UK: Tim Farron 'regrets' saying he believed gay sex was not a sin
- Thread starter Deleted member 888
- Start date
OP
OP
That's not a gotcha of you, but Tim Farrons character. He "fears" his God but he will lie for his career.
Yeah, I just think it's a point worth making. He's so busy wrestling with the sins of others, he falls into sin himself.
Matthew 7:5 springs to mind.
Just goes to show that devout religiousness is completely incompatible with modern politics.
OP
OP
Often, yeah, but especially in the Lib Dem party.
As I said there's many who consider themselves devoutly religious but are very progressive. Its all about perspective, and maybe who has preached to you.
With respect to most religions though, I find that stance deeply disingenuous. I don't think it's possible to be devoutly Christian and whole heartedly progressive. I think people sort-of manage it through practiced cognitive dissonance but there has to be insincerity deep down somewhere. The Anglican church is doing this on a massive scale and tearing itself apart because of it.
That being said, there are all sorts of other bits of the abrahamic religions that are routinely ignored by Christians especially so the hypocrisy is nothing new.
OP
OP
If the word devout means dogmatic just now, okay I agree.
By devout I was meaning they take their belief seriously. Not a cultural Catholic or Christian who just say it and don't even really believe.
There has been some progress http://www.brin.ac.uk/figures/attitudes-towards-gay-rights/
its almost like he does have a right to his personal opinion or something
affect in what way?
He voted consistiently for gay rights despite his religious beliefs. He is welcome to his views on this because Christianity is less than relevant in our day to day lives and we don't live in a theocracy unlike some countries where those views would actually be behind the formulation of policy.
why he thought he'd able to somehow square this belief with being leader of a political party in 2015-17 I have no idea though.
Last edited:
Thankfully we don't all live in Tim Farron's mind (which may or may not house a religious autocracy) so I guess everything's okay.
This really doesn't bother me. His voting record on LGBT issues is the only thing that should matter to the country and it's about as progressive as they come, am I being naive to find it commendable that he's able to separate his religion and his politics?
I don't blame him for saying what he said at a time when the press would have buried any lingering Lib Dem voters with the headline "LIB DEMS THINK BEING GAY IS A SIN" without any mention on his voting record (much like is being done today).
For what it's worth I voted Corbyn, though I have voted Lib Dem in the past.
I don't blame him for saying what he said at a time when the press would have buried any lingering Lib Dem voters with the headline "LIB DEMS THINK BEING GAY IS A SIN" without any mention on his voting record (much like is being done today).
For what it's worth I voted Corbyn, though I have voted Lib Dem in the past.
You think people not having a belief that gay people or gay marriage is sin doesn't effect anything? Even though he didn't vote with his believes, him just thinking that it is a sin is enough to hurt people.
This right here is far worse than what Tim Farron did.
Having an opinion that's different than yours is one thing (even if it hurts your feelings) but removing someone's ability to even have a differing opinion or thought from yours? woah now. Chill.
Straight thought policing at that point.
Thought policing of bigotry isn't a bad thing. Lol at saying me not wanting people to be bigots is worse then being Farron a actual bigot
OP
OP
"Worse than what Tim Farron did". Yeah okay, some random dude on a hardcore gaming forum is worse than a member of parliament making a mockery of a political party and admitting months after the fact he was lying to the public.
