Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on June 14, 2017, 10:47:30 PM
-
Hounded out by Secular Humanists?
-
No but it's a nice excuse for him to use.
Truth is he was a little bit shit at politics.
-
No but it's a nice excuse for him to use.
Truth is he was a little bit shit at politics.
So are 99% of politicians.
-
Hounded out by Secular Humanists?
No, just useless. But at least (unwittingly?) honest:
To be a leader, particularly of a progressive liberal party in 2017 and to live as a committed Christian and to hold faithful to the Bible's teaching has felt impossible for me.
There's always the DUP Timmy.
-
Honest but would have thought he'd have worked that out before becoming leader.
-
Honest but would have thought he'd have worked that out before becoming leader.
Perhaps even as early as the point just before joining a party called Liberal Democrats.
-
That's a good point :D.
-
Surely, we want political parties to contain people from all kinds of backgrounds, not simply clones.
I presume that in economic and general social policy terms Tim Farron is an archtypical Liberal Democrat. It seems that it is at the point where social policy impinges on personal morality that he has difficulty.It might have been better if he had resisted the call to party leadership but this aspect of his personality does not disqualify him from being a LibDem.
-
Surely, we want political parties to contain people from all kinds of backgrounds, not simply clones.
Absolutely; but as with so-called "New Labour" surely there has to come some point where a member's beliefs are so divergent from what the party is supposed to stand for that membership becomes absurd and threatens to strip a party of anything specific and distinctive about it. If you can belong to any party, there's nothing special and distinct about being in X, Y or Z party. It's a bit like the old gag about the ultra-unorthodox Jew - he was a Nazi. A broad church is a good thing, but once past a certain degree of broadness collapse will always threaten.
-
Perhaps even as early as the point just before joining a party called Liberal Democrats.
Liberal Democrats? I thought he was speaking out at the Cuntish Humanists.
-
Liberal Democrats? I thought he was speaking out at the Cuntish Humanists.
Unsurprisingly, wrong again Vladster.
-
Absolutely; but as with so-called "New Labour" surely there has to come some point where a member's beliefs are so divergent from what the party is supposed to stand for that membership becomes absurd ...
That does not sound like a particularly democratic nor a particularly liberal attitude to membership. It sounds like the first steps toward totalitarianism. A mainstream political party must reflect the society in which it grows if it wants to flourish. I accept that Tim Farron's views on sexuality may not be in tune with the majority of his party but the fact that he appears to hold them should not disbar him from being a member of that party. He appears to be a typical LibDem in all other respects.
-
That does not sound like a particularly democratic nor a particularly liberal attitude to membership. It sounds like the first steps toward totalitarianism.
Melodramatic much? I'm simply making - or, as I now find myself, repeating - the point that a party is supposed to stand for something or it becomes an amorphous mess, something with all the form of blancmange. Latitude is great; open house and open season without at least some rigour pretty well evacuates the concept of any party standing for anything recognisable of all and any content. On this view you may as well have Tories in the Labour Par - oh, wait ...
I accept that Tim Farron's views on sexuality may not be in tune with the majority of his party but the fact that he appears to hold them should not disbar him from being a member of that party.
The point, surely, is that according to his statement he himself seems to think that it does - if not from membership, then certainly from leadership.
-
Absolutely; but as with so-called "New Labour" surely there has to come some point where a member's beliefs are so divergent from what the party is supposed to stand for that membership becomes absurd and threatens to strip a party of anything specific and distinctive about it.
You mean like what that atheist chap did when he made up naturalistic pantheism.
-
You mean like what that atheist chap did when he made up naturalistic pantheism.
No.
-
An honest person can't lead a party which supports marriage equality if he or she opposes it. I don't see why that is controversial. There's no suggestion that Farron should leave the LibDems.
-
An honest person can't lead a party which supports marriage equality if he or she opposes it. I don't see why that is controversial. There's no suggestion that Farron should leave the LibDems.
Quite.
-
If the Lib Dems had won twenty seats ( and they were not that far off, eg rich kid Goldsmith beat Sarah Olney by 45 votes), then Tim would have been applauded.
FWIW (and YES I am a Lib Dem voter), Tim struck me as being an OK sort.
-
Liberal Democrats? I thought he was speaking out at the Cuntish Humanists.
