I think it is highly relevant whether someone asking to become the leader of the country has strong religious views and how those views might impact policy or culture. If you hold views which are seemingly at odds to your party, or possibly even the country you’d better be good at explaining and justifying them or expect not to get elected!

Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister of Canada from 1968 to 1984, and in that time, decriminalised homosexuality, declared that ‘the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation’, loosened laws on abortion, and introduced the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – amongst other things.

He was seen – and is still seen – as a model liberal.

He was also a devout Catholic, but no one knew just how much so until he passed away in 2000. His son, Justin, is also a practicing Catholic.

It is entirely possible to separate what you believe to be true in terms of faith from what you believe to be the domain of the state.

Also a liar and a charlatan then.

What a pleasant chap.

Except evangelical groups are still trying to influence UK policy.

So really the debate should be which relegions shuld be banned from public office. I’m guessing you’d go any that think Sodomy is a sin: Islam and evangelical Christianity for starters. Any others?

From my personal standpoint, and I admit it is a very bias one, if someone is so infected with fairy dust that they hold what to me are abhorrent views because his favourite book tells him to and he insists on not questioning its veracity

I am glad you concede that this is a very biased opinion, convert, because it is an almost-absurd reflection of what mainstream Christians – and probably mainstream believers of most faiths – actually believe.

You may be describing some evangelical/fundamentalist politician in the USA, but certainly not any leader in the UK that I recognise.

So really the debate should be which relegions shuld be banned from public office

No absolutely none. BUT they should be consistent. Tim’s issue is that Evangelical Christianity is incompatible with many issues on the Liberal Left hence his stumbling nonsense over this, he’s trying to bridge two camps that simply cannot come together.

Hold religious views as a political party if you wish, go to the public with those views; survive or die via the ballot.

Sexual sin has always had a special place in the hierarchy of sinfulness within the evangelical church.

In which case Farron should have been asked if he thought sexual sins were worse than all the other sins. I suspect he could have offered a clear and emphatic ‘no’ to that question and everyone would be happy.

Saxon rider – Farron is an evangelical and the bible being 100% true and must be followed at all times is his position.

Yes its not the mainstream COE belief. He is an evangelical fundamentalist by his ownwords

outofbreath – Member

I don’t see the problem.

My flabber is entirely ungasted.

It is entirely possible to separate what you believe to be true in terms of faith from what you believe to be the domain of the state.

Yes it is – But not for Farron as his voting record shows and so do his public pronouncements

There’s no need for a ban – simply pointing out the incompatibility of his deeply held views with UK social policy seems to have done the trick.

As above, as long as the electorate knows that the politician involved is either

a) actively seeking to implement policies in line with his rather distasteful beliefs
or
b) a hypocrite who will even deny what he personally believes to achieve high office

then the ballot box will take care of the rest.

I’ve got no problem with anyone aiming for high office, as long as the people know exactly what they are getting. Tim Farron equivocated between two incompatible positions, and has paid the price.

I am glad you concede that this is a very biased opinion, convert, because it is an almost-absurd reflection of what mainstream Christians – and probably mainstream believers of most faiths – actually believe.

You may be describing some evangelical/fundamentalist politician in the USA, but certainly not any leader in the UK that I recognise.

But Farron was no mainstream Christian. He is an unrepentant evangelical. He might have survived in the states but fortunately he got found out here.

It’s a problem for me. I’m a Liberal, but he puts me off the Lib Dems.

I like him as a politician. I don’t feel he has what it takes to be the party leader.

b) a hypocrite who will even deny what he personally believes to achieve high office

I hope you’re not suggesting (and I genuinely can’t tell if you are or not) that if a religious person runs for office without trying to impose their beliefs, that he or she is being a hypocrite.

A true liberal believes in the separation of Church and State. It is possible, therefore, to hold personal beliefs derived from one’s religious tradition, and also believe that it is neither possible nor even desirable to impose those beliefs on the people. Especially through legislation! That would be coercive at best and dictatorial at worst.

A true liberal believes in the separation of Church and State. It is possible, therefore, to hold personal beliefs derived from one’s religious tradition, and also believe that it is neither possible nor even desirable to impose those beliefs on the people.

A true evangelical Christian believes not only in the primacy of the word of God, but of a clear instruction from God to spread that message in wider society, hence the title.

So Farron has to choose between the liberal tradition and the evangelical one. They are incompatible.

This is obviously something he’s struggled with, which led to him telling Nigel Evans that he didn’t believe gay sex to be a sin, and his public recanting of that just now.

So Farron has to choose between the liberal tradition and the evangelical one. They are incompatible.

Thanks for the clarification.

Thanks for the clarification.

Tim’s unique problem, is that while clearly he votes Liberal (see his record on gay rights and so on) those are not his beliefs. Now, that isn’t a problem until you try to suggest that you believe both evangelical teachings and this particular issue are correct.

His choices are; ignore his religious beliefs on particular issues (see Trudeux) or vote accordingly (see Ress-Mogg) but his choice cannot sensibly be “I want to please both camps, so I’m going to lie now, then retract later, while complaining all the while that no-one understands me”

To be fair, I see different flavours of churches as being on a sliding scale of societal compromise – with most people choosing on the basis of how much of God’s teaching they can put up with while still being able to do pretty much everything they want.

How else could it be in one of the richest nations on Earth?

A true liberal believes in the separation of Church and State. It is possible, therefore, to hold personal beliefs derived from one’s religious tradition, and also believe that it is neither possible nor even desirable to impose those beliefs on the people. Especially through legislation!

That’s where I am on the wider question here. I see no reason whatsoever why (say) a devout Muslim, couldn’t seperate out his public decisions from his private beliefs and govern perfectly perfectly capably. I suspect it’s always happened.

Saying ‘As a Christian Farron *ought” to believe X and therefore he shouldn’t be in office’ is just a straw man.

I read this thread and see that fundamentalists are not just limited to religions.

I like him as a politician. I don’t feel he has what it takes to be the party leader.

To be fair Clegg has to resign which left them with a choice from 7 MPs. As soon as a big hitter came back Farron went. They did their best with what they had.

Also they were the only 100pc remain party at the last election. Frankly to discount them over the term ‘sin’ which has no significance is bat poo mental.

Kind of amusing if people voted for a parties that were going to implement Brexit for fear of imposition of death camps for gluttons if the liberals won.

I read this thread and see that fundamentalists are not just limited to religions.

This.

Trouble is, Farron has not entirely separated his private beliefs from his public decisions – his votes on delayed abortion and his only partial support for gay marriage are testament to that.

For evangelicals, there is no ‘Church and State’, there is simply the church and those lacking the church. There is no shared authority – God has the sole authority.

That is the difference between this form of the church and pretty much any other variety in the UK. Evangelical Christianity, unlike the CofE, does not allow the convenient separation of your weekly worship from the rest of your life. You are supposed to be an active reflection and exemplar of your beliefs at all times.

Farron voted to allow public servants to discriminate on grounds of peoples sexuality. Bigoted and illiberal

For evangelicals, there is no ‘Church and State’, there is simply the church and those lacking the church. There is no shared authority – God has the sole authority.

That is the difference between this form of the church and pretty much any other variety in the UK. Evangelical Christianity, unlike the CofE, does not allow the convenient separation of your weekly worship from the rest of your life. You are supposed to be an active reflection and exemplar of your beliefs at all times.

Your argument falls apart at “supposed to be.”. You’re just straw manning. Your just attacking what you claim people *ought* to do, not what they do in practice.

People of faith fudge these kinds of issues all the time. There is no reason why (say) a devout Muslim can’t beleive that democracy is bad but also take part in democracy very effectively or that (say) a deviout Jewish person can’t (say) run a sports centre that opens 7 days a week.

Gay sex is a sin FFS get in the world of now.

IMO any religion that has these ridiculously outdated views can eff off.

If Farron were the member of a CofE congregation, I doubt we’d be having this conversation. Most varieties of UK religion are built for compromise and convenience and Church/State separation is to be expected.

Evangelical Christianity, however, is not built for compromise, which is why many onlookers sensed the disconnect between Farron’s liberal persona and his professed faith.

In the same way I would be surprised to see an self-professed strict orthodox Jew working on Shabbat, or similarly a self-professed strict muslim working in an off-licence.

There is no disqualification for people of faith generally, I’ll allow a fudge, but there comes a point where the gulf between private faith and public duty is so vast that it becomes an electoral issue, and the individual has to choose what he stands for.

We now know what Tim Farron stands for. That gay relationships are wrong in the eyes of God. That discrimination against gay people is acceptable in some circumstances. That abortion is wrong. We can accept or reject that in our politicians using the time-honoured methods of voting for them individually or for the party they lead, or not.

Thanks for your input, ctk. If only the world’s philosophers, theologians, and historians would listen to you, everything would be so much better.

or that (say) a deviout Jewish person can’t (say) run a sports centre that opens 7 days a week.

sure, that’s fine. Tim’s problem was that he was telling the public that the sports centre was open, whilst at the same time time trying to tell his Rabbi (so to speak) that he was a devout Jew…

Edit although, bad example. Going by the Jews I know, they’d find a way around it… 😆

This is possibly a subject for a different thread (and likely unintentionally inflammatory) but I genuinely don’t understand the non-evangelicals.

If you say you’re a certain religion but you’ll turn a blind-eye to the bits you don’t fancy, then what’s the point?

#FundamentalistAtheist

If you say you’re a certain religion but you’ll turn a blind-eye to the bits you don’t fancy, then what’s the point?

Definitely a subject for a different thread. But in this context, let us say that “turning a blind eye” is NOT what a religious person does in the context of politics.

It’s called separation of Church and State. Even in countries like England, where the Church still has an advisory role, there can be no question of imposing a theocracy. Besides, the Church of England is by its very nature, quite liberal (in the full sense of the word), and therefore quite accommodating.

I thought Farron was the right choice for leader. I was wrong.

I thought Clegg was the wrong choice for leader. I was wrong.

Maybe he can reconcile his position by: “Hate the Sin, love the Sinner”?

It’s called separation of Church and State

But presumably on judgement day, God will see that your actions have gone against his word.

So are you in essence damning yourself?

then what’s the point?

Everyone fudges stuff.

But presumably on judgement day, God will see that your actions have gone against his word.

So are you in essence damning yourself?

Not remotely. I am not trying to deride you or what you are asking, but such a notion of God is not what the Christian tradition subscribes to.

Some individuals within, perhaps, and maybe some fundamentalist communities; but certainly not the actual Christian tradition as a whole.

In the same way I would be surprised to see an self-professed strict orthodox Jew working on Shabbat, or similarly a self-professed strict muslim working in an off-licence.

I suspect there are thousands of devout Jewish People and Muslim People working in (say) Supermarkets which sell bacon and alchahol.

If you say you’re a certain religion but you’ll turn a blind-eye to the bits you don’t fancy, then what’s the point?

That’s just people in general, not religious people. We all have contradictory/inconsitent views on all kinds of things. We’re not machines, cognitive dissonance is part of who we are.

verses – Member

This is possibly a subject for a different thread (and likely unintentionally inflammatory) but I genuinely don’t understand the non-evangelicals.

If you say you’re a certain religion but you’ll turn a blind-eye to the bits you don’t fancy, then what’s the point?

#FundamentalistAtheist

some parts of each religion treat the texts as parables / guides. some treat them as th e sacred holy word which every bit is 100% true.

Mainstream COE is the former. Farron belongs to the latter group

I’m genuinely not trying to be awkward but it does bring me back to “what’s the point?”.

I live by largely moralistic (Christian influenced) liberal values; I’m not sure what I would gain from claiming to be a Christian and then ignoring/overlooking the bits I don’t agree with.

I’m aware this could come across as being an antagonistic series of posts, it’s not intended to be.

But presumably on judgement day, God will see that your actions have gone against his word.
So are you in essence damning yourself?

You will certainly have some explaining to do. Luckily Tim has now reflected on his prior characterisation of gay sex as OK and issued a retraction, so he’s on track for the afterlife.

Matthew 12:36-37

I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

verses – Member

I’m genuinely not trying to be awkward but it does bring me back to “what’s the point?”.

Now that I cannot help you with 😉