It seems you're now banned, but if it's a temp ban read some of my earlier posts. We do not live in a society that punishes, via the Government, for thinking dumb/harmful shit. Usually, you need to enact a call to action/violence, or openly state your intent. Here's the thing, as I also said earlier, Tim Farron does not work in a supermarket, he was a leader of a political party. That as part of its "job description", has more of a critical lens applied to your thoughts/beliefs and actions. Yes, Tim Farron often voted in a progressive way, but many politicians also influence citizens via speech. Tim Farron lied to the public, for political gain, and is now months later admitting that, alongside the tiring and often challenged "bruh, God/Jesus say it so I'm going to keep perpetuating the cycle of derogatory belief/thoughts!". How do you improve religious circles? You challenge them http://www.brin.ac.uk/figures/attitudes-towards-gay-rights/
Actions often have consequences, even if it's not legal consequences. You can be fired/removed from your job for saying dumb shit, but not end up in prison. Toby Young engages in a shit load of "thought crime", and guess what, pressure had him stand down - https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/09/toby-young-resigns-office-for-students
Don't become a politician if you're just in it for the money, or want to lie/deceive and everything else some politicians live for. Or, go and join the "correct" party for often getting away with all of that. I don't vote for the Lib Dems but when it comes to social issues the party, as an entity, state how they push for equality and a society which more fairly views one and other. Hiding behind a veneer of I'M RELIGIOUS! doesn't give you carte blanche to go against your own parties ideals. As I also said earlier, there's a difference between politician diversity of thought, within a party, around tax bands, nuclear weapons, budgets for te NHS and so on, and publicly stating you think gay sex is a sin.
"Equality and a society which more fairly views one and other" is his view though and that of the party, and the party should view him equally and fairly when appropriate - it's not really fair to say you can't be religious and be in the Lib Dem party, as the party welcomes people from all creeds and that means folks like Farron are welcome. The problem is when there's an inability to leave religion at the door, which was the issue he ran into as leader.
Basically the argument boils down to "the Christian has to be cool with LGBT+ peeps (and pro-LGTB+ peeps) - should LGBT+ peeps be cool with the Christian"? Some would say yes, other people say free religion is less of a right than free sexuality. Very difficult debate.
OP
OP
Good thing I never said that and within a few of my posts in this topic I challenged Geoff to consider religious people do exist that aren't dogmatic.
Tim Farron falls down at one of the biggest hurdles within religion. Blindly hating/oppressing/viewing homosexuality in a negative way. Calling something a sin isn't just saying hey man, I'm straight, I have no interest in getting plowed by another dude. He's outright stating it's wrong/immoral to have sex with the same sex as yourself. Many in the UK, in 2018, are going to call that out and/or challenge it, regardless of anyone saying "hey, I'm religious!". As I just said, religious people exist who have no issues with gay sex.
No, you're implying that Farron is incompatible with the Lib Dems - he isn't, because he's a liberal. The problem is that being a liberal and a Christian often leads to some very awkward compromises that can make people who don't have that religion quite uncomfortable for good reason.
OP
OP
He is incompatible with the Lib Dems. Huw, your own fucking leader is calling him out
You can state you want him to stick around till the end of time, but good luck seeing the Lib Dems increase in popularity. Or at the very least, be prepared for any of the "sinful" gay vote to re-think
I actually linked Vince's tweet earlier!
He's a liberal and is entirely compatible with the Lib Dems. Vince disagreeing with Farron is also fine because liberalism encourages a plurality of thought, not conformity.
"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity."
Do I support Vince's view, of course - I don't think gay sex is a sin even in the theological sense. But Farron can have his own view and that's just liberty in action. The best alternative is to just ban Christians from joining the party as they support a bible with blatantly out-of date and homophobic passages.
The important thing is what someone thinks politically in a political party, not what they think religiously.
You have to remember, they didn't have a lot of choice. After the complete collapse of the party post-coalition they were very few candidates for the post and a lot of them weren't eager to throw their hat in the ring because rebuilding a party pretty much from scratch isn't a fun job. Kinda similar to how Theresa May ended up head of the Tories pretty much solely because nobody else wanted the job.
I mean, hell, look at the Lib Dems now. They put Vince Cable in charge. A man whose ties to the coalition will put off so many voters that they may well lose the few gains that Farron got them. He sold the goddamn Post Office for goodness sake!
You know full and well that he has the right to his opinion is meant as don't criticize him, and there shouldn't be consequences for speaking it (such as loss of favour and standing in a political party).
OP
OP
Tim Farron did not keep his personal religious views private, and as this topic shows waited a few months to then publicly tell everyone he was lying. Sorry, but if you're an MP and you make your thoughts known, and especially if you end up admitting to lying, you're going to come under pressure and scrutiny.
