Religous leaders v Political Parties
Discussion
OK so the thread title is a bit skewered.
Rowan Willams the ex Archbishop of Canterbury has come out with saying it may be “impossible” for Christians and people of other strong religious view to represent the Lib Dems.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lib...
It's possibly the most exciting thing to have involved the Lib Dems for a year or so.
He may have a point as that Tim Farron came a cropper some 7 to 8 years ago.
Then we also have the Pope weighing in on the American Elections. He thinks you should choose the lesser of two evils
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkdmdg78jgo
Either isn't relevant to myself but I wonder just how much influence these chaps have. I expect in the USA it will be a fair bit l but here in blighty much much less so
Rowan Willams the ex Archbishop of Canterbury has come out with saying it may be “impossible” for Christians and people of other strong religious view to represent the Lib Dems.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lib...
It's possibly the most exciting thing to have involved the Lib Dems for a year or so.
He may have a point as that Tim Farron came a cropper some 7 to 8 years ago.
Then we also have the Pope weighing in on the American Elections. He thinks you should choose the lesser of two evils
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkdmdg78jgo
Either isn't relevant to myself but I wonder just how much influence these chaps have. I expect in the USA it will be a fair bit l but here in blighty much much less so
Biker 1 said:
Why the hell should anyone anywhere have any kind of political influence based on a sky fairy/book/cult?
Because surprisingly a large number of people do believe and as an interest group ought to be represented without the annoying childish Dawkinesque references to sky fairies.Yes we get it: you have no interest in it. Well done you.
However embedding it as a ‘placebo’ prevents the actual real potential effect of genuine political religious zealots being elected to the House of Commons as has just happened in the last election.
But well done you with your patronising sky fairy nonsense. I’m sure you feel appropriately superior for reselling memes you have just picked up without a single original thought.
Ridgemont said:
Because surprisingly a large number of people do believe and as an interest group ought to be represented without the annoying childish Dawkinesque references to sky fairies.
Yes we get it: you have no interest in it. Well done you.
However embedding it as a ‘placebo’ prevents the actual real potential effect of genuine political religious zealots being elected to the House of Commons as has just happened in the last election.
But well done you with your patronising sky fairy nonsense. I’m sure you feel appropriately superior for reselling memes you have just picked up without a single original thought.
Crikey I wasnt expecting that but anyway.Yes we get it: you have no interest in it. Well done you.
However embedding it as a ‘placebo’ prevents the actual real potential effect of genuine political religious zealots being elected to the House of Commons as has just happened in the last election.
But well done you with your patronising sky fairy nonsense. I’m sure you feel appropriately superior for reselling memes you have just picked up without a single original thought.
I caught a documentary last night Channel 4 called something like "should we be afraid of Trump" it was on in the very early hours. I recognized the presenter and it was really quite something.
I can never could never understand the idea that Trump was held in regard by the church in America. Then I realized that some of the church (churches) are as batsh*t crazy as Trump himself.
Occasionally I look at some of the religious output on TBN UK it's a real eye opener. Joyce Meyer etc. It all seems a bit "dodgy" to me
To be blunt it seems that Mr Trump would be a good fit for that lot.
Over here in the UK I could never get why our Jacob Rees Mogg seemed so close to Mr Johnson. Mr Rees Mogg is (or presents as) a fairly religious man with strong views on marriage and the like. Boris just seems to sh*g anyone.
I just found it a bit odd myself
anonymoususer said:
Over here in the UK I could never get why our Jacob Rees Mogg seemed so close to Mr Johnson. Mr Rees Mogg is (or presents as) a fairly religious man with strong views on marriage and the like. Boris just seems to sh*g anyone.
I just found it a bit odd myself
JRM isn't the first, nor will he be the last, to set aside deeply held principles (religious or otherwise) for personal gain and / or advancement. I just found it a bit odd myself
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Can someone give me some examples of where they think religion has interfered in policy making please?
I can think of individual MPs who may have their individual beliefs but I'm struggling to come up with something where I could pointedly go "that's because of religion"?
I suppose if there was a very close vote in the house of lords where the bishops had the deciding numbers. Luckily we don't have religious parties, like in Israel for example.I can think of individual MPs who may have their individual beliefs but I'm struggling to come up with something where I could pointedly go "that's because of religion"?
Biker 1 said:
Why the hell should anyone anywhere have any kind of political influence based on a sky fairy/book/cult?
Because whether you like it or not, and regardless and anyone's personal beliefs, in the United Kingdom, church and state are inexorably intertwined and have been for around 400 years - arguably longer. The constitutional pecking order is God - King - State. The coronation of a monarch is a religious ceremony for this reason and Christian teaching forms the foundation upon which British laws were made and exist in the same way Islam does the same across many Muslin nations.The debate around church and state has been rumbling for the same period of time but all things considered, it has fostered a level of stability and decency with the UK to levels that are hard to find in comparable nations that do not have the same connectivity between the two.
Any attempt to decouple church from state in the UK would make Brexit look like a breeze.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Can someone give me some examples of where they think religion has interfered in policy making please?
I can think of individual MPs who may have their individual beliefs but I'm struggling to come up with something where I could pointedly go "that's because of religion"?
Plenty of examples in NI.I can think of individual MPs who may have their individual beliefs but I'm struggling to come up with something where I could pointedly go "that's because of religion"?
Where the LDs are fighting this is that they're not talking 'policy' and therefore something relating to a specific vote.
They're saying that to be a member of their club, they have values which support things like same sex marriage and abortion. If you don't share those values, then you're not a member (or rather, you're not becoming a nominee).
Which doesn't sound too out of order. No one forces any Church (Christian, Jewish, Muslim or otherwise) to accept female spiritual leaders, or openly homosexual ones, etc. - due to those values being counter to theirs.
Sway said:
Plenty of examples in NI.
Where the LDs are fighting this is that they're not talking 'policy' and therefore something relating to a specific vote.
They're saying that to be a member of their club, they have values which support things like same sex marriage and abortion. If you don't share those values, then you're not a member (or rather, you're not becoming a nominee).
Which doesn't sound too out of order. No one forces any Church (Christian, Jewish, Muslim or otherwise) to accept female spiritual leaders, or openly homosexual ones, etc. - due to those values being counter to theirs.
This is exactly what liberalism should be good at though. I can think, on a personal level that homosexuality is an absolute abomination and those who practice it will go to hell, but can simultaneously not wish to legislate for that in any shape or form. This seems to be saying that you have to positively like homosexuality. An absurd demand.Where the LDs are fighting this is that they're not talking 'policy' and therefore something relating to a specific vote.
They're saying that to be a member of their club, they have values which support things like same sex marriage and abortion. If you don't share those values, then you're not a member (or rather, you're not becoming a nominee).
Which doesn't sound too out of order. No one forces any Church (Christian, Jewish, Muslim or otherwise) to accept female spiritual leaders, or openly homosexual ones, etc. - due to those values being counter to theirs.
They're a party for people who want to appear clever without going to the trouble of thinking.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Sway said:
Plenty of examples in NI.
Where the LDs are fighting this is that they're not talking 'policy' and therefore something relating to a specific vote.
They're saying that to be a member of their club, they have values which support things like same sex marriage and abortion. If you don't share those values, then you're not a member (or rather, you're not becoming a nominee).
Which doesn't sound too out of order. No one forces any Church (Christian, Jewish, Muslim or otherwise) to accept female spiritual leaders, or openly homosexual ones, etc. - due to those values being counter to theirs.
This is exactly what liberalism should be good at though. I can think, on a personal level that homosexuality is an absolute abomination and those who practice it will go to hell, but can simultaneously not wish to legislate for that in any shape or form. This seems to be saying that you have to positively like homosexuality. An absurd demand.Where the LDs are fighting this is that they're not talking 'policy' and therefore something relating to a specific vote.
They're saying that to be a member of their club, they have values which support things like same sex marriage and abortion. If you don't share those values, then you're not a member (or rather, you're not becoming a nominee).
Which doesn't sound too out of order. No one forces any Church (Christian, Jewish, Muslim or otherwise) to accept female spiritual leaders, or openly homosexual ones, etc. - due to those values being counter to theirs.
They're a party for people who want to appear clever without going to the trouble of thinking.
They're not looking to demonise or punish anyone that doesn't have those values, they just won't choose you to represent them.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
This is exactly what liberalism should be good at though. I can think, on a personal level that homosexuality is an absolute abomination and those who practice it will go to hell, but can simultaneously not wish to legislate for that in any shape or form. This seems to be saying that you have to positively like homosexuality. An absurd demand.
They're a party for people who want to appear clever without going to the trouble of thinking.
It is not clear from what I have read that he had any intention of putting his beliefs to one side when it came to voting on legislation.They're a party for people who want to appear clever without going to the trouble of thinking.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff