed. To his credit, he is not being a hypocrite, but his attitudes must have always been the same, it is only their exposure that has made him confront them.
They spend their every waking minute agonising over perceived transgressions which keep them distanced from the joy and happiness their God is supposed to provide for them.
I was interested to read Mr Farron say that he is, quote, “A liberal to my fingertips …” when clearly he is not. He is a Christian, and adapting that faith means any notions of liberalism are definitely out of the equation.
Instead you must fuss and anguish about the rights and wrongs of your fellow man, wrestle with your own conscience, and follow a set of rules laid down for you, which, as in Mr Farron’s case, prevent you from reconciling your faith and your life and profession.
Faith is a matter of degree – and Mr Farron’s devout outlook prevents him from leading a party which endorses freedoms of choice which his faith does not permit him to enjoy.
The only difference now, is that the dichotomy between his beliefs and his urge for power have been exposed. To his credit, he is not being a hypocrite, but his attitudes must have always been the same, it is only their exposure that has made him confront them.
SP: // Something we should consider here...
Perhaps the reason Farron resigned wasn't so much to do with the scrutiny from the media, but because he genuinely felt that his faith and views were incompatible with those of his party.
If he found that he couldn't be both honest to his personal and political principles, then what he has done in resigning should be seen as one of the most honourable political stands of recent times.
I wonder how many other politicians have the moral capacity to do something like that? //
I think you are crediting Mr Farron with a sense of morality and Christianity which I feel he does not actually possess.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Mr Farron’s faith is not a Damascene revelation over the last few weeks, but something he has held for a while.
If that is so, then surely his crisis of conscience would have been apparent to him well before this, and dealt with on the basis that he could not consider political office which conflicted with his faith.
It seems he had no pangs of conscience when applying for, and obtaining leadership of his party – so it begs the question as to why they troubled him only when the lack of compatibility between his faith and his party’s views was exposed by the press.
If Mr Farron was the devout Christian he claims to be, then his crisis of faith would have prevented him becoming the leader of his party.
As it is, he is the party leader who was exposed as a hypocrite because his faith only bothered him when the media questioned him about it. Prior to that time, it appeared he had no issues at all.
You would wish to see Mr Farron as an honorable man and a devout Christian who has done the right thing by both his party and his faith.
I see him as a hypocrite who has been exposed as unable to profess to be a Christian and a Liberal at the same time, and he has been forced to make a choice.
Choosing political office would have been political suicide, since he would be taken even less seriously then hitherto – if that were possible – so he was forced to take the poison and resign, dragging his destroyed credibility and dignity behind him.
Untroubled by the morality of political office, and the tiresome need to proffer views he clearly does not believe, all Mr Farron has to do now is try and hold his head up when he goes to church – if he can.
Perhaps the reason Farron resigned wasn't so much to do with the scrutiny from the media, but because he genuinely felt that his faith and views were incompatible with those of his party.
If he found that he couldn't be both honest to his personal and political principles, then what he has done in resigning should be seen as one of the most honourable political stands of recent times.
I wonder how many other politicians have the moral capacity to do something like that? //
I think you are crediting Mr Farron with a sense of morality and Christianity which I feel he does not actually possess.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Mr Farron’s faith is not a Damascene revelation over the last few weeks, but something he has held for a while.
If that is so, then surely his crisis of conscience would have been apparent to him well before this, and dealt with on the basis that he could not consider political office which conflicted with his faith.
It seems he had no pangs of conscience when applying for, and obtaining leadership of his party – so it begs the question as to why they troubled him only when the lack of compatibility between his faith and his party’s views was exposed by the press.
If Mr Farron was the devout Christian he claims to be, then his crisis of faith would have prevented him becoming the leader of his party.
As it is, he is the party leader who was exposed as a hypocrite because his faith only bothered him when the media questioned him about it. Prior to that time, it appeared he had no issues at all.
You would wish to see Mr Farron as an honorable man and a devout Christian who has done the right thing by both his party and his faith.
I see him as a hypocrite who has been exposed as unable to profess to be a Christian and a Liberal at the same time, and he has been forced to make a choice.
Choosing political office would have been political suicide, since he would be taken even less seriously then hitherto – if that were possible – so he was forced to take the poison and resign, dragging his destroyed credibility and dignity behind him.
Untroubled by the morality of political office, and the tiresome need to proffer views he clearly does not believe, all Mr Farron has to do now is try and hold his head up when he goes to church – if he can.
danny - ////They spend their every waking minute agonising over perceived transgressions//
Bit of an exaggeration Andy. There are some religious fanatics who it might apply to, but it does not apply to the majority of christians. //
I was careful to say that faith is a matter of degree.
But the fact is, I attend Catholic Mass every Sunday, and the default position of every person there is 'in the wrong' - because that is how their faith is structured.
Actually, I say ‘everyone’, I of course am blissfully exempt from such endless hand-wringing and worry, I don’t believe in God, so I don’t have to live my life in such conflicted never-being-good-enough misery.
Bit of an exaggeration Andy. There are some religious fanatics who it might apply to, but it does not apply to the majority of christians. //
I was careful to say that faith is a matter of degree.
But the fact is, I attend Catholic Mass every Sunday, and the default position of every person there is 'in the wrong' - because that is how their faith is structured.
Actually, I say ‘everyone’, I of course am blissfully exempt from such endless hand-wringing and worry, I don’t believe in God, so I don’t have to live my life in such conflicted never-being-good-enough misery.
Latest Posts
Reality TV4 mins ago
Home & Garden9 mins ago
A Winter Fuel Payment For Scottish...
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|