[Closed] Tim Farron

I have provisions in my will to give money to religion based charities

Careful TJ some might try and test that! 🙂

BTW my Burnley work colleagues all hate Farron cos he's a Rovers fan!

well how can they be Christians if they don't accept the word of God, as higlighted in that link. More hypocrisy and make it up as you go along so it suits you. No wonder Aetheists get frustrated and angry at people with religious beliefs, as it is all so irrational

I assume that the distinction is that being gay means being sexually attracted to the same sex, which is something you have little choice over, and therefore is not in itself a sin, but gay sex, which is what is prohibited, is something you can choose to do or not do.

I think thats right mr Ape.

TJ, obliged.

Edit - was referring to the link.

[quote=Cougar ]Oh and, you're right, Jesus himself never said anything about homosexuality as far as I can find so far.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

Its quite bizarre to argue he disagreed with god and the proof is he never said a word about something - still its the religious so no need for a rational evidence based point as they clutch at straws to explain why even they dont follow the word of god .

So some liberals wanted to allow some people to choose whether they wish to do something that is against their beliefs or not while others want to impose that choice on them and given them no choice. And which ones are the bigots?

No guesses....

Paul wrote was precisely what Jesus intended, so much so that it could be said to be “God-breathed.” Jesus condemned homosexuality by means of Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality.

Assuming that to be the case: the tracts I commented on were - I think - all Paul's writings. Paul did or didn't condemn homosexuality depending on how you choose to translate the original text. It's not definitive either way.

I assume that the distinction is that being gay means being sexually attracted to the same sex, which is something you have little choice over, and therefore is not in itself a sin, but gay sex, which is what is prohibited, is something you can choose to do or not do.

Pretty much the conclusion I drew. Except it's not limited to "gay" sex, it's anal generally which is verboten.

So some liberals wanted to allow some people to choose whether they wish to do something that is against their beliefs or not while others want to impose that choice on them and given them no choice. And which ones are the bigots?

It really depends on the beliefs though, doesn't it. If someone believes something abhorrent then is it bigoted to oppose those beliefs?

What if I was an employer who "didn't want to hire ****s"? Are you then the bigot for forcing me to hire them and giving me no choice?

[img] [/img]

So some liberals wanted to allow some people to choose whether they wish to do something that is against their beliefs or not while others want to impose that choice on them and given them no choice. And which ones are the bigots?

Easy one. the bigots are the ones who want to legitimise discrimination by public servants against homosexuals. If you don't want to perform gay marriage resign your job as registrar. NO one is forcing anyone to do anything against their beliefs only to ensure that public services are provided to all fairly and that there is no discrimination in a public service.

If you don't want to perform gay marriage resign your job as registrar. NO one is forcing anyone to do anything against their beliefs only to ensure that public services are provided to all fairly and that there is no discrimination in a public service.

Interesting

On that basis should doctors be allowed to opt out of authorising &/or performing abortions based on their religious beliefs?

In this case, the amendment only applied to existing registrars, there was no question of anyone being denied a public service and thus being discriminated against, just certain people for whom the goalposts had been moved could opt out so someone else would have to be found. It seems to me a quintessentially liberal solution to the issue and thus the complete opposite of bigotry.

source please - genuine enquiry no agenda[news to me so interested]
ta

[url= http://https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130520/debtext/130520-0002.htm#13052013000002 ]https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130520/debtext/130520-0002.htm#13052013000002[/url]

[b]"HOUSE!"[/b]

[sorry, troll bingo card filled up a bit quick there]

[url= https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130520/debtext/130520-0002.htm#13052013000002 ]This link works[/url]

On that basis should doctors be allowed to opt out of authorising &/or performing abortions based on their religious beliefs?

Well spotted - I wondered if someone had enough smarts to make that connection. IMO no

I think the main difference is not against a particular group of people but a type of service so does not discriminate against any particular group.

Nice try - close but no cigar

Mefty - its clear and simple homophobic discrimination.

No one would have been deprived of the right to get married, no one is being deprived of any rights, there is no discrimination.

