Tim Farron reveals himself as a liar

[floo]

You are correct, thank you for the correction, I had been told on another board that Farron is RC.

He is a protestant of the evangelical ilk.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think Farron stated that he would uphold any legislative protection for the LGBTQ community.

Which effectively equates to him saying he will abide by the law - surely this is the lowest of low bars that anyone expecting to hold public office would need to demonstrate.

Any further pressing of him on his views on sin and sexuality therefore is just cosmo smallpiecism.

No it isn't - it is extremely important. Would you think that someone openly (and proudly) racist, or sexist should not be pressed on those views if they want to hold high public office? And regardless of whether they accepted that they needed not to act illegally with regard to equalities legislation.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

"Do you think homosexuality is criminal?" is a meaningless question to ask. It does not matter what anyone thinks homosexuality is not a criminal activity: that is a matter of law, of fact.

Has Tim Farron ever made a secret of his christian views? If not, then was his attitude to homosexuality a matter raised during his party leadership campaign? Again, if not, then why not?

What is it about the Abrahamic religions that causes them to be so obsessed with matters of sex and sexuality? My guess is that private and personal behaviour can be used to generate guilt and shame .... and hence control.

I don't find it particularly puzzling why religions from many centuries ago have moral rules about sexual behaviour. My impression is that religions developed to regulate behaviour - that's one of the main reasons they were popular as they provided a form of social control. Social control in areas such as monogamy, marriage and sex outside marriage served a useful purpose once people started bequeathing property.

Also the moral rules presumably were to try to regulate and stabalise society as humans can get violent or somewhat emotionally destructive when their partners are sexually unfaithful. Presumably regulations around who can have sex with whom came about in societies where sex was a big deal emotionally for humans, as well as the rules being a way of trying to control the spread of sexual diseases that would have created fertility issues. A society trying to survive with no welfare state or free health service would have produced rules to limit wastage of resources, especially where they needed men to serve as soldiers to conquer land or defend land and didn't want romantic or sexual complications to interfere with troop discipline.

I agree that Farron should have told the truth about his personal views on sin. He said in an interview that “I take the view that, as a political leader though, my job is not to pontificate on theological matters.”

As an MP he can be judged on his voting record and if people disagreed with the way he voted, then quite rightly he would have lost their political support.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which effectively equates to him saying he will abide by the law - surely this is the lowest of low bars that anyone expecting to hold public office would need to demonstrate.

No. As a politician it is not just a question of upholding the law but the ability and the will to change it.
The law is not based on sin in a secular society. There was no evidence that Farron was going to overturn Steele or any LGBT legislation.

Was your concern about him that he would have been an obstacle to future antichristian laws?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

No it isn't - it is extremely important. Would you think that someone openly (and proudly) racist, or sexist should not be pressed on those views if they want to hold high public office? And regardless of whether they accepted that they needed not to act illegally with regard to equalities legislation.

Now you have gone OTT. Just because you may not like Farron's views on homosexual sex, he has never suggested that he would want to break the law.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't - it is extremely important. Would you think that someone openly (and proudly) racist, or sexist should not be pressed on those views if they want to hold high public office? And regardless of whether they accepted that they needed not to act illegally with regard to equalities legislation.

You have to decide what side of the fine line between supporting freethought and arseclenching intellectual totalitarianism you want to be on.

There are already laws on expressed racism and sexism. Again if somebody has pledged to uphold that legislation then what is the reason not to support their party if you agree with its politics?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't - it is extremely important. Would you think that someone openly (and proudly) racist, or sexist should not be pressed on those views if they want to hold high public office? And regardless of whether they accepted that they needed not to act illegally with regard to equalities legislation.

You have to decide what side of the fine line between supporting freethought and arseclenching intellectual totalitarianism you want to be on.

There are already laws on expressed racism and sexism. Again if somebody has pledged to uphold that legislation then what is the reason not to support their party if you agree with its politics?

[ProfessorDavey]

Now you have gone OTT. Just because you may not like Farron's views on homosexual sex, he has never suggested that he would want to break the law.

I never suggested he had - but the implication from Private Frazer is that provided he didn't go to the extremes of supporting breaking the law then everything else is effectively a private matter. It isn't, or rather it isn't if you are running for public office - it is extremely relevant.

[Gordon]

The issue here though isn't so much his views but that he lied about them while campaigning for public office whilst he was the leader of a political party, thus misrepresenting himself to both the public and his colleagues, and I see Vince Cable has made no attempt to defend him: he even admits that he lied for reasons of political expediency.


 

[Humph Warden Bennett]

The issue here though isn't so much his views but that he lied about them while campaigning for public office whilst he was the leader of a political party, thus misrepresenting himself to both the public and his colleagues, and I see Vince Cable has made no attempt to defend him: he even admits that he lied for reasons of political expediency.

Yes I will go along with that.

[ProfessorDavey]

You have to decide what side of the fine line between supporting freethought and arseclenching intellectual totalitarianism you want to be on.

There are already laws on expressed racism and sexism. Again if somebody has pledged to uphold that legislation then what is the reason not to support their party if you agree with its politics?

Because parties aren't just about their stated policies, but about the values of their leaders - how often are we told that elections are won and lost on the credibility of a leader.

In my opinion someone who openly holds racist, sexist or homophobic views is not fit for public office - even more so when this person also claimed credibility as leader of a party with 'Liberal' in its name.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I never suggested he had - but the implication from Private Frazer is that provided he didn't go to the extremes of supporting breaking the law then everything else is effectively a private matter. It isn't, or rather it isn't if you are running for public office - it is extremely relevant.

I am not Vlad.

My point is that you seemed to be implying that if anybody deviates from your views as to "racism" and "sexism" then the same trumps (no I don't mean him) any opinions that they may hold on any other issues.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I never suggested he had - but the implication from Private Frazer is that provided he didn't go to the extremes of supporting breaking the law then everything else is effectively a private matter. It isn't, or rather it isn't if you are running for public office - it is extremely relevant.

Views on what is a sin are irrelevant to any secular process. A secular society does not recognise sin but crime.

[ProfessorDavey]

Views on what is a sin are irrelevant to any secular process. A secular society does not recognise sin but crime.

Irrelevant - if someone believed that black people were inferior to white people - or that women were less intelligent than men would that be irrelevant to fitness to hold public office, regardless of the fact that 'secular' society does not recognise either of those views as a crime of itself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The issue here though isn't so much his views but that he lied about them while campaigning for public office whilst he was the leader of a political party, thus misrepresenting himself to both the public and his colleagues, and I see Vince Cable has made no attempt to defend him: he even admits that he lied for reasons of political expediency.

How refreshing. Unfortunately I'm not holding my breath until there is a slew of similar confession across the world of politics.

To be fair though Tim is well and truly out of it. I look forward to a future theology from him worked around his practical experience as a politician.

I'm particularly interested in any experience of religious persecution from the supposedly right on.

[ProfessorDavey]

I am not Vlad.

My point is that you seemed to be implying that if anybody deviates from your views as to "racism" and "sexism" then the same trumps (no I don't mean him) any opinions that they may hold on any other issues.

Yup that just about sums it up - anyone who openly (and proudly) holds racist, sexist or homophobic views is, in my opinion, unfit for public office regardless of how 'nice' their other views might be.

And it isn't just my view - society has determined, via legislation and adherence to basic human rights, that sexism, racism and homophobia are not acceptable. There may be no 'crime' unless acted upon but that doesn't mean that someone holding those views is OK and dandy for public office - they aren't.

[ProfessorDavey]

The issue here though isn't so much his views but that he lied about them while campaigning for public office whilst he was the leader of a political party, thus misrepresenting himself to both the public and his colleagues, and I see Vince Cable has made no attempt to defend him: he even admits that he lied for reasons of political expediency.

No - I disagree - there are two issues here. Both his views and also his willingness to lie and deceive the public as to those views make him unfit for public office. Had he not lied he would still be unfit for public office in my opinion, and actually I would doubt very much that, had he been open about his views, that the membership of the LibDems would have voted him in as leader.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

- society has determined, via legislation

My point entirely.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Yup that just about sums it up - anyone who openly (and proudly) holds racist, sexist or homophobic views is, in my opinion, unfit for public office regardless of how 'nice' their other views might be.