I don't think he was speaking out at anyone specifically. He was talking about himself - that he couldn't square his own conscience with the ethos of the party he was leading.
Sure questioning from journalists (who might or might not be humanists - probably not) brought those issues tot he fore, but they were always there and it is perfectly reasonable for journalists to ask these kind of questions. Indeed they did with Corbyn, probing his conscience on Trident and pushing the button.
Out of interest do you think we'd be having the same discussion if it was clear that a LibDem party leader was racist, or if those views weren't linked to religion. I doubt it, we'd simply accept they weren't fit for the job.
-
If the Lib Dems had won twenty seats ( and they were not that far off, eg rich kid Goldsmith beat Sarah Olney by 45 votes), then Tim would have been applauded.
FWIW (and YES I am a Lib Dem voter), Tim struck me as being an OK sort.
He is an OK sort. It was quite clear that he bore gay people no ill will but his faith put HIM in conflict with his party. That was the issue. That and the fact that he wasn't particularly convincing as a party leader imo.
His voting record on gay issues is vastly superior to Theresa May so I don't think he should be pilloried for his struggling with but one aspect of equal rights.
-
While the Tories chum up to the DUP. Secular Humanists have been creating their own sectarian party. The Lib Dems.
A bit too Stalinist for my liking.
-
While the Tories chum up to the DUP. Secular Humanists have been creating their own sectarian party. The Lib Dems.
A bit too Stalinist for my liking.
Well, there's the stupidest thing I'll read all day right there.
-
Well, there's the stupidest thing I'll read all day right there.
Not really there are those on here who are quite open that theists should have no public forum.
-
Not really there are those on here who are quite open that theists should have no public forum.
Names please.
-
... theists should have no public forum.
Was that in the LibDem's manifesto?
-
Well, there's the stupidest thing I'll read all day right there.
Vlad hasn't misused 'Stalinist' for a while now. I was beginning to miss it.
-
Not really there are those on here who are quite open that theists should have no public forum.
Like?
-
Vlad hasn't misused 'Stalinist' for a while now. I was beginning to miss it.
If Secular Humanism and it's hangers on have moved into thoughtcrime, totalitarianism, Duckspeak, word piracy in the context of a political movement and the question of who can Govern and who cannot then that is Orwellian. And that is an allegory of Stalin.
-
If Secular Humanism and it's hangers on have moved into thoughtcrime, totalitarianism, Duckspeak, word piracy in the context of a political movement and the question of who can Govern and who cannot then that is Orwellian. And that is an allegory of Stalin.
Except they haven't.
-
Not really there are those on here who are quite open that theists should have no public forum.
of course they should, if only to face ridicule.
-
of course they should, if only to face ridicule.
I can handle that since i'm always on hand to ridicule Sanderson, Copson, Toynbee and other SHers.
-
Well, there's the stupidest thing I'll read all day right there.
We can never smell ourselves.....but some enjoy the fragrance of their own farts.
-
Honest but would have thought he'd have worked that out before becoming leader.
Yeah, but maybe he hoped he could keep his views on gays secret!
-
Perhaps even as early as the point just before joining a party called Liberal Democrats.
Yeah, but was it the 'Liberal' or the 'Democrat' that sank him?
-
An honest person can't lead a party which supports marriage equality if he or she opposes it. I don't see why that is controversial. There's no suggestion that Farron should leave the LibDems.
Agreed!
-
Well, there's the stupidest thing I'll read all day right there.
Trip Vlad up on anything and her rolls out the Stalinists! How very predictable!
-
Trip Vlad up on anything and her rolls out the Stalinists! How very predictable!
Owlswing....I wondered if that was the sound of axes being ground.
-
Owlswing....I wondered if that was the sound of axes being ground.
Please detail which axes
-
Please detail which axes
Germany, Italy or Japan perhaps?
-
Ohhhh good..
A get out clause from the DUP debacle..
If the new leader is stupid enough to coalition with the #Maybot then this country is fucked for the next generation or 2..
Thank fuck I will be dead and not have to witness "Great" britain torn into a 3 world country.
-
I wonder who will replace Farron? It was a great pity David Milliband quit being an MP, he would have made a much better leader than his brother, imo, and the Lib Dems might have some clout.
