Register to Comment
Page 44 of 47 FirstFirst ... 344243444546 ... LastLast
Results 431 to 440 of 462
Like Tree286Likes
  1. #431
    rainmaker rainmaker is offline
    rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    17,907

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    Not Muslims, Jews, or adherents of any other religion who have codes about sex before marriage, gay sex, etc., just Christians
    Nope, I am on the record many times, I dislike all organised religions - playing the poor my religion is being singled out and persecuted nonsense wont wash with me.

    All organized religions need to mind own their business when it comes to other peoples lives.

    And they are all equally as bad. They only reason they no longer have so much control over other people in the west is because we have managed to wrest control back from them.

    If you choose to be devout to your God and live your life according to the rules and regulations you imagine this God has set - that's fine. What you don't get to do is to extend those rules to cover the rest of us.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #432
    livingstone livingstone is offline
    livingstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,084

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratio Et Fides View Post
    I vote for Naomi Long. Naomi Long is a Presbyterian and so subscribes to the Westminster Confession which states this;

    "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God."

    However since she believes in full Civil Rights for Catholics and strongly opposes tribalism, while I privately pray for her conversion, politically I don't care about her views on Catholicism.
    So? And I voted LibDem despite suggestions that their leader thinks I'm morally inferior. That's the thing about democracy, people get to decide what matters to them.

    If a leader considering gay people (or at least sexually active gay people) to be morally inferior is an important factor for someone in casting their vote, whether its a vote in a general election or a vote in a leadership contest, then that is an entirely legitimate response.

    If someone ran for election openly believing that women are morally inferior, but without any plans to give effect to that view in their public acts, it would still be entirely legitimate if people decided they did not want to vote for someone with those opinions, even if they do not plan any legal changes. It is absurd to think otherwise.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #433
    Des Quirell Des Quirell is offline
    Des Quirell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    41,013

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    Wonder if the media applied the same treatment to Sadiq Khan when he was going for mayor of London? Was he hassled about his views on gay sex, alcohol, freedom to leave Islam, whether the word of a woman is worth half that of a man...etc.?

    I don't know, but I think I can guess the answer...
    Given that he worked as a solicitor in the field of human rights and given his social liberalism I think his views are well known.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #434
    petaljam petaljam is offline
    petaljam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    21,614

    Quote Originally Posted by Des Quirell View Post
    Given that he worked as a solicitor in the field of human rights and given his social liberalism I think his views are well known.
    This view that because someone was born into a particular religion and they haven't actually repudiated it publicly, they must somehow believe, perhaps in secret, the most extreme version of that religion when his record shows the exact opposite is sheer bigotry afaict.

    I wonder how Talking Shop would feel about the idea of anyone who's a practising Catholic automatically being suspected of wanting to bring back a ban on divorce and on contraception, even when they had voted for those laws?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #435
    Half Nelson Half Nelson is offline
    Half Nelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    19,036

    Quote Originally Posted by Des Quirell View Post
    Given that he worked as a solicitor in the field of human rights and given his social liberalism I think his views are well known.
    Not so. Nobody knows his personal religious beliefs, because he wasn't asked. He certainly wasn't cornered on national radio and tv about what he believes is a "sin", where Farron was repeatedly accused of thinking that homosexuality is a sin.

    Why Are Muslim and Christian Politicos Treated Differently?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #436
    petaljam petaljam is offline
    petaljam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    21,614

    Quote Originally Posted by Half Nelson View Post
    Not so. Nobody knows his personal religious beliefs, because he wasn't asked. He certainly wasn't cornered on national radio and tv about what he believes is a "sin", where Farron was repeatedly accused of thinking that homosexuality is a sin.

    Why Are Muslim and Christian Politicos Treated Differently?
    Farron's professional record on the issue, namely his voting record, is ambiguous. Asking him to clear up the ambiguity is fair enough.
    There's no corresponding ambiguity in Khan's record, so any assumption that there must be a problem "really" can only come from prejudice about his origins.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #437
    cropbeye cropbeye is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,853

    Quote Originally Posted by The_SR View Post
    Are there any Muslim or Jewish party leaders?
    Previously Michael Howard of the Tories.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #438
    darkhorse darkhorse is offline
    darkhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    18,945

    Quote Originally Posted by livingstone View Post
    So? And I voted LibDem despite suggestions that their leader thinks I'm morally inferior. That's the thing about democracy, people get to decide what matters to them.

    If a leader considering gay people (or at least sexually active gay people) to be morally inferior is an important factor for someone in casting their vote, whether its a vote in a general election or a vote in a leadership contest, then that is an entirely legitimate response.

    If someone ran for election openly believing that women are morally inferior, but without any plans to give effect to that view in their public acts, it would still be entirely legitimate if people decided they did not want to vote for someone with those opinions, even if they do not plan any legal changes. It is absurd to think otherwise.
    But he didnt describe gay people as 'morally inferior'
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #439
    Half Nelson Half Nelson is offline
    Half Nelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    19,036

    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post
    Farron's professional record on the issue, namely his voting record, is ambiguous. Asking him to clear up the ambiguity is fair enough.
    There's no corresponding ambiguity in Khan's record, so any assumption that there must be a problem "really" can only come from prejudice about his origins.
    In that case, all that is required to excuse a grilling on personal religious beliefs is to identify or allege an ambiguity.

    Are we really saying that politicians should be questioned on their relationship with their God, (whoever he/she/it might be), on what might be a 'sin'? Are there political thought crimes to be 'outed' with a wrong word or by taking the kids to Sunday school?
    Where's the line?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #440
    Toland Toland is offline
    Toland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    70,586

    Quote Originally Posted by Half Nelson View Post
    In that case, all that is required to excuse a grilling on personal religious beliefs is to identify or allege an ambiguity.

    Are we really saying that politicians should be questioned on their relationship with their God, (whoever he/she/it might be), on what might be a 'sin'? Are there political thought crimes to be 'outed' with a wrong word or by taking the kids to Sunday school?
    Where's the line?
    Journalists will ask questions on issues that they think are likely to be of interest to their listeners/viewers/readers. They're often right.

    oh, and politics is a cruel game, largely because electorates are rarely just to their politicians.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 44 of 47 FirstFirst ... 344243444546 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment