Tim Farron reveals himself as a liar

[floo]

I don't know about that - it seems to follow on quite well from your comment in reply #12:

"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."

Islam is just as bad in that respect.

[Walter]

Thanks. I'm sure that feeling won't last long when we get onto another topic 

have you ever been in a situation where you take an instant disliking to someone on first meeting but end up in a hotel bedroom together after the Christmas party ?
Believe me , it happens . 😍

[ProfessorDavey]

have you ever been in a situation where you take an instant disliking to someone on first meeting but end up in a hotel bedroom together after the Christmas party ?
Believe me , it happens . 😍

Get a room

[Walter]

Get a room

a room is easy to find but Gabriella not so !!! 😂😂😂

[Harrowby Hall]

I don't know about that - it seems to follow on quite well from your comment in reply #12:

"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."

If it does follow from my comment, then I accept my share of the blame - but the bulk of the past four pages or so appears to be a private ... err ... discussion between you and Prof D. I have found it interesting but somewhat removed from the Tim Farron situation.

Islam is just as bad in that respect.

Littleroses, Islam is an Abrahamic religion.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

have you ever been in a situation where you take an instant disliking to someone on first meeting but end up in a hotel bedroom together after the Christmas party ?
Believe me , it happens . 😍

No.

But I can remember at least a couple of times a person told me they took an instant dislike to me because of something cocky I've said the instant they met me but then decided within about half an hour that they liked me. And then there are people who continue to dislike me probably to this day.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If it does follow from my comment, then I accept my share of the blame - but the bulk of the past four pages or so appears to be a private ... err ... discussion between you and Prof D. I have found it interesting but somewhat removed from the Tim Farron situation.


Littleroses, Islam is an Abrahamic religion.

True. Well back on topic. That Tim Farron, a politician, lied for political expediency isn't a surprise is it? I don't think it's possible to fill the House of Commons with 650  truthful politicians. Now that he's suddenly decided to profess his actual theological belief, let's see how that affects his political beliefs and stances and his political career.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

It may perhaps work in his favour?

Were I into Marketing, I would market Tim as "I was forced to tell lies & compromise my true beliefs by party officials terrified by the new political correctness".

He may have more supporters than Prof D thinks.

[ProfessorDavey]

It may perhaps work in his favour?

Were I into Marketing, I would market Tim as "I was forced to tell lies & compromise my true beliefs by party officials terrified by the new political correctness".

Given that they have freely chosen to be members of that very organisation.

He may have more supporters than Prof D thinks.

Given that I was talking about whether he would have been able to have become leader of the LibDems if his views were known to members then I doubt you are right. I don't think LibDem members (in other words the actual people who are part of that very organisation) would be particularly impressed with:

"I was forced to tell lies & compromise my true beliefs by party officials terrified by the new political correctness"

And I don't think they would be impressed by his views either - just a few days ago a comprehensive survey of the views of members of political parties was published - this showed that 84% of LibDem members support gay marriage - which is of course many steps further on the equalities path than simply believing that consensual gay sex is fine (and therefore not 'a sin' as Farron thinks, albeit failed to be clear about during either his election as leader, nor the general election).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It may perhaps work in his favour?

Were I into Marketing, I would market Tim as "I was forced to tell lies & compromise my true beliefs by party officials terrified by the new political correctness".

He may have more supporters than Prof D thinks.

If Tim continues in politics it might also depolarise todays politics by adding a third option between those actually wishing to change the law to promote alienation and contrarianism and the right on thought police who are forever trying to catch people out for lukewarm commitment as has been exemplified by stupid questions which I recall on this forum like ''do you really believe in Gay people being able to get married'' followed by the inane 'yes but do you really, REALLY believe in Gay marriage?'

[ProfessorDavey]

... and the right on thought police who are forever trying to catch people out for lukewarm commitment as has been exemplified by stupid questions which I recall on this forum like ''do you really believe in Gay people being able to get married'' followed by the inane 'yes but do you really, REALLY believe in Gay marriage?'