It's completely up to the Lib Dem party what they do, but I do find your hard-line stance on "LIBERAL democrats" a bit counter-productive to any pursuit you might have for the party to grow in size. Tim Farron, by admittance of his own deception, is going to stink up the party any time any of this is discussed. That's just how it's going to be now. Tim Farron created this situation, the party you vote for is going to take the hit ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Oh yeah, it'll be awkward for the party - I just take dispute with the idea that he's incompatible with the party when everything he's ever done politically has been model liberal/social democratic stuff. Most people don't tolerate divergent opinions ("someone is wrong on the internet", social bubbles and whatnot are all good examples of that) so it makes sense that folks would grab onto the religion and talk about that.
Here's my main worry though: the LDs are a far too white and party. A lot of the people I'd like to see join the party are from ethnic backgrounds that often have a strong religious bent - for example, the British Muslim community - who might feel put off from joining if they see the Lib Dems, or politics more widely, as a place where your religion will be gone after. The Lib Dems should encourage all liberals to join, even if those liberals are balancing their political beliefs against strong religious beliefs. More religious people that can do that is a good thing - we need far less Jacob Rees-Moggs in our society.
Pretty much my point - most folks will just take that argument, so his position is indefensible no-matter how he can set up his religion and his faith in his own brain.
This is a guy who voted for gay marriage and was pro-LGBT as leader - but the issue is that the core belief means most will just go "he's a homophobe" - we don't live in a liberal society, we live in a culture war, so this is a logical reaction.
This is a common occurrence with devout Christians where the moral code perpetuated by their religion (or religious texts) no longer align with common morality. On a basic level Farron understand that there's nothing wrong with being gay and sexual and wants to morally accept that fact. On the other hand he has a religion that has a specific code that very clearly states the contradiction. Accepting the former as truth jeopardizes his faith in the second and as such he finds himself stuck in the middle. Morally knowing what he's saying is wrong, but on the other hand unable to accept his own morality because it contradicts his faith.
That's a tough cookie. For some it leads to losing their religious beliefs. For others it leads to doubling down and rejecting their own morality over that of their religion.
That's a tough cookie. For some it leads to losing their religious beliefs. For others it leads to doubling down and rejecting their own morality over that of their religion.
OP
OP
Sorry Huw, its 2018, homophobia, sexism and msyoginy are going to be gone after, regardless of religion. So I don't know why your Islam remarks really matter. If you want to bring in some dogmatic hardline Islamists into your Lib Dem party for "diversity", good luck with that.
I gave you my thoughts on political diversity of thought, and what I think is more productive than arguing about gay sex within a party. Things like tax bands, NHS spending, opinions on Nuclear Weapons and other budgetary concerns. Tim Farron constantly being around for arguments around gay sex being a sin, will not serve the Lib Dem party well. The UK has its issues, but we're not anywhere near as whacky as America when it comes to wanting to debate gay sex within our political parties. The UK is pretty secular, so good luck having dogmatic religious views and wanting them to be tolerated as the leader/member of a supposedly progressive political party https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-no-religion-british-social-attitudes-survey
Hence why even the Torries cannot make a big song and dance about it, or the public will skewer them. Rees-Mogg will get obliterated if he ever tries to lead the party. Theresa May as you know yourself, regardless of her "thought crimes" in her head, has to consistently promote and state approval of homosexuality.
And for Farron it lead to sitting in the centre trying to figure out a route between the two and getting nowhere.
Had he had some other faith other than Christianity he'd probably have gotten away with fence-sitting, but as Christianity is the majority religion in Britain it's not as defensible on purely religious grounds. Certainly if this had happened to a devoutly Muslim politician you'd have had one or two people shouting, perhaps erroneously, "Islamophobia" or something and the argument would have been far uglier than just his ultimate resignation (and replacement by Vince who I personally prefer as leader). It's the whole "don't punch down" logic you see comedians talk about a bunch.