-
That we'll never know.
Ed's much nicer, more interesting and fun now than when he was party leader. When the pressure was off he relaxed.
Wonder who the next lib-dem leader will be?
-
So long as they remain the invisible men of British politics, it doesn't matter.
-
I wonder who will replace Farron? It was a great pity David Milliband quit being an MP, he would have made a much better leader than his brother, imo, and the Lib Dems might have some clout.
Floo, you've not been at the 7-Up again, have you? This post suggests that you might be thinking that the Millibands were Lib-Dems ...
-
That does not sound like a particularly democratic nor a particularly liberal attitude to membership. It sounds like the first steps toward totalitarianism. A mainstream political party must reflect the society in which it grows if it wants to flourish. I accept that Tim Farron's views on sexuality may not be in tune with the majority of his party but the fact that he appears to hold them should not disbar him from being a member of that party. He appears to be a typical LibDem in all other respects.
This seems a bit arse about tit. Political parties - at least the ones we elect - are supposed to lead not follow. Political parties are supposed to have principles and are supposed to advocate them. That's why there are different political parties.
The Liberal Democrats have long had a principle that gay people deserve the same rights in marriage as straight people. Tim Farron disagrees with that principle and so it got him in trouble. The same thing happened to Jeremy Corbyn to a lesser extent over Trident.
-
This subject was discussed on the Sunday programme on Radio 4 this morning.
It's on iPlayer - why don't you listen to it?
-
This subject was discussed on the Sunday programme on Radio 4 this morning.
It's on iPlayer - why don't you listen to it?
Because I don't have a TV licence?
-
Because I don't have a TV licence?
Don't need one for radio programmes on i-Player
-
The question being posed on the BBC this morning is ''can you mix religion with politics?''.
How is that different from ''can you mix the religious with politics?''.
Can you mix secular humanism with politics?
-
Vlad proposed Secular Humanists had ,with regards to Tim Farron, moved into thoughtcrime.
Professor Davey replied.
Except they haven't.
Surely they have if Farron's policy is not that which he holds personally since the focus is what he holds personally (Thoughtcrime) rather than his policy.
-
Surely they have if Farron's policy is not that which he holds personally since the focus is what he holds personally (Thoughtcrime) rather than his policy.
what the...... and again in a proper sentence please.
-
BBC now framing Stalinist rhetoric ''Isn't it about time to recognise religion has no place in public politics''.... I'm sure we can all think of horrendous similar statements. And yet the BBC seem quite casual about chucking this out as do I imagine, several Secular Humanists.
-
what the...... and again in a proper sentence please.
As far as I can tell, in his ongoing war against what he thinks secular humanism is (as well as his ongoing war against reality and the English language, amongst other things) I think Vlad is trying to make out that Farron has been toppled by an organised conspiracy accusing him of thoughtcrime, i.e. that he shouldn't hold the views that he holds.
This completely ignores the fact that in his statement it was Farron himself who intimated an incompatibility between his personal religious views and the party line he is expected to take as leader of the LDs, hence his resignation. But don't expect Vlad to take that into account: it would interfere with his use of words he doesn't understand but which sound impressive.
-
As far as I can tell, in his ongoing war against what he thinks secular humanism is (as well as his ongoing war against reality and the English language, amongst other things) I think Vlad is trying to make out that Farron has been toppled by an organised conspiracy accusing him of thoughtcrime, i.e. that he shouldn't hold the views that he holds.
This completely ignores the fact that in his statement it was Farron himself who intimated an incompatibility between his personal religious views and the party line he is expected to take as leader of the LDs, hence his resignation. But don't expect Vlad to take that into account: it would interfere with his use of words he doesn't understand but which sound impressive.
An excellent clarification, thank you
-
As far as I can tell, in his ongoing war against what he thinks secular humanism is (as well as his ongoing war against reality and the English language, amongst other things) I think Vlad is trying to make out that Farron has been toppled by an organised conspiracy accusing him of thoughtcrime, i.e. that he shouldn't hold the views that he holds.
This completely ignores the fact that in his statement it was Farron himself who intimated an incompatibility between his personal religious views and the party line he is expected to take as leader of the LDs, hence his resignation. But don't expect Vlad to take that into account: it would interfere with his use of words he doesn't understand but which sound impressive.
Come of it, we've had it on here, Atheists asks for one's position and when told then asks how deeply it is held or how deeply you celebrate it.
I distinctly remember conversations where you can not just concede that everybody should be allowed to be civilly married you THEN receive the inquisition and persuaded to to drop your view that Holy matrimony is between man and woman or that holy matrimony exists.
-
An excellent clarification, thank you
Organised...it's worse than that ...It's casual.
-
Organised...it's worse than that ...It's casual.
Hmmm? ??? ??? ???
-
I distinctly remember conversations where you can not just concede that everybody should be allowed to be civilly married you THEN receive the inquisition and persuaded to to drop your view that Holy matrimony is between man and woman or that holy matrimony exists.
This is a gross misrepresentation of Shaker's position on the subject.
His stance, if I remember rightly, was that no-one should be forced into a Civil Partnership by religious objections to the use of churches for gay aor lesbian mariiages.
It was this point on which his objection to Civil Partnerships was based.
Now stop trying to twist the truth to fit your own hopelessly and morally discredited religiously biased views.
I have tried to mangle the English Language as far as I can so that you can understand it.
-
Come of it, we've had it on here, Atheists asks for one's position and when told then asks how deeply it is held or how deeply you celebrate it.
I distinctly remember conversations where you can not just concede that everybody should be allowed to be civilly married you THEN receive the inquisition and persuaded to to drop your view that Holy matrimony is between man and woman or that holy matrimony exists.
the word 'holy' has no meaning to me and I suspect, to many others.
-
the word 'holy' has no meaning to me and I suspect, to many others.
And there are those who would wish to extend that ''lack of meaning'' on to others for whom it has meaning.
-
And there are those who would wish to extend that ''lack of meaning'' on to others for whom it has meaning.
Wrong way round, Vlad.
It is those who find meaning in religion who try and force it on those who find your religious beliefs meaningless!
-
Wrong way round, Vlad.
It is those who find meaning in religion who try and force it on those who find your religious beliefs meaningless!
you are right of course, but we will now just get back to the same old same old. Very tedious, unfortunately.
-
Wrong way round, Vlad.
It is those who find meaning in religion who try and force it on those who find your religious beliefs meaningless!
Not in the case of Farron.
Do you find meaning in religion? If not why are you posing as a pagan? You seem to want your cake and eat it.
-
Wrong way round, Vlad.
It is those who find meaning in religion who try and force it on those who find your religious beliefs meaningless!
Like, let's say, the established church of a nation trying to prevent civil (i.e. secular) marriage, i.e. none of its business, for instance.
-
Not in the case of Farron.
Do you find meaning in religion? If not why are you posing as a pagan? You seem to want your cake and eat it.
I assume that he finds meaning in his particular religious path (which seems 100% sincere to me, not a "pose") but doesn't expect that it has to be forced upon others or that others have to abide by it.
-
Not in the case of Farron.
Do you find meaning in religion? If not why are you posing as a pagan? You seem to want your cake and eat it.
As usual you twist words to your own purpose!
Of course I find meaning in my religious beliefs - BUT, and it is a damn great big BUT, I do not, ever, claim it to be the "one true faith", nor do I tell anyone else that they are wrong in their beliefs; in their claiming there is proof that their beliefs are fact, yes.
What I DO say is wrong is the way in which some religions (no names - no pack-drill) try to convert anyone who is not already of their beliefs to those beliefs.
-
I assume that he finds meaning in his particular religious path (which seems 100% sincere to me, not a "pose") but doesn't expect that it has to be forced upon others or that others have to abide by it.
You got it in one, Shaker; how come Vlad can't get it in 1,000 (approximately) attempts?
-
Like, let's say, the established church of a nation trying to prevent civil (i.e. secular) marriage, i.e. none of its business, for instance.
Let's see..... in the cakes business, atheists were on here were quoting the ''law of the land'' i.e. the importance of the preservation of the law.
Somehow they didn't likewise think the church had any business in shaping or preserving the law of the land. As we all know the establish church had none of the power or ability to frustrate the plans.
That is not the case with a majority where people think it is OK to question whether the religious should have any role in politics and take their own secular humanism as the sole bench mark of what is really a peculiar righteousness.
Big fat hypocrisy.
-
You got it in one, Shaker; how come Vlad can't get it in 1,000 (approximately) attempts?
He hasn't got it at all since he talks about forcing religion on people.
Christianity doesn't do that in the UK although prior to becoming a Christian I too mistakingly took that as read.
Let me make things clear to you.
No religion which believes in personal rather than corporate conversion through an existential Change and warmth of heart toward God also believes in forced conversion.
No Christian church is under the impression that it can do more than try to exert influence on the law of the land and no church is under the impression that it may at times hold any more than the minority position.
There is subsequently no particular expectation that people take what it says on board.
That's three suspect statements Shaker has made and you have supported him in.
If anything is being foisted here it is the tyranny of the majority.
-
He hasn't got it at all since he talks about forcing religion on people.
Christianity doesn't do that in the UK although prior to becoming a Christian I too mistakingly took that as read.
Let me make things clear to you.
No religion which believes in personal rather than corporate conversion through an existential Change and warmth of heart toward God also believes in forced conversion.
No Christian church is under the impression that it can do more than try to exert influence on the law of the land and no church is under the impression that it may at times hold any more than the minority position.
There is subsequently no particular expectation that people take what it says on board.
That's three suspect statements Shaker has made and you have supported him in.
If anything is being foisted here it is the tyranny of the majority.
Bullshit baffles brains - and you, Vlad, have in this post proved it beyond all reasonable doubt!
At least twice a week when I go shopping in Hounslow High Street there are Christains with their posters and their stands and their banners and their loudhailers and, sometimes, their choirs of children, telling anyone stupid enough to stop and listen that they MUST listen to and trun to and obey the God of the bible or they will surely burn in Hell for all eternity!
When you can say the same for any Pagan group - call me - I'm here!
-
Let's see..... in the cakes business, atheists were on here were quoting the ''law of the land'' i.e. the importance of the preservation of the law.
Indeed, since the law (properly laws) in question related to equality and freedom from discrimination.
Somehow they didn't likewise think the church had any business in shaping or preserving the law of the land. As we all know the establish church had none of the power or ability to frustrate the plans.
Bishops/archbishops in the Lords seemed to think otherwise, I recall.
-
Bullshit baffles brains - and you, Vlad, have in this post proved it beyond all reasonable doubt!
At least twice a week when I go shopping in Hounslow High Street there are Christains with their posters and their stands and their banners and their loudhailers and, sometimes, their choirs of children,
Don't tell me........... you writhe on the ground screaming ''help. help, I'm being repressed'' and ''Get a policeman they've got three verses of all things bright and beautiful''?
-
Indeed, since the law (properly laws) in question related to equality and freedom from discrimination.Bishops/archbishops in the Lords seemed to think otherwise, I recall.
Are you seriously suggesting that 28 Bishops hold the balance of power against goodness knows how many secular humanists whose beliefs are firmly ensconsed as the prevailing culture and beliefscape'?''
-
Are you seriously suggesting that 28 Bishops hold the balance of power against goodness knows how many secular humanists whose beliefs are firmly ensconsed as the prevailing culture and beliefscape'?''
Rather like certain Americans with Communists in the 50s, you seem to imagine these 'secular humanists' everywhere.
Show trials next Vlad? "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the British Humanist Association?"
-
Rather like certain Americans with Communists in the 50s, you seem to imagine these 'secular humanists' everywhere.
Show trials next Vlad? "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the British Humanist Association?"
More so than Christians there are probably a lot more who are Secular Humanist than who associate (BHA) it's, as I say, Casual..............No trials necessary BHA are self advertising (Via books and celebrity worship)
-
I can just see that on the side of a bus Vladdychops: "There are probably more secular humanists than you think ... now go and have a cup of tea and a digestive."
-
Rather like certain Americans with Communists in the 50s, you seem to imagine these 'secular humanists' everywhere.
Communism ensconsed as the prevailing culture in 50's America? What are you taking?
-
I can just see that on the side of a bus Vladdychops: "There are probably more secular humanists than you think ... now go and have a cup of tea and a digestive."
How about ''There are probably more secular humanists than you think but the celebrity ones are probably being chauffeured rather than being on a bus.....Hold very tight please Ding Ding''
-
Communism ensconsed as the prevailing culture in 50's America? What are you taking?
I believe 'whoosh' would apply to this effort of yours, Vlad.
-
Communism ensconsed as the prevailing culture in 50's America? What are you taking?
I never said anything about "prevailing culture"; my reference was to the Red Scare and the reds-under-the-beds paranoia which mirrors your bizarre views about what you call secular humanists.
-
I never said anything about "prevailing culture"; my reference was to the Red Scare and the reds-under-the-beds paranoia which mirrors your bizarre views about what you call secular humanists.
I am commenting on their bizarre views who would think nothing odd about a question like ''Should religion be allowed in politics in this day and age?'' but wouldn't even begin to understand or countenance one like
''should Secular Humanism be allowed in politics''.
-
I am commenting on their bizarre views who would think nothing odd about a question like ''Should religion be allowed in politics in this day and age?'' but wouldn't even begin to understand or countenance one like
''should Secular Humanism be allowed in politics''.
What's odd about it, exactly?
-
What's odd about it, exactly?
As I said we can't smell ourselves...........
-
Evasion noted.
-
I am commenting on their bizarre views who would think nothing odd about a question like ''Should religion be allowed in politics in this day and age?'' but wouldn't even begin to understand or countenance one like
''should Secular Humanism be allowed in politics''.
I hold to the 'bizarre' view that those who exercise political governance on behalf of the public should be subject to routine election. That doesn't stop interest groups from lobbying, such as religious groups or indeed any group, who wish their case to be considered by those elected to carry out political governance on behalf of the rest of us.
As such the HoL, with its CofE Bishops and other unelected personages, is fit only for the bin at the earliest possible opportunity (which of course includes the monarchy).
-
As I said we can't smell ourselves...........
Who says? Apart from you.
-
as i said earlier , same old same old.
I don't have the patience
-
Don't tell me........... you writhe on the ground screaming ''help. help, I'm being repressed'' and ''Get a policeman they've got three verses of all things bright and beautiful''?
No, I won't tell you that!
I just ask them one question and tell them that when they can answer it I will become Christian.
They are never going to answer and half of them have to look the verse up in their Little Book of Total Bollocks - otherwise known as The Bible.
I just ask them that how they can obey both the Sixth Commandment and Exodus 22:18.
The looks on their faces when they see what I am on about are priceless and cheer up the very worst of days!
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40339334
I see Vince Cable is putting himself forward as Lib Dem leader. I should think he has a good chance getting the post.
-
He's a good man. He is in his seventies but so what if he's still got it, we've had older politicians than him in past. We've become a bit used to younger ones recently (Blair, Brown, Cam, Clegg). Hope
Hope Cable succeeds.
-
Didn't work out well for Ming Campbell.
-
No it didn't, another decent bloke by all accounts.
-
Politics isn't the natural habitat of decent blokes, generally. They do turn up in the wild on occasion, but survival is difficult.
-
I had a little bit of a crush on Ming.
-
Well he is a sweetie.
-
I can just see that on the side of a bus Vladdychops: "There are probably more secular humanists than you think ... now go and have a cup of tea and a digestive."
That would need a bendy bus.
-
I had a little bit of a crush on Ming.
The Emperor Ming?
-
The Emperor Ming?
Ming the Merciless
-
Ming the Merciless
Conan the LiberalDemocrat.
Attila the Socialist.
-
xxxxxxxx the secular humanist.
xxxxxxxx the Stalinist.
xxxxxxxx the Orwellian.
xxxxxxxx the Keynsian.
You forgot all those ones, Vladdychops.
-
Ming the Merciless
Or his cousin Vlad the Pointless
-
xxxxxxxx the secular humanist.
xxxxxxxx the Stalinist.
xxxxxxxx the Orwellian.
xxxxxxxx the Keynsian.
You forgot all those ones, Vladdychops.
Yes but not Paul the Naturalistic Pantheist.
-
Yes but not Paul the Naturalistic Pantheist.
I didn't choose him as he's not an arse.
-
Or his cousin Vlad the Pointless
.............By the mighty Axe of Owlswing!!!!
-
.............By the mighty Axe of Owlswing!!!!
What?
Another pointless remark from Vlad the Pointless.