Isn't Tim Farron a perfect example of why these questions need to be asked - in other words that there are people who will claim to be in favour of gay marriage for political expediency or to be seen to be on the moral high ground, but are clearly lying. The point being that they don't REALLY believe in gay marriage.

And to be clear - there is no such thing as 'gay marriage' there is just marriage, which for the last few years had been available to opposite sex and same sex couples.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Isn't Tim Farron a perfect example of why these questions need to be asked

Not really unless you are of a dogmatic bent. It is possible to consider Homosexuality a theological sin but not a crime. This is a secular society after all.

 

- in other words that there are people who will claim to be in favour of gay marriage for political expediency or to be seen to be on the moral high ground, but are clearly lying.

You keep saying clearly this and clearly that but in fact anybody could be lying about their commitment say to gay rights or anything. We have to weigh up things like is Tim suddenly going to mutate into some kind of invincible homophobic monster and rule middle earth. Does he have a secret homophobic army hidden in Wookey Hole, unlikely. I would trust Tim not to reverse any of the laws regarding LGBT since I put him in the bracket that he doesn't agree but would fight for peoples rights to whatever.
In terms of favouring or not favouring that is irrelevant. It is having democracy at the forefront of action. Praxis not Dogma

The point being that they don't REALLY believe in gay marriage.

That's not the point and also they don't necessarily have to hold that position for example they may accept marriage but not recognise gay holy matrimony. As far as I can see the latter is irrelevant to a secular society.

Your stuff about there is ''only marriage.'' That's your opinion but don't you mean, playing your game, that there is REALLY only secular marriage because there is in your view no God? Isnt this a control issue with you?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Given that I was talking about whether he would have been able to have become leader of the LibDems if his views were known to members then I doubt you are right. I don't think LibDem members (in other words the actual people who are part of that very organisation) would be particularly impressed with:

"I was forced to tell lies & compromise my true beliefs by party officials terrified by the new political correctness"

And I don't think they would be impressed by his views either - just a few days ago a comprehensive survey of the views of members of political parties was published - this showed that 84% of LibDem members support gay marriage - which is of course many steps further on the equalities path than simply believing that consensual gay sex is fine (and therefore not 'a sin' as Farron thinks, albeit failed to be clear about during either his election as leader, nor the general election).

I think it’s important that the question is asked in order to highlight the dangers of people who think like Prof D and how important it is to fight against and isolate his dangerous strand of illiberalism in a relatively free society. I’m fine in a secular society with Tim Farron thinking that from a theological perspective I am committing a sin by being a Muslim, provided he defends my right to be one in this secular society. Otherwise secular is meaningless - we might as well be a theocracy.

I agree with people like Jenny Rigg, the Lib Dem LGBT’s acting Chair who spoke out in April on the matter - I linked to her view back in reply # 48 on this thread:

“I see that, thanks to Cathy Newman’s interview last night, the thorny theological topic of Sin has raised its ugly head once more.

Let me get this right out in the beginning: I don’t give a fig what Tim Farron’s religious beliefs are. You know why? Because I am a Liberal. He could believe the sky is made from Puff the Magic Dragon’s bumfluff, and I wouldn’t care one jot, whit or iota. What I do care about, and care deeply about, is
How Tim Farron votes in parliament

How he treats people – LGBT+ people in particular – in everyday life...”

https://www.libdemvoice.org/lgbt-lib-dems-acting-chair-praises-tim-farrons-position-on-lgbt-equality-53970.html

The media portray our society as one that has already been taken over by Prof D’s dangerous strand of illiberalism My personal view is that his illiberalism is still thankfully only part of a vocal fringe, but it is important to keep talking about the issue in order to remain vigilant to how easy it would be for the rot to spread if liberals do nothing.

[Rhiannon]

I think this is where politicians differ from other kinds of public office. It’s reasonable to expect most people with Farron’s beliefs to be able to put them aside in public life - a police officer, housing official, a doctor for example - and treat everyone equally. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect politicians to vote against their religious conscience - in fact I would find it worrying if they did do, given what devout belief is meant to mean. If his voting record toed party lines rather than those of his faith it would be utterly bizarre, given how Evangelical Christianity works.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think this is where politicians differ from other kinds of public office. It’s reasonable to expect most people with Farron’s beliefs to be able to put them aside in public life - a police officer, housing official, a doctor for example - and treat everyone equally. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect politicians to vote against their religious conscience - in fact I would find it worrying if they did do, given what devout belief is meant to mean. If his voting record toed party lines rather than those of his faith it would be utterly bizarre, given how Evangelical Christianity works.

What effectively is the difference between a religious conscience and a conscience here?

We know homophobia to be abroad in the non religious community. We know non belief to be abroad in the non religious community.
Lots of politicians are atheist. It is encumbent on me as part of a minority therefore to keep half an eye out for politicians who are going to seek to legislate and work against the likes of me. I do not want to legislate against their atheism and indeed have voted for atheists to political office in the past on the principle that what is important is praxis not dogma.
I am particularly impressed by Jeremy Corbyn's attitude to faith. As a practical politician he knows he has to work with people of religion and he strikes me that he takes the prospect that he has to serve as well as rule seriously.
In conclusion therefore I think you are specially pleading religion.

[floo]

What effectively is the difference between a religious conscience and a conscience here?

We know homophobia to be abroad in the non religious community. We know non belief to be abroad in the non religious community.
Lots of politicians are atheist. It is encumbent on me as part of a minority therefore to keep half an eye out for politicians who are going to seek to legislate and work against the likes of me. I do not want to legislate against their atheism and indeed have voted for atheists to political office in the past on the principle that what is important is praxis not dogma.
I am particularly impressed by Jeremy Corbyn's attitude to faith. As a practical politician he knows he has to work with people of religion and he strikes me that he takes the prospect that he has to serve as well as rule seriously.
In conclusion therefore I think you are specially pleading religion.

Just out of interest, what benefit do get from your faith?

[Rhiannon]

What effectively is the difference between a religious conscience and a conscience here?

The difference is God, surely? You said yourself earlier that religious belief - Christian belief - is about personal surrender to God's will. A Christian is a Christian before all else. If someone holds the view that God forbids gay sex then to vote in any way that doesn't support that is deeply problematic. I'm not at all surprised that Farron has been squirming, he must have felt a huge amount of discomfort at what is in effect, for him, a betrayal of God.

[Walter]

No.

But I can remember at least a couple of times a person told me they took an instant dislike to me because of something cocky I've said the instant they met me but then decided within about half an hour that they liked me. And then there are people who continue to dislike me probably to this day.

im sorry, it's over, it's not you it's me , I can't get past the Muslim thing , or any religion for that matter
🏃🏃🏃

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It’s reasonable to expect most people with Farron’s beliefs to be able to put them aside in public life - a police officer, housing official, a doctor for example - and treat everyone equally.

A bit of an unjustified slur here because of the Christian heritage of helping all, turning the cheek, love going right back to the parable of the Good Samaritan.

A better way of putting your sentences would have been to expect most people with prejudices to put them aside.

In conclusion I fail to see in the light of the Gospel and the tradition of Christian and religious charity how you have somehow turned all that on it's head.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The difference is God, surely? You said yourself earlier that religious belief - Christian belief - is about personal surrender to God's will. A Christian is a Christian before all else. If someone holds the view that God forbids gay sex then to vote in any way that doesn't support that is deeply problematic. I'm not at all surprised that Farron has been squirming, he must have felt a huge amount of discomfort at what is in effect, for him, a betrayal of God.

God, Darwin, Human goodness, Zeitgeist, ego all work as sources of motivation so to single out God is special pleading.

Also you are singling out Homosexuality as THE sin. I put this down as it being the best weapon in the antichristian armory but your emphasis is also special pleading. Farron would I imagine also consider adultery and divorce sinful. How then in this instance would homosexuality be special? There must be a few non believer politicians who think adultery is wrong. Why do they not get the consideration of Farron? Answer because you are specially pleading religion.
It looks therefore that this is a gussied up attack on persons having different beliefs.

Finally you only vote for A or B, how somebody votes for something is a ridiculous consideration.
e.g. ''I voted for Brexit with my arse slightly proud of the voting booth''.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think this is where politicians differ from other kinds of public office. It’s reasonable to expect most people with Farron’s beliefs to be able to put them aside in public life - a police officer, housing official, a doctor for example - and treat everyone equally. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect politicians to vote against their religious conscience - in fact I would find it worrying if they did do, given what devout belief is meant to mean. If his voting record toed party lines rather than those of his faith it would be utterly bizarre, given how Evangelical Christianity works.

I don’t find it bizarre to think that God wants me to follow rules for my life but not impose those rules on other people’s lives. Some Evangelicals may well feel they have a duty to spread a message but not impose a message on others, especially others who have different beliefs. That would be the liberal in them.

That you find it bizarre that a religious person such as an Evangelical liberal politician can think that way is a reflection of your beliefs, misconceptions and generalisations about religious people. As my link showed, certain people in the Lib-Dems, based on Farron’s actions in defending LBGT rights, don’t appear to share your unevidenced concern on Farron’s ability to carry out a political role that reflects their liberal principles.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

im sorry, it's over, it's not you it's me , I can't get past the Muslim thing , or any religion for that matter
🏃🏃🏃

I wasn’t aware it had begun, but ok.

[Gordon]

I'd have thought the only approach that the likes of Farron could reasonably adopt so to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, and in his case subsequent lying, would be that if he felt his political activities on behalf of the electorate always had to accord with his personal theological position irrespective of other political positions he could adopt, would be to have campaigned on that basis - in order that the electorate in his constituency would be fully aware that, should they elect him, he would always act in his political role on whatever basis he felt his theological beliefs required of him.

He didn't do this. 

[Rhiannon]

I don’t find it bizarre to think that God wants me to follow rules for my life but not impose those rules on other people’s lives. Some Evangelicals may well feel they have a duty to spread a message but not impose a message on others, especially others who have different beliefs. That would be the liberal in them.

That you find it bizarre that a religious person such as an Evangelical liberal politician can think that way is a reflection of your beliefs, misconceptions and generalisations about religious people. As my link showed, certain people in the Lib-Dems, based on Farron’s actions in defending LBGT rights, don’t appear to share your unevidenced concern on Farron’s ability to carry out a political role that reflects their liberal principles.

This isn’t misconception or bias on my part. I nearly became a priest so I did my time on Farron’s side of the fence, and I kind of know how it works from a Christian perspective. One thing that is very clearly taught (especially on the Evangelical wing if the church) is that it is a sin to allow others to sin. So my local Baptist minister believes that if gay Christians go to one of her services she is sinning if she doesn’t tell them that the Lord’s word is that he does not allow them to have sexual relations with other people of the same gender. A Christian politician who believes that gay sex is a sin is allowing others to sin if they vote for pro gay rights legislation.

Of course not all Christians do believe that same sex relations are sinful. Some believe that they can’t judge. Others believe that Scripture is open to interpretation just as it has been for issues like slavery and divorce. I belonged on the liberal wing of the church and I and most of my fellow churchgoers were pro gay rights, but only because our theological position was that gay relationships aren’t sinful. Peoole can fudge it in their personal lives (a dad accepting a gay son and his partner for example) but it doesn’t work for someone in a position of authority who is allowing people to fall into sin. That is the problem with Farron voting on gay rights and I would have thought that in his position the only option would be to abstain from such voting.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gordon

My impression is that Farron campaigned on the basis that his theological position on this issue would not influence his political role on this issue.

Where he made a mistake was lying during his campaign about what his irrelevant theological position was. He has now corrected that mistake. I don’t require my politicians to never make mistakes as that would make me a hypocrite. I expect them to make amends and rectify mistakes as best as they can. Farron has met my standards in relation to this. He has clarification ed his position and it is one that the acting chair of the Lib-Dem LBGT+ is comfortable with. It may well be that other constituents will agree with Jennie Rigg’s assessment that Farron is an acceptable Lib-Dem MP who defends LBGT+ interests.