Lsaughable. to allow public servants to refuse to provide a service because of the recipients sexuality is allowing discrimination

By your reckoning any doctor could refuse to treat black folk. a paramedic could be called to a life threatening illness and refuse to treat them because they were a jew. a teacher could refuse to teach irish people. A catholic policeman could refuse to save a protestant person from being beaten

By your reckoning any doctor could refuse to treat black folk. a paramedic could be called to a life threatening illness and refuse to treat them because they were a jew. a teacher could refuse to teach irish people.

Not at all, the right to religious views is protected in law, none of those views are.

The right to your view yes but you are not allowed to discriminate in provision of goods and services. Plenty of law on this

I am really beginning to feel rather sorry for you as if you believe this nonsense. I thought yo were an inteligent and thoughtful chap but it appears you support homophobic discrimination

Ok - how about a policeman who is a member of the free kirk refusing to save a catholic from being beaten? A muslim doctor refusing to treat an alcoholic?

So mefty - do you think a evangelical Christian doctor should be able to refuse to treat a homosexual? A policeman who is a member of the united free kirk refuse to protect a catholic? ( united free kirk are historically very hostile to Catholics) A teacher refuse to teach someone who is gay?

None of those things require anyone to compromise their beliefs, and none of them are new rules that someone previously doing those jobs without a moral dilemma suddenly has imposed upon them creating a moral dilemma for them.

If the law was changed to say that you had to pray with any patient who wanted you to do so, would you be ok with that? Would you think it fair that all of a sudden you had to either do something you thought was wrong or resign from your job?

If the law was changed to say that you had to pray with any patient who wanted you to do so, would you be ok with that?

I fear you misunderstand atheism.

If the law was changed to say that as part of my job I was legally obliged to accompany a staff member whist they communed with Batman then I'd think they were somewhat silly but I'd nod and smile and go along with it if I had to.

Your fear is misplaced.

I thought yo were an inteligent and thoughtful chap but it appears you support homophobic discrimination

😀

Mefty, can we check that you are not Giani Joginder Singh Vedanti, in disguise?

On that basis should doctors be allowed to opt out of authorising &/or performing abortions based on their religious beliefs?

GPs are independent contractors rather than public employees, so there is a difference there in what they can be compelled to provide. In terms of actually delivering the abortion procedure, doctors who are against abortion would not tend to gravitate towards that particular service, I'd imagine.

If the law was changed to say that you had to pray with any patient who wanted you to do so, would you be ok with that? Would you think it fair that all of a sudden you had to either do something you thought was wrong or resign from your job?

somewhat hypothetical but you remember I put in my defense that I took a person in my care to church? I stood ,sat down,kneeled, closed my eyes etc at all the appropriate times etc. It would make zero difference to me. Praying is not offensive to me, just silly.

no one is being deprived of any rights, there is no discrimination.

FWIW i agree it was a reasonable fudge but the religious need special exemptions from fairness/equality legislation and then they want to preach/lecture me about tolerance when I question their belief ...the irony

Cheers for the link considere dme eduicated but I also noted this

No school shall be under any duty as a result of the guidance issued to promote or endorse an understanding of the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children that runs contrary to the designated religious character of the school.

the god of love and forgiveness is not that tolerant. No way i would worship that god ,i treat everyone equally
YMMV

Lsaughable. to allow public servants to refuse to provide a service because of the recipients sexuality is allowing discrimination

But that wasn’t the case

As Mefty said, No one would have been refused the right to get married,

It merely meant that that an (already employed) individual registrar was free to refuse to carry out the service, the local authority still had a duty to provide the service and an an alternative registrar would be provided instead
[i]
(1) No person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by statutory or other legal requirement, to conduct a marriage to which he has a conscientious objection if he is employed as a registrar of marriages on the date this Act comes in force.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “conscientious objection” exists where the refusal to conduct a marriage is only that it concerns a same sex couple, and is based on the person’s sincerely held religious or other beliefs.
(3) This section is without prejudice to the duty of a registration authority to ensure that there is a sufficient number of registrars and superintendent registrars in that area to carry out the required functions.
(4) In any legal proceedings the burden of proof of conscientious objection shall rest on the person claiming to rely on it
[/i]

In just the same way that a GP who doesn’t want to sanction abortion would refer a patient to a colleague, at no point is anyone denied a service, it just means that an individual is permitted to opt out of delivering that service

But that wasn’t the case

Why does that matter?