And it isn't just my view - society has determined, via legislation and adherence to basic human rights, that sexism, racism and homophobia are not acceptable. There may be no 'crime' unless acted upon but that doesn't mean that someone holding those views is OK and dandy for public office - they aren't.

It is not "society", if everything was left to "society" then we would have all issues in limbo. What has happened is that our law makers acted on their own initiative.

So too did Uncle Joe's legislators, as did Ceaucescu's legislators. And so do President Fart's lawmakers.

[Gordon]

No - I disagree - there are two issues here. Both his views and also his willingness to lie and deceive the public as to those views make him unfit for public office. Had he not lied he would still be unfit for public office in my opinion, and actually I would doubt very much that, had he been open about his views, that the membership of the LibDems would have voted him in as leader.

There are indeed two separate issues here.

The first is his views, and that he clearly thinks homosexual sex is wrong, and had he been honest regarding this would have allowed the electorate to take this into account, and since he was a party leader then his personal views had greater significance on how his party was percieved, which is presumably why he lied since his views may well have been a factor in the electoral performance of his party.

The second is that he lied, and that he held the views he did may well have been germane in his becoming leader in the first place had they been known, and of course those voting for his party may well have revised their decision had he been honest.

My view is that he is twice damned; for both his abhorrent homophobic views and them lying about them. I wonder how he voted in the SSM legislation - does anyone know?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Because parties aren't just about their stated policies, but about the values of their leaders - how often are we told that elections are won and lost on the credibility of a leader.

In my opinion someone who openly holds racist, sexist or homophobic views is not fit for public office - even more so when this person also claimed credibility as leader of a party with 'Liberal' in its name.

Ok but the complicated bit is that while you might consider a view as racist, sexist or homophobic, another voter might not consider it such.

Clearly Farron lying about his views was a mistake politically and also morally wrong - but his political mistake doesn't mean much - there would be no one left in politics if being caught out lying because of political expediency meant the end of your political career. And lying as a moral wrong just means from a religious perspective he has committed a sin - his view is that everyone is a sinner, including him, so he presumably wrestled with his conscience about how to make amends for this sin and decided to tell the truth.

I'm guessing Farron was a coward - maybe because of pressure from within his party to not let the party down when they had a chance to win seats at the 2017 election. Post-election and post-resignation as leader he has decided to go all Jacob Rees-Mogg and state his personal beliefs. Let's see how that works for him politically - if he gets voted out as an MP at the next election.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

There are indeed two separate issues here.

The first is his views, and that he clearly thinks homosexual sex is wrong, and had he been honest regarding this would have allowed the electorate to take this into account, and since he was a party leader then his personal views had greater significance on how his party was percieved, which is presumably why he lied since his views may well have been a factor in the electoral performance of his party.

The second is that he lied, and that he held the views he did may well have been germane in his becoming leader in the first place had they been known, and of course those voting for his party may well have revised their decision had he been honest.

My view is that he is twice damned; for both his abhorrent homophobic views and them lying about them. I wonder how he voted in the SSM legislation - does anyone know?

I don't think he would have been voted leader if he stated his true belief. Maybe nobody in the party asked - which was stupid of them.

He voted for SSM and in the final vote he abstained.

[Nearly Sane]

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/whats-tim-farrons-track-record-on-lgbt-rights

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/10876/caitlin-logan-tim-farron-anti-gay-or-anti-abortion-and-does-it-really-matter

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Who knows what's true anymore.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jennie-rigg/tim-farron-lgbt-record_b_16095906.html

[Humph Warden Bennett]

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/whats-tim-farrons-track-record-on-lgbt-rights

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/10876/caitlin-logan-tim-farron-anti-gay-or-anti-abortion-and-does-it-really-matter

I am anti abortion & what you might think about it does not matter, 'cos being anti abortion ain't yet illegal.

And YES I would stand up in public & say the same despite the thuggery of the pro abortion mob.