You agree with his political views?

Nope, I respect them, but I certainly don’t agree with them.

The main crux of my post was to discuss the implications of having a politician whose likeability and ability to engage the most improbable quarters of the population transcended his political views.

Possibly a bit too nuanced for some…

So I think that reinforces that whilst some of his votes are at the behest of the whip, others are governed by his faith. I can’t find any reason not to respect that.

I’d prefer that a MP voted in the interests of the country and his constituency.

Someone in Whitehall recently referred to him as “the right honourable member for the early 20th Century,” which just about sums him up. He seems to live in his own little bubble completely disconnected from the real world.

His oily demeanour and some of his comments make me want to kill kittens, but I’m not sure as it comes from a place of malice. I almost feel sorry for him.

Nope, I respect them, but I certainly don’t agree with them.

I’m still curious as to why you find his views worthy of respect.

The main crux of my post was to discuss the implications of having a politician whose likeability and ability to engage the most improbable quarters of the population transcended his political views.

Simple.

See Trump or Brexit.

Where substance is ignored & being popular is what counts & bugger the consequences.

In a word: Populism

The main crux of my post was to discuss the implications of having a politician whose likeability and ability to engage the most improbable quarters of the population transcended his political views.

I don’t think his personality is likeable.
I don’t think he has any particular unique ability.
I don’t agree that he’s engaging the most improbable levels of society.

Likeability? 😆

I’d prefer that a MP voted in the interests of the country and his constituency.

That’s not how it works though is it. MPs play a 3-way balancing act between their convictions, the party line, and their constituents. Unfortunately, “convictions” is always bottom of the list. So I kind of respect a politician who is prepared to defy the party line because of his faith.

Now, I’m not religious in any way, but I respect people who are, and I respect that for those with strong faith, their religious views will override party policy. His constituents knew what they were voting for.

Now, I’m not religious in any way, but I respect people who are, and I respect that for those with strong faith, their religious views will override party policy.

I see, so if their religious views mean that they believe children should be sold into slavery, you respect that? I see no reason for religion being used as an excuse for justifying abhorrent views.

hatter – Member
Consistently decries people claiming benefits as scroungers who should be sent back to the work house but is happy to accept £7.6m of public money to do up his ancestral home.,

He doesn’t own the ancestral home – it’s owned by the Wentworth Woodhouse Preservation Trust.

Are we now at the point where money to save / restore old buildings must also go through a Momentum sub committee who will decide whether cash will be awarded based on who used to own the properties?

His constituents knew what they were voting for.

Yes, a Tory. Where he was elected that’s the overriding factor. Unfortunately the candidate the local association shoved in front of them is happy to sometimes allow his personal religious beliefs to trump their interests and those of the country. I see nothing to respect there.

I see, so if their religious views mean that they believe children should be sold into slavery, you respect that?

I’m questioning whether it’s sensible to reply to someone who’s clearly not equipped for this debate, but I’ll give you the benefit of my doubts one last time.

Despite what some people might think, Catholicism doesn’t advocate selling children into slavery. If it did, and Mr Rees Mogg still chose to be a Catholic, I very much doubt his constituents would have voted for him.

If the Catholic Church decided to start enslaving kids, I credit Mr Rees Mogg with strong enough moral fibre to denounce his faith. To suggest otherwise is just silly.

If history teaches us anything, it’s that politics and religion is a match made in heaven, and combining the two always ends brilliantly!

I’m questioning whether it’s sensible to reply to someone who’s clearly not equipped for this debate, but I’ll give you the benefit of my doubts one last time.

I see that my point went straight over your head, but given the shallowness of your comments so far, that’s no great surprise. Let me try and explain it more simply for you.

If the Catholic Church decided to start enslaving kids, I credit Mr Rees Mogg with strong enough moral fibre to denounce his faith. To suggest otherwise is just silly.

Sigh. Rees-Mogg justifies his position on same sex marriage because of his faith. No other reason is given. Now, the bible says all sorts of things that could be used to justify a very wide variety of positions, including selling children into slavery and murdering people who work on the sabbath. I am asking you why you believe that justifying a particular political view because of faith is worthy of respect.

councilof10 – Member
I’m questioning whether it’s sensible to reply to someone who’s clearly not equipped for this debate….

🙂

Stay on my arm, you little charmer….

Someone in Whitehall recently referred to him as “the right honourable member for the early 20th Century,” which just about sums him up. He seems to live in his own little bubble completely disconnected from the real world.

His oily demeanour and some of his comments make me want to kill kittens, but I’m not sure as it comes from a place of malice. I almost feel sorry for him.

this

Now, the bible says all sorts of things that could be used to justify a very wide variety of positions, including selling children into slavery and murdering people who work on the sabbath. I am asking you why you believe that justifying particular a political view because of faith is worthy of respect.

Read your post back. “The Bible” is not the same as “The Catholic Church”!

If only I’d trusted my instincts with you… 😉

Read your post back. “The Bible” is not the same as “The Catholic Church”!

If only I’d trusted my instincts with you…

Ah, so taking instructions from the Catholic Church is worthy of respect, but taking instructions from the bible is not? If you’re capable, I suggest you have a think about that for a minute.

Interesting – so which bits of the bible does the Catholic church denounce?

I’m questioning whether it’s sensible to reply to someone who’s clearly not equipped for this debate, but I’ll give you the benefit of my doubts one last time.

Nice ad hominem.

Interesting – so which bits of the bible does the Catholic church denounce?

As far as I can tell, using faith as a justification for prejudice is sometimes good, and sometimes bad. I’m sure the councillor will be along to explain it all.

Is there any specific reference to not bumming choirboys?

Is there any specific reference to not bumming choirboys?

🙂

I guess that if your priest says it’s not ok, other priests are available.

Thank you binners, it needed saying. Also who was advocating the burning of dinosaurs?

Hmm, a social club that picks and chooses which rules from its guidebook to ignore and which ones to go batshit mental if someone insults is probably worthy of the scorn it gets. And that’s before we get on to bumming choirboys.

Interesting – so which bits of the bible does the Catholic church denounce?

Who said it denounces the bible? The modern Catholic Church has been quite clear and open about its teachings, its interpretation of the bible and its stance on its application to political issues.

It’s not exactly “hard-line” in its beliefs – people like to misinterpret its stance on gay marriage etc, and whilst its views/teachings aren’t in line with my own (I’m not a Catholic), we’re not exactly talking about stoning the gays in public squares!

Outstanding member of Parliament and adds colour and variety to our country. His Channel 4 Referendum piece with Jess Phillips was one of the few highlights of a dire campaign. His put down about Eton to David Dimbleby on Question Time was also marvellous

Thank you binners, it needed saying. Also who was advocating the burning of dinosaurs?

A pyranosaurus ?

the right honourable Chumley Warner

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQWPR9TM0Gk[/video]

I assumed that must be the case from your suggestion of separation between the two – are you now telling me that it doesn’t denounce any of the bible?

Despite what some people might think, Catholicism doesn’t advocate selling children into slavery. If it did, and Mr Rees Mogg still chose to be a Catholic, I very much doubt his constituents would have voted for him.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from reading comments from both sides of the debate post-Brexit, is that for a large number of people their political party allegiances and hatreds trump many many other issues to the point of insanity.

For instance, Nick Clegg could come up with a way of giving everyone in the country a free solid gold house and there would be a portion of the electorate who went “yeah, but I could never vote for the Lib Dems because Tuition Fees.” Blair, Iraq. Corbyn, something he said back when the world was in black and white, and so on and so on. A lot of folk will vote Labour / LD / Tory simply because that’s who they vote for.

Never mind religion and child slavery, if Rees-Mogg advocated the eating of babies he’d probably still retain his seat in an election.

I assumed that must be the case from your suggestion of separation between the two – are you now telling me that it doesn’t denounce any of the bible?

One is a book, one is a religion. Are you not aware of the difference? To be honest, if you don’t know enough about religion to understand that difference, I’m not going to waste my time answering your silly posts!

can we have a button that makes councilof10 go back to waxing his crack?

I think I can just about cope with that – however the religion is ostensibly based upon the book, you appear to be suggesting that the religion rejects some parts of the book and I was after evidence for that. If you can’t provide any evidence for your assertions then no worries.

To be honest, if you don’t know enough about religion to understand that difference, I’m not going to waste my time answering your silly posts!

Ooh look, another ad-hom. But then the only reason you started this thread was as excuse to throw those around.

OP: Dear STW, what do you think of this man who I like

STW: We don’t like him for various reason

OP: What a horrible lot you are

Have I missed anything or does this need to run for another three pages?

I think it’s quite sweet seeing a man open up, via the medium of an internet forum, to his latent, and previously repressed homosexuality. But I fear that the strongly held faith of the object of his desires – which ironically forms a large part of the attraction – will prevent his feelings being reciprocated.

Life can be so cruel sometimes

OP: Dear STW, what do you think of this man who I like what are your thoughts on how this man might affect the political landscape?

STW: We don’t like him for various reason because he’s rich and we’re envious

OP: What a horrible lot you are an incredible inability to debate the original point many of you seem to possess.

One is a book, one is a religion. Are you not aware of the difference? To be honest, if you don’t know enough about religion to understand that difference, I’m not going to waste my time answering your silly posts!

It seems to me that there is an inherent contradiction in your posts, that several of us have picked up on, that you’re either refusing to admit, or cannot see. Alternatively, we could all be wrong and stupid.

I’m going with Occam’s razor.

Why I don’t like him

I’m going with Occam’s razor.

Why? Because you saw it mentioned on STW, googled it and thought it might make you sound more educated?