But that wasn’t the case

Not a hard distinction to grasp

What about small town with only one registrar? What about if all the registrar's in an area refuse to conduct gay weddings?

[b]ninfan[/b]

On that basis should doctors be allowed to opt out of authorising &/or performing abortions based on their religious beliefs?

They can and do - but have to ensure that there is in place a referral and service pathway which does not in any way discourage, disadvantage or shame the patient, Increasingly this is done via open access to specific service providers like BPAS.

For many years in my practice I saw the patients of one colleague - now retired - who had objections and I supported their patients through this.

And this is one [i]tiny [/i]bit of a Drs role. Marrying people is a huge chunk of a registrars role...

Bottom line is, Farron's socially conservative view and interpretation of the Bible in a particular way was at odds with the wider views of his party and he had to go,

somewhat hypothetical

Indeed, if not entirely hypothetical. I thought it might be something you would feel uncomfortable doing given your views on religion.

but you remember I put in my defense that I took a person in my care to church?

Yes, and that you go out of your way to accommodate those in your care has not escaped me.

that is it. Basically he was in the liberal party and he had illiberal views due to his faith as his god is a bigot.

its an interesting one great ape. To conform to the rituals ie the standing up and so on is no hardship. I'll even kneel to " let us pray" close my eyes and bow my head. But in my head I am thinking of other things
If the requirement was to say the prayers out loud I am not sure. the words mean nothing to me so little hardship to say them but it would feel somewhat hypocritical to parrot words you don't mean.
I think that to follow the rituals on the surface is a courtesy. Many years ago I was in a cathedral with some Americans in a tour group. I got pretty angry with a couple 'cos they kept their hats on - I thought that disrespectful and made them take their hats off.
But if told I had to say the words out loud? Hard to know until I was put in that situation.
You are a man of faith IIRC ( indeed it might have been you I insulted before 😉 ) Which is worse to you? to follow the rituals actions but not say the words or to say the words that you do not mean?

Honest answer there from me even if a little contradictory.

You are a man of faith

Although one who is quite wary of organised religion.

it might have been you I insulted before

Not that I recall

Which is worse to you? to follow the rituals actions but not say the words or to say the words that you do not mean?

I think the trick is to find the balance between being courteous/respectful to others without venturing into hypocrisy, and I think following the conventions (stand for this, sit for that, hats off etc.) are just good manners, and good manners are something which I am thoroughly in favour of 😀

Ta

So plenty of ire aimed my way for my words and sentiments. ( I have apologised for the words and made a direct apology by email to the person I insulted) but how do you feel when its the other way round?

I used to work alongside nuns in a religious based organisation. I was asked by one of the nuns what my faith was. To the reply "none" she said " thats a terrible shame, you won't get to heaven, I'll pray for you" Now to me that was as offensive in the sentiment if not the words as it implies I am lacking and a lessor being. I am sure she meant it kindly so I didn't react further but I did find it pretty offensive.

Surely if I am out of order for thinking ( but not acting on) a belief that those with faith have something lacking then that is equally out of order?

You cannot have this both ways

And this is one tiny bit of a Drs role. Marrying people is a huge chunk of a registrars role...

And (shhhhhh...) same-sex marriages are a tiny proportion of all marriages

Ninfan. I am not sure there is a huge moral difference in theory but given the difference in seriousness ( a catholic doctor performing an abortion would not be able to get to heaven) As one is an act seen as murder by some and the other is simply a ritual and form of words.

I have to say I find the whole marriage think incomprehensible anyway

Ninfan - should I be allowed to refuse to treat tories? I find the tory philosophy morally repugnant

[b]ninfan[/b] your analogy - although interesting - isn't close enough.

A better analogy might be - should Drs who do terminations be able were to refuse to do terminations on married people?

Drs either do do [i]or [/i]don't do terminations and are in any case obliged to make sure that there is no difference to the patient experience which ever it is.

The case here is of registrars who DO do marriages but are not offering that service to one group based on their own personal views, and candidates for marriage are disadvantaged/shamed.

so this really is whataboutery on your part 😉

candidates for marriage are disadvantaged

How?

There has never been a suggestion that the candidate wouldn’t have a registrar - the local authority (whose legal duty the provision of registration services is) would just allocate a different registrar for any same-sex marriages.

Ninfan - what would happen if all registars refused?

Are you really having to resort to proving unequal treatment on the entirely hypothetical situation in which not only did ALL registrars in an area refuse, but the local authority was unable to secure the services of a registrar from anywhere else in the country with 28 days notice?

ninfan - if something is possible it could happen. When making law you have to look at what can happen in extremes.

Ninfan. Lets look at NI. around 20 registrars office ( how many to an office? One? I don't know)
Given the large religious affiliation there and that the two main groups are both vehemently fundamentalist then its quite possible that enough could refuse to make it very difficult / impossible to fulfil all gay marriage requests

NI doesn't have same sex marriage.

Ok then - highlands of scotland. How many registrars are there an how many contentious objectors would it need to make gay marriage impossible to get in the highlands?

Highland council run 22 different registry offices

I say again

[u]28 days notice[/u]

😆

Irrelevant. If something is possible to happen than it could happen and must be planned for

I do love how those who profess to love all of gods children want public servants to be allowed to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate against people.

Fancy answering the question? what would happen if all registrars refuse?

Nothing good will come from this thread.

Fancy answering the question? what would happen if all registrars refuse?

I say again, you have 28 days to secure one from your own area, a neighbouring area, another area, or train/licence employ/recruit another one (who under the amendment as proposed as a new employee wouldn’t have the right to refuse)

Your argument is nonsense TJ - you might as well ask what is the plan in the NHS if every single pharmacist/doctor/surgeon/pathologist all phoned in sick on the same day

To the reply "none" she said " thats a terrible shame, you won't get to heaven, I'll pray for you" Now to me that was as offensive in the sentiment if not the words as it implies I am lacking and a lessor being. I am sure she meant it kindly so I didn't react further but I did find it pretty offensive.

You are offended by being told by someone you think is feeble minded you won't go to a place that you don't believe in, bless.

I find the tory philosophy morally repugnant

I have voted Tory in the past so should I find this offensive?

For someone who throws pejoratives around with abandon, you are a surprisingly delicate little flower.

No mefty - once again the point goes spectacularly over your head. Its clear she thought less of me as a person for having no faith. thats the offensive bit. Morally equivalent to what I did you keep reminding me about.

delicate snowflake - tossing round insults shows you have lost the arguement.

But she is feeble minded and you need a new prescription.

So no answer then. shows the lack of clear thinking. with that I amout.

tossing round insults shows you have lost the arguement

As you reopened this thread by calling someone a bigot, did the argument ever start?

Farron is a biogot. He discriminates against homosexuals and wnts to make it leagal for public servants to discriminate against homosexuals. On this thread before peope were defending him but his recent words blew the defence out of the water.

Now that nun thought of me as a lessor being for having no faith. Are you going to condemn her as much as you condemned me or is it another case of one rule for the religious and another for the non religious? Are you really holding non religious to a higher standard than you hold the religious?

[quote=CaptainFlashheart ]Nothing good will come from this thread.

this in spades TJ why are you feeding the troll?
@ mefty What word do you prefer for those who choose to treat/view/measure homosexuals differently from heterosexuals?
As bigot offends you what term shall we use?
Serious question

TeeJ, it might help if you could be a little less binary in your expression of your sentiments. I sort of defended Farron at first, and certainly feel a little less sympathetically towards him now. But that's nuance for you.

At the same time:

Second time I've seen this stalking / bullying nonsense aimed at TJ. Guess it may not have been you, but...

Has happened plenty more than twice from christian right wingers who shit their pants at any criticism of their faith, and moreso, politicians who are so openly Christian. See also Rees-Mogg. One would believe they have that quote by TeeJ to Geetee in a permanent clipboard in the corner of their desktop screen. It always seems to come to hand very quickly. They're never as quick to defend a muslim like, say Sadiq Khan who was subjected to Islamophobic smears in an election campaign, because their candidate is by all accounts, a jolly good sort. And IIRC, TeeJ apologised for it at the time, or subsequently and has been forced to re-apologise numerous times for it. They just can't let stuff lie.

It not like their book tells them to forgive and to turn the other cheek now is it
He is correct though TJ you are even more binary than I am.

Are you really holding non religious to a higher standard than you hold the religious?

they then moan when we call this what it is and then ask for tolerance.

I treat them the same as I do any person who discriminates in this way , with contempt.

deadlydarcy - Member

TeeJ, it might help if you could be a little less binary in your expression of your sentiments.

Yup- it would indeed. A failure of the way my mind works. I tend to live in a black and white world. I am an imperfect being.
I don't really know any shades of grey let alone 50 of them

TJ why are you feeding the troll?

Dunno - I keep thinking its a serious debate as mefty is capable of serious debate and Its interesting to see him squirm when faced with difficult questions like:

Now that nun thought of me as a lessor being for having no faith. Are you going to condemn her as much as you condemned me or is it another case of one rule for the religious and another for the non religious? Are you really holding non religious to a higher standard than you hold the religious?

But yes - its run its course and more. I reopened it as Farrons words show him ( as my contention was earlier) that he is a homophobic bigot and that the defences many used for him were rendered null an void by Farrons own words

No need to be so humble TJ.

You show tremendous moral dexterity in abusing an MP who resigns on the basis that he cannot reconcile his beliefs with the responsibilities of his position while providing financial support to a body of people who oppose both abortion and same sex marriages and actively lobby foreign MPs based on their conviction on these matters.

Not many could be that flexible in their moral stances. Not black and white at all.

I tend to live in a black and white world. I am an imperfect being.

Thats a terrible shame TJ, we’ll pray for you

I tend to live in a black and white world

I knew you were old, but not that old!

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11923/tim_farron/westmorland_and_lonsdale/divisions?policy=826

Voted 5 times for allowing marriage between two people of same sex, never against.

Farron's voting record on 'this kind of thing' is first class. There was one single issue where there was a conflict of two sets of rights and came up with a pretty reasonable temporary compromise which ought to keep everyone happy. (FFS, would couples want to be married by someone who didn't want to marry them anyway? Who wants someone putting on a false smile at their wedding.)

I agree but apparently the Mother- in - law had to be there 😉

Matthew 7:1

Out of breath - if you look closer at his voting record he absented himself from many votes where his religious views conflicted with the liberal philosophy, he consistently voted anti abortion including the foul proposition of compulsory cooling off periods and compulsory counselling which is a a prime tactic of the anti abortion movement becaue its proven to put women off having legal abortions.

clever politics to avoid those votes but incompatible with being a liberal

ninfan - Member

I tend to live in a black and white world. I am an imperfect being.

Thats a terrible shame TJ, we’ll pray for you

Lols - I am glad someone caught the reference

thegreatape - Member

I tend to live in a black and white world

I knew you were old, but not that old!

Even more Lols - that one was unintentional 🙂

I did draft a reply to a few points but I lost it. So here is a quick precis.

Use of bigot - it has to be correctly used in the first place - just because you believe something is sinful doesn't mean you show prejudice against someone and I don't think Farron does. But generally, perjorative terms of any kinds are thrown around too often, we are fortunate to have a language with many words, it is good to show ambition.

The quote etc - four times at most and I will continue to use it as it illustrates his extreme views which based on more recent postings he still seems to hold, so even if he apologized which he didn't on the forum, I think it would be an apology for being caught out. My underwear has never been soiled reading this site. On Sadiq Khan, I don't recall any threads but I certainly wouldn't have sufficient knowledge of the muslim faith to know how widely held certain beliefs are etc. Tim Farron is hardly a political bedfellow - obviously a metaphor.

"A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions"

If you say something is a sin, it's hard to argue you're not being intolerant

"An immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
‘a sin in the eyes of God’
1.1 An act regarded as a serious or regrettable fault, offence, or omission.

I wouldn't say bigot personally just because it's such a charged word, but I don't think it's an unfair comment.

If you say something is a sin, it's hard to argue you're not being intolerant

Not really, you are only intolerant or prejudicial, if you do something - just thinking something doesn't mean you are intolerant or prejudicial, doing something to stop them doing it would be.

mefty - Member

Not really, you are only intolerant or prejudicial, if you do something

Colour me unconvinced. It's certainly a step better than acting on it but it doesn't mean it's not there.