You don't get an equal society by shutting the door in people's faces, but I'm actually agreeing with you entirely - the view that gay sex is a sin is going to be gone after in 2018 and it makes things difficult. Maybe we should totally disestablish the church etc if we cannot tolerate this stuff anymore. If the religion itself is homophobic then it'd probably be best to get rid of it. (Farron, of course, supports disestablishment...)
OP
OP
No, it won't be gone. As long as there are dogmatic religious people it will always be around. What will be harder though is to lead a Lib Dem party, or be a vocal member within it's ranks, going on about gay sex being a sin. A political party has autonomy to creating its ranks, and MPs get sacked/fired and resign all the time. That's life Huw, sometimes doors close because of your outspoken views.
edit: Maybe that sentence means "gone after", not gone as is no one thinking it anymore during/after 2018. Apologies if I'm reading that wrong.
OP
OP
Okay, so what do you think will happen with public perception of the Lib Dem party after Tim Farron has created this latest stink? It was his choice to go on broadcast radio and make a scene about regret, and tell everyone he lied.
Not sure - it's irritated some people but the fact that he resigned over it and we have a new leader who has been vocally pro-LGBT and a bit of a groundbreaker (interracial marriage with a Hindu lady that caused him to get disowned) since Farron was in short trousers it's clearly going to be less of an impact than it was at the election.
I'm not for turning people away because of their religion, but I'm irritated with him for causing trouble (granted by simply being honest) on the radio this week. He should know better - especially as the job of a former political party leader is to keep their mouth shut.
My personal thought on what I think you're getting at though is that I don't think the Lib Dems should move away from their liberal principles because of things like Farron and his religion just to court more votes. A party with a less strong political identity will get sunk - it's important to know why we do the things we do.
It may well help him out personally though - his seat is a Tory-facing one and if he's spending all his time worrying about lying at the election he's less focussed on holding it. I'd rather Farron hold the seat than a Tory any day of the week (as I suspect most here would agree).
The party died when they sided with the Tories. They should have gone with Labour, in exchange for proportional representation. Proportional representation will never happen now because it will remain impossible to get a majority without the support of either SNP or the Tories, and both benefit too much from the current system to want to change it. UK would be better off without them today, because in a FPTP system you can't afford to split the non-Tory vote. Shame to see a party with such an important history die, but oh well.
Last edited:
I regret voting Lib Dem, I never thought they'd side with the Torys... ever. Yet, they did and here we are. The party will never recover, I'm not sure why they're still going.
OP
OP
They're not moving away from their Liberal principles, they'd be strengthening them. This is why calling yourself a liberal in 2017/2018 gets a bit of laughter thrown at it. You can be pretty liberal in the eyes of the law, and express you do not want a totalitarian police state where people who think wrongly, get arrested/locked up or worse. However, being liberal is also accepting the "battle of ideas" that rages on within the public sphere. Shitty ideas get called out/challenged, and whether you like it or not political parties often engage in hand picking and selecting members that they think properly represent the parties intent. Tim Farron is going to keep stinking up the Lib Dem party, and ironically, he gives religious people a bad name. Those that aren't dogmatic will be thinking, great, here we go again, the Christian in the news is whining that he thinks Jesus and/or God chill up in Heaven watching what you do in your bedroom and thinking you're an abomination/sinful.
Being a liberal accepts that there will be public debate, obviously, but given Farron is for everything on the party's ticket and a lot more progressive reforms beside, then he's a suitable MP. The problem is that his religion is incompatible with the mood of the progressives the party will need to win to move onward. That's just a consequence of the fact that we don't live in a liberal society - as I said above, we live in a culture war.
OP
OP
He's undermined his credibility by lying though, and members of the public often do not like lying. So good luck keeping him around in the Lib Dem party. Vince Cable will probably be questioned about him non-stop as well.
Always remember that Tim Farron of his own choosing has now ignited this shit storm.
He's welcome to his belief, but nobody who believes around 1/30 of the population is inescapably sinful should be allowed to govern those people.
Aren't the liberal democrats the British neoliberal party? What on earth does this have to do with left then?