Tim Farron has given an extensive interview to Pink News in which he directly addresses his voting record on LGBT issues and announces some key policy initiatives he wants to take forward.
His three ideas are:
One, when it comes to the equal marriage legislation, I think we really missed a trick on trans issues. On the spousal veto, I think it’s an appalling thing that one person is allowed to block another person’s freedom. We should be making that a priority.
Secondly, it strikes me as deeply troubling is that there was no regulation of psychotherapists in the UK for quack conversion therapy.
Thirdly, we’ve got to end the gay blood ban, which is a disgrace. My pledge to you is that my first opposition day bill will be getting rid of the gay blood ban. All of these things need to be based on the science, not on prejudice.
One issue which has been widely discussed in recent days on social media is the fact that he voted against the motion to give time and money to the Same Sex Marriage Bill, although he never actually opposed the Bill itself, voting in favour at second reading and abstaining at third reading.
He says it’s because he was unhappy that there was insufficient time to fully scrutinise several aspects of it:
There was a whole bunch of issues where we were just not there yet. The whole point of the programme motion is it’s limiting the time for discussion.
I voted in favour at second reading and voted against the programme motion because it was important there was time to discuss trans issues and other very important issues – and there were two ‘conscience clause’ amendments.
I voted around the equal marriage bill in ways that I thought were basically liberal. What is regrettable is that people will draw their own conclusions, and assume that because you didn’t vote for it, you don’t support equal marriage.
I’ve made it quite clear I would vote for third reading now, and I probably should have done at the time. I thought issues hadn’t been covered properly – there was a whole range of things about protections, conscience objections for minority groups that have problems with equal marriage. I think fundamentally, it wasn’t sufficiently equal.
Asked what he’d say to the Archbishop of Canterbury, he was pretty clear about the need to disestablish the Church of England which is a good old liberal policy:
The fundamental thing I say to the Archbishop – and I certainly said it to the last Archbishop of Canterbury – is the Church of England should be disestablished. That’s the simple answer to all this.
I think the Church of England is compromised by being part of the furniture of the state. Although I’m a Christian myself, I do not believe I have any right to impose my faith on anybody else.
I think it damages Christianity to have an established church, and it certainly it’s also illiberal to have a state church anyway.
He talked about the “massive embarrassment” of having eight white straight blokes as our Parliamentary Party and how he’d like to change things:
However, buildings that have been razed to the ground are easier to rebuild in the model you want than buildings that have just been badly damaged. Let’s take advantage of the terrible situation.
I would want to do this – when it comes to the European Parliament you can effectively have all-women short-lists, and then you also make sure you deal with BAME as well in that mix. The same will be harder to do but more important to do in the House of Commons.
He added that he’s working with Jo Swinson to come up with a plan.
Finally, his pitch to be Lib Dem leader:
We’re down to eight MPs, our voice in Parliament is massively reduced, so we’ve got to punch above our weight in the country.
That means communicating with people in ways that resonate, that are authentic, with voices that don’t sound like the normal. It means being able to have a fixation on campaigning, a fixation on motivating people, and inspiring people to get involved.
There may be a bunch of questions out there to which Tim Farron is not the answer – but who is best placed to take a party that has been broken by its worst result in two generations? Who is best placed to build up the building blocks of an infrastructure renewal? Who is going to fire the Liberal belly out there, and give our relevance and distinctiveness and not sound like the rest? The answer is me.
There is much, much more – from commercial surrogacy to the party’s name to his votes way back in 2007 on the Equality Act and you can read the whole thing here.
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1534
The toxic legacy of Brexit
Could Hitler have won?
Say hello to the Act that successfully set rules 1,050 years into the future - Calendar (New Style) Act 1750
David Allen
Matt Wardman
Alex Macfie
theakes
71 Comments
I applaud Tim for addressing concerns over his equality voting record head on and for acknowledging he probably got it wrong and would do things differently. That kind of openness and vulnerability is certainly not what you expect from a politician. It’s refreshing.
“I think the Church of England is compromised by being part of the furniture of the state. Although I’m a Christian myself, I do not believe I have any right to impose my faith on anybody else. I think it damages Christianity to have an established church, and it certainly it’s also illiberal to have a state church anyway.”
These are the most disingenuous comments I’ve heard from someone espousing to be Christian and Liberal Democrat.
1. The Church of England in this country has never forced to convert anyone to it’s faith. It works tirelessly at interfaith dialogue with other religions, more so since the political arena has be devoid of any direction for the people of this country regarding its responsibility to the people.
2. The Church of England has been no furniture to the State, what it has done time and time again has called all political parties to account for themselves.
3. The only damage done to the Church of England is those who profess a faith yet can’t transfer their faith to other areas of their life so to testify as social witnesses what it means to be Christian.
The Church of England has stood up for those who can’t speak for themselves. That’s their role. And the role of a Statesman is to lead his country.
Pleased to see Tim address these issues.
@Mavarine Du-Marie
I don’t see how the CoE couldn’t continue to do all those things and more if it was disestablished. It has, after all, been Liberal policy since, I think, Gladstone. I do not doubt that the Church does good, but whether it is the official state religion with seats in the House of Lords is another matter. As a non-Christian myself, it seems quite odd and illiberal to me for one to be given an official seal of approval in such a way.
Disestablished is only on the populist table because those who seek and are in power don’t like being reminded that there is a moral compass called a Church of England, hence why it was established in the first instance.
It is as liberal as there is a just God, it’s as liberal as there is a just Statesman, it is as liberal as there is a just Country to live in and a place to see to the welfare of the people.
Telling, for me, is the fact that it is ILLEGAL for gays to marry in a C of E church, even should the General Synod pass legislation enabling it. If that is one of the consequences of establishment, it’s time has been and gone.
So self-interest of one particular group as opposed to national interests takes precedence?
The General Synod considers and approves legislation affecting the whole of the Church of England, and debates matters of national and international importance.
How have the gay community achieved a wider public commitment, other than of their sexual orientation, to church or government?
@Mavarine Du-Marie
Hardly on the populist table seeing as the debate has been going on for over a century. The CoE may, for some, have become a moral compass, but it was not exactly set up as one…unless Henry VIII seperating from Rome so he could divorce his wife and remarry counts as one.
Also, the points you raise again have nothing to do with the CoE being the official religion of England. Wales and Scotland and their respective churches are doing perfectly well without having automatic seats in the House of Lords.
@ Wayne Simmons
I’m not sure that Tim comes across as well in the interview as you suggest. Indeed he seems to have forgotten that he voted against the Equality Act in 2007, though he now seems to acknowledge that he has changed his mind. In justifying his past voting record he relies on a very nuanced argument. However, one of the things we have surely learnt from being in government is that nuanced arguments don’t hold much water with the general public. If he is to lead the party he needs to get his act together in preparing for this sort of interview.
As the Bishop of Leicester said in the House of Lords on 11th December, in response to the Government statement on marriage (same-sex or otherwise) which is broad and liberal enough: “our concern here is not primarily for religious conscience or the protection of the Church of England’s position, but rather a more fundamental concern for stable communities.”
Disestablishment in Wales doesn’t seem to have (unduly) hastened the demise of the Church, but how about a compromise where the church gets out of the state (no bishops in Lords) but can keep its establishment structure for its own adherents in matters of faith?
Good to see Tim’s comments above, btw.
@ATF
I could have relied upon historical too. But I address what is before me now. Populist at any age is what it is.
It is the Church of England because it was chosen to be that way. The seats could easily be expanded to house the Church of Wales and Scotland too. I don’t see why not.
Magazine Du-Marie…..”The Church of England in this country has never forced to convert anyone to it’s faith.”. Are you serious? As a child in a rural village, I was bombarded with CofE indoctrination right through begging with Sunday School, then primary school and secondary school. Various vicars would come to school “assemblies” and revel at the chance to preach to a captive audience — of children! I was a precocious child, and I came to the conclusion, at a very young age, that these holy men in long black skirts were talking utter nonsense. The pressure on me and my peers had an uintended but fortunate consequence………I am an atheist, and a happy one at that.
I just hope that if Tim is to become leader he handles key interviews better than this. I am left confused by his lack of consistency, not just on equal marriage, but on faith schools and the equality act. Thank goodness I can agree with him on disestablishment.
@Mavarine Du Marie
Church of England bishops sit in the House of Lords and have the power to vote on the laws that govern us. No religion should have that authority in a liberal, secular democracy. And the C of E hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory during the days when, far from standing up for the voiceless, it opposed even the most basic aspects of equality for Catholics, Quakers, Jews, atheists and anyone else who wasn’t a paid up member of the established order.
The Church of England has a role to play in society just like any other religion but that is no reason why it should continue to be formally entwined with the state – and please tell me how it’s in the interest of “being a moral compass” that bishops are appointed by the Prime Minister?
@Graham Evans
That’s a bit disingenuous – his position on the Equality Act was the same as Peter Tatchell’s who isn’t noted for being a homophobe.
The Church of England it is a righteous position. The fact that they, in the House of Lords are appointed by the Prime Minister means that it an established fact that there needs to be stability in the well-being during governance which acts as a counter to the excess of power. And for the people of this society they bring an spiritual element that there is still to seen the good of Mankind. Don’t see any politician enacting those qualities.
“The Church of England in this country has never forced to convert anyone to it’s faith. ”
Really? Is this the kind of history you were taught? I suggest you look up the Act of Supremacy, the 1558 Act of Uniformity Corporation Act, the 1662 Act of Uniformity, the Quaker Act, the Conventicle Act, the Five Mile Act, and the Occasional Conformity Act.
For hundreds of years you could lose your livelihood, your money, your freedom to travel, and in certain cases your life for not being in communion with the Church of England. You were barred from many professions, from sitting in Parliament or participating in the government. This was coercive legislation intended to make sure that dissent was not tolerated and that every person in England and Wales faced draconian pressure to convert or be punished by law. If that is not “force” then the word has no meaning.
I don’t bring the history books into a debate on the here and now. The strength of my arguments stand for themselves. Only the inept need props.
Making an historical statement that is blatantly false, and is known to be false by virtually everyone with the slightest interest in the subject, goes well beyond “ineptness,” Mavarine.
Mavarine Du-Marie 20th May ’15 – 9:40pm
“….those who seek and are in power don’t like being reminded that there is a moral compass”
Mavarine,
I can certainly agree that those who are in power don’t like being reminded that there is a moral compass.
However, during approximately 500 years of existence the CofE has been a bit of a wonky compass, sometimes pointing est hen it should have been pointing west.
It took the CofE a few hundred years to catch on to the idea that slavery might be a bad thing.
It still seems to interpret “Thou shall not kill” as if the full commandment reads “Thou shall not kill unless it is by use of Trident nuclear submarines, in which case go ahead and have as many Hiroshimas as you like.”.
I have known many very good people who have been loyal members of the CofE and do wonderful things in their communities. I have never understood their ability to turn several blind eyes to inconvenient facts aout their church and it’s history.
Prince Charles will as a privilege of his birth become the head of the CofE and presumeably become the ‘holder of the moral compass.’
His interpretation of the commandment on adultery is I suppose simply following the example of Henry VIII. So Camilla being only wife number two is probably getting a bit twitchy about her future.
Let’s face it the CofE did not have the most glorious of beginnings did it? Did you not see ‘Wolf Hall’ on the TV?
called a Church of England, hence why it was established in the first instance.
It is as liberal as there is a just God…”
Hmmmmm. The “gay blood ban” is an issue of scientific evidence, not one politicians should be messing around with.
Mavarine Du-Marie 21st May ’15 – 1:02am
What don’t you understand about your use of the word ‘never’?
David-1 21st May ’15 – 12:52am is correct but fails to include the loss of many landed estates from his list.
Historical facts are historical facts.
Stephen Hesketh
The Church of England personally has “never” asked Tim Farron (oranyone else for that matter), to “forcible” convert anyone its faith.
Also, the only forcing that occurred as a socio-historical fact was that parents dragged their children to church for moral guidance and NOT the other way around.
Mavarine Du-Marie, your statements have been shown to be wrong and inaccurate by David-1. In a truly liberal society we should all have the right to decide our own faiths and political beliefs, without any over-bearing influence from any quarter. However strong our moral, political beliefs, they are ours and ours alone. We, as individuals, have not right to teach (indoctrinate?) people, especially the young, with certain religious or political beliefs, to the exclusion of other beliefs.
I’m actually coming around to the idea that Tim and Jo mention: all women short-lists with a BAME mix.
I don’t want to get into a big debate about it, but it is a big change of position from me considering my vociferous opposition in the past. I suppose the key is to make sure it is not just privileged women short-lists.
The 8 white man parliamentary party is an embarrassment and needs to end ASAP.
To add some balance, I’m a commited Christian and a member of the CofE and want to see it end it’s position as an established church. I have no problem with religious groups entering debate and seeking to influece opinion. But if you want to vote on our laws, seek the votes of your peers to enter our Parliament.
The Church should listen to its Head and “Render unto Ceaser”…
@ Steve Way. I am a committed CofE member and a child of God, as well as being born and raised in this country. And I don’t want to see an end to it’s position. So we can agree to disagree. However your opinion on religious groups sounds anti-liberal, as that of faith is universal, as also the London School of Economics Interfaith dept will inform you.
And as seeing as you’ve started quoting the start of a bible verse at me, I will state that Jesus fully recognized the secular world and knew that he couldn’t disengage from it completely whilst he was alive on the Earth. As he stated:
The Gospel: John 17:6:19
Jesus looked up to heaven and prayed: “Father, I have made your name known to those whom you gave me to this world. And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world. But now I am coming to you, and I speak these things in the world so that they may have my joy made complete in themselves. As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost, so that the scripture might be fulfilled.”
He only made God’s name known in the world. He speaks these things in the world. His father sent him into the world. He sent others into the world. SO, where in the world is not the church secular….
At no point does your quote justify taking an position of authority over a group of people without the people accepting this freely. Take for example the rich man (although a better translation is the man who loved money) who asked how he could enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He was offered a route to do so but not compelled to follow it and indeed walked away freely. There is no compulsion in our faith and therefore there is no biblical justification for Bishops having a vote on the laws all are obliged to follow irrespective of which faith or none they belong to. CofE clergy all accept the authority of their Bishop and do so freely, why should a member of another faith or an agnostic or atheist accept a Bishop’s authority?
I’m afraid that in direct contradiction to your views, most of a Liberal mindset believe that people should be free to decide the path they wish to follow in life (with obvious exceptions that are covered by our laws). There is also a natural Liberal mistrust of ingrained privilege.
If you have any faith in the message you do not need privilege to be given to the messengers. All are free in our country to profess and share their faith.
Proverbs 11:14
For lack of guidance a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisers.
They can still advise without being able to impose.. it’s called a democracy. Bishops can also, if de-established run for elected office.
We all impose upon each other to be better versions of ourselves.
We could always start a new ‘-ocracy’ which is inclusive of everyone’s ‘-ocracies’ viewpoint What about Worldocracy?
Regarding the issues of disestablishment, I would have it that no-men, nor women, in ceremonial frocks and choosing as their loadstone some improbable and highly divisive figure from on high, were making ultimate judgements about the future of my, and our, country.
Faith is personal, and can mean different things to different people, often causing competition, conflict and strife. The law subjects us all to the same obligations, and must be resolute in defending our liberties.
As for Tim, I commend his honesty, but as I have posted in other feeds, I would much prefer that in this limited contest he and Norman some how reach a cohabitation arrangement; as each have virtues, and demerits. However my greater preference would be for a Parliamentary leader, as with the Greens and the SNP.
@Mark Platt “Regarding the issues of disestablishment, I would have it that no-men, nor women, in ceremonial frocks and choosing as their loadstone some improbable and highly divisive figure from on high, were making ultimate judgements about the future of my, and our, country.”
If you would rather no-men nor women and nor a figure from on high. What is there left to make those judgements about the future? Animal, Mineral or Vegetable.
@Mavarine
You, quite rightly, cannot compel me to do anything. Parliament, through the votes of it’s members in both houses, quite rightly can. You seem to feel that some of those who make those decisions can do so because of their position in a Church, I prefer that they should be elected by the people they seek to govern.
As to an “ocracy” that fits your view, taken to it’s extreme, they already exist in Iran and the so called Islamic States both of which are Theocracies. The Church of England itself was formed because a Secular ruler wished to override a religious one, it was in effect the decision to disestablish England from Rome.
You have decided (I assume freely) to follow a faith, as have I, the difference is that I am a Liberal Christian and would never compel another to follow my faith, it’s teachings and especially not those who attain high office within it unless they freely decide to do so. I will always disagree with any measure that would give a member of my, or any other, Church a say in how those outside of it must live their lives.
By the way a Proportional System would take account of everyone’s views, something else you will find people on here are quite keen on!!
@Steve Way:
” You seem to feel that some of those who make those decisions can do so because of their position in a Church, I prefer that they should be elected by the people they seek to govern. ”
Okay, let’s propose then they are elected by the House of Laity (whom represent the common people of this country) via the General Synod. Then they would have been so elected through a democrat process other than the appointment through political means, which would still adhere to the laws of this country. Therefore, they can sit in the House of Lords as duly an elected government body as well as of an Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal body to the Government. More power to the people!!
If there is a just God who intervenes for the sake of justice in our lives (which I don’t believe), and if one specific interpretation of the nature of that God was correct, and if the priests and clergy of that particular interpretation were all immune from human flaws and were completely pious then there might be a justification for those clergy to vote on our laws.
If you choose to believe the bible (I don’t) then the most important act of the creation of humankind was the gift of free will – allowing humans the ability to make their own decisions and mistakes even if it cost us dearly.
So, given that free will – the liberty to choose for yourself – is one of the most fundamental aspects of the Christian creation myth, how on earth can any pious CofE Christian justify that their Bishops should have the right to vote on and make the laws which can be enforced on everyone regardless of their faith or not?
The CofE has a rich history of evil. And I mean that word sincerely. It was evil that people were murdered for their faith. Evil that people were compelled by force, by torture, by financial penalties to follow CofE doctrine. Evil that an elected member of parliament was imprisoned for years for the crime of being an atheist and refusing to swear upon the bible. Evil that the CofE not only endorsed slavery but profited from it.
The past is the past and, unlike the bible, I do not hold children accountable for the sins of their fathers for seven generations, but there is a mountain of evidence that the CofE has not been a moral compass in the past and even if it was an infallible moral compass then free will still means that there is no reason that any pious Christian should seek to have CofE bishops sit in the House of Lords and make the rules which govern us all.
@Mavarine Du-Marie
The laity does not represent the people of this country. Much less than half the population regularly attends CofE services.
And if, incidentally, you think the laity should elect bishops to sit in the lords then you are actually espousing heresy since the CofE is founded upon the idea that the Queen is the divine representative of god on Earth and that power to appoint bishops rests with her (exercised on her behalf by the Prime Minister). If you believe that bishops should be elected in any form then you’re actually going against one of the founding tenants of the Church of England and are a heretic who, in earlier times, would probably have been put to death by the Church of England.
Operative word: represents (the body of which number [choose from 1 to……)
Heresy is any provocative belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs. A heretic is a proponent of such claims or beliefs. Heresy is distinct from both apostasy, which is the explicit renunciation of one’s religion, principles or cause,
Please note; I proposed, I claimed not.
@Mavarine Du-Marie
Regarding bishops in the House of Lords, the real question for you is would you be happy with other religions/denominations having similar representation? Would you be happy to have Muslim clerics, Jewish Rabbis, Catholic Bishops, Buddist Monks, Hindu sādhus and what ever it is Scientologust have given seats?
If you are uncomfortable with that notion then you begin to understand what those of us who do not share your beliefs feel about having Bishops involved in the making of the laws we all have to live by. Either all religions, sects, denominations and cults get treated the same, or they are all kept out of the upper chamber.
CarlN
Why not. Afterall, we are liberal, democrat and a multicultural society already.
@Mavarine
“Okay, let’s propose then they are elected by the House of Laity (whom represent the common people of this country) via the General Synod”
No they don’t represent the common people of this country. Having been a member of a PCC and Deanery Synod my experience for lay members is as follows…Deanery Synod members are chosen by those who are on the electoral roll of a CofE Church, Diocesan Synod Members are chosen by those on the Deanery Synod and the House of Laity members of General Synod are chosen from the Diocesan Synod . From my experience they are those who have time to devote to the various meetings etc.
@CarlN
Only one small disagreement (which I imagine you probably meant anyway) No one should be kept out of the upper chamber, they should just have to be elected to it by all registered to vote in their “constituency” not a subset….
@Steve Way,
I know how it works. So I think the benefit was for others whom are ignorant.
I said the House of Laity. And if they are on the electoral roll of the CofE, then they must also be on the electrol roll at the Borough Council to vote in an election. Time is only once a month for one evening…..
You are splitting hairs through a bias construct.
Very easy to attack the Cof E but why not attack other religions who believe in the subjugation of women and have extreme anti gay views? No? Why?
@Anne
Nobody is attacking the Church of England. Plenty of people, however, are attacking the idea that Church of England bishops should sit in the House of Lords and vote on the laws that we’re all governed by.
@Mavarine Du-Marie
If you think that a sub selection of the electoral roll and only those members of it who have one evening free a month to go to a meeting (and can afford to get to it) is representative of the country as a whole then you are living in a dreamworld. Normal/ordinary people don’t go to laity meetings and large numbers of people couldn’t afford the time or money to go to them even if they wanted to.
@mavarine
Great! Now who gets to decide which religions get seats? What thresholds are needed? How many seats do each get? Do the Christians get one set of seats or one set for each denomination/sect/splinter group? If I set up my own religion do I automatically get seat in the House? If not why not? If its just a case of numbers can UKIP claim to be a religion and claim its free seat? No? Because they’re not a proper religion?
And there’s the problem. You don’t get to decide who’s religion is valid and who’s isn’t. All religions represented isn’t workable so we have to go with none if we care about democracy.
I’m not splitting hairs just pointing out that you are wrong.
If you know how it works then you already knew that the House of Laity does not, and can not, represent the common people, unless by common people you mean only those on an electroal roll of a CofE Church. Also just because someone is on the Electoral Roll does not mean they are eligible to vote in UK elections. The rules for inclusion are on the form and are very different from the eligibility to vote in UK elections:
I declare that
1 I am baptised and am aged 16 or over, (or, become 16*3 on ……………………………………………………………………………………..)
2
A I am a member of the Church of England (or of a Church in communion with the Church of England) and am resident in the parish. ?
OR
B I am a member of the Church of England (or of a Church in communion with the Church of England) and, not being resident in the parish, I have habitually attended public worship in the parish during the period of six months prior to enrolment. ?
OR
C I am a member in good standing of a Church (not in communion with the Church of England) which subscribes to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and also declare myself to be a member of the Church of England and I have habitually attended public worship in the parish during the period of six months prior to enrolment. ?
I declare that the above answers are true and I apply for inclusion on the Church Electoral Roll of the parish.
Signed ……………………………………………. Date …………………………………………….
@Steve Way
Absolutely!
@Anne
I am a member of the CofE I don’t think it is being attacked here, merely the fact that some want it to remain a part of the Governance of our Country rather than just it’s own members.
Well it was OK but no where near where it should be !
A promise to end the hierarchy of diversity within the party would have been good – OBV is good but we missed one LGB vote, one Trans vote, one Disabled vote.
An admission and apology for the exclusion of Trans conversion therapy in the agreement reached by Norman Lamb would be better. Ok the spousal veto is an issue but the overall failure of the party whilst in power to push the Trans Action plan is appalling – a commitment to see that pushed for would be a bonus
@:Steve Way: No I am not wrong. It’s only that I disagree with others. That in itself is not wrong. If a criteria has to be meet, it is the same principle of meeting a criteria for standing as any local government representative. An electoral roll is a list of those eligible.
@George Potter: any authority that was proposed in any way, would still find itself under attack, by those who seek to not have authority in place and anywhere else but where it’s needed.
@CarIN: Any if a group such as the libdems purport to be that of standing on the higher ground rather than any religion (as seems to be the case here) than itself is a denomination/sect/splinter group in how it came to be and is only a political version of the Church of England.
@ Mavarine
The LibDems stand at elections and (used to) win them. They have a democratic right to representation.
The CofE is welcome to stand candidates for election, as are any other relgious grouping, but until they win elections, and not just internal elections, which are meaningless in this context, they have no right to a place in either House.
@CarIN: “…they have no right to a place in either House.”
And who has decided that they have no right?
@Mavarine
Sorry but you stated that the House of Laity “represent the common people of this country” that is wrong. They represent those on the electoral roll of the Church of England which precludes anyone not a baptised member of the Christian faith.
You also stated that “if they are on the electoral roll of the CofE, then they must also be on the electoral roll at the Borough Council to vote in an election” again this is wrong the two are not synonymous. The electoral criteria for one demands membership of a religious faith the other does not.
Both of these were key facts for your justification and both are not wrong because I disagree with you they are just plain factually wrong.
Please read carefully:
The term layman has today come to mean “a person who does not belong to a particular profession or who is not expert in some field.” It also has a somewhat less commonly known meaning of “a person who is not a member of the clergy”, which is its original definition. Layman derived from the two existing words “lay” (from the Old French “lai”, meaning “secular”) and “man”, hence the “non-cleric” meaning.
The term layman popped up around the 15th century and within about 100 years the term laywoman also became common. In both cases, outside the non-cleric definition, they first particularly seemed to refer to people who were not specifically accredited in medicine or law, with the definition broadening from there to include any non-expert in a certain field.
The term “laity” has a similar origin as layman, deriving from the Middle English “laite”, which in turn derives from the French word of the same spelling. The French word “laite” comes from the Latin “laicus”, and finally from the Greek “laikos”, meaning “of the people” or “common” (“laos” meaning “people”).
@Steve Way: if in your eyes the “the two are not synonymous” doesn’t mean I’m factual wrong. It just means that I think they are close enough to be synonymous with each other. For I take the second definition of the dictionary: “closely associated with or suggestive of something.”
@ Mavarine
Um, the fact that they haven’t won any elections. That’s the point.To reiterate. The CofE has not won any elections and as such should not have the ability to vote on laws.
So to sum up:
Giving automatic places in the legislature to the CofE over other religous groups – Illiberal
Giving all religious groups automatic places in the legislature – Unworkable
Allowing religious groups to stand candidates in general elections so that they have a legitimate right to make and vote on laws – Good.
You want bishops in parliment. Fine. Go help get one elected.
Mavarine Du-Marie
“Disestablished is only on the populist table because those who seek and are in power don’t like being reminded that there is a moral compass called a Church of England”
I think you are taking a very broad interpretation of the term “populist” most people are indifferent to the status of the CoE. Those who believe in disestablishment do so for many reasons very few are afraid that being the established church in England makes the CoE more effective, many argue it makes them less effective.
By way of comparison there is a chap in the Vatican who doesn’t have any trouble getting his views heard. The less prominent voice given to other religions is a combination of factors none of which the CoE would inherit if disestablished. The lack of a clear hierarchy for journalists to refer to makes picking a representative of other religions more confusing for the media who seem to relish in their lack of understanding of religions. The CoE would presumably continue to have the same structure therefore they would not loose any ability to act as, what you describe as, a “moral compass” by engaging in discussion and putting their position to the public.
Mavarine,
I recognise that you have a right to your opinions and personal beliefs (which as a Bible-believing Christian myself, I do not share and would rather you did not try to portray as representative of all your fellow believers), but would you consider that opening your contribution to this discussion by publically calling Tim Farron a liar (or at least ‘disingenuous’) is in itself an attack on his own personal beliefs and opinions and denies him the right that you claim for yourself?
You may not credit it, but there is a long tradition of sincere Christian thought – originating from within several different Christian theological traditions over time – that has contributed to the historic Liberal and Liberal Democratic perspective on disestablishment of the Church of England. It is not automatically a secularising atheist attack on believing Christians.
This is why there are not Scottish, Welsh or Irish bishops in the House of Lords; because politicians (almost all of them Christian and most of them Liberal) removed them over several centuries, because they felt those bishops did not have a claim to speak for the religious life of those nations, as Anglicanism was not the majoirty Christian faith of those nations.
I feel that to speak as if this tradition did not exist and possibly to insinuate it has no right to exist is, at least, not fully informed (given you object to the word ‘wrong’)?
I recognise also that you have stated that arguments from history are inadequate so you may feel I am speaking of irrelevancies. It is therefore somewhat difficult to discuss in details why people have differing political and theological perspectives on an institution that has grown up over time and has a history which you do not wish to discuss, so maybe we should leave it at that.
You are at the same time seeking to build an argument that it is possible for the English Anglican institutions to represent the whole nation. I know many Anglicans who hold opinions similar to this. I am here to tell you this is not an argument shared very widely in the UK outside the Church of England, among Christian churches which have not consented to such an arrangement – and without consent, where is representation?
I myself would like to see some kind of non-elected, independently appointed religious representation within a reformed House of Lords given serious consideration, which is not a mainstream opinion within the party.
But I cannot see any argument apart from attachment to tradition as an end in itself for the Church of England to remain its current position as the only church with automatic access to the governing structures of the country anbd specifically to the Upper House, for its own leaders, whilst others remain locked out or dependent on the whims of individual Prime Ministers. That is what I call unfair, and not sustainable.
One rather disappointing point in the article was Tim’s comment about Charlie Hebdo, like so many others (including other on here) he cites something he has not taken time to understand and criticises it, ignoring the context and not understanding the context in French culture or events at the time and simply assumes, not a great position for an aspiring leader of an internationalist party (especially as he admits his French is not good).
Tim says:
“Charlie Hebdo is a powerful reminder. You’ve got to remember this is a newspaper that had a picture of a leading French politician who is a black woman depicted as a monkey on the front page. My French is not good, but Je Suis Ne Pas Charlie.”
But google will tell you:
“A lot of this is centred around a cartoon that depicted Christiane Taubira, the French justice minister, as an ape. It is much-reproduced without its line of text Rassemblement Bleu Raciste (Racist Blue Rally). A crucial detail since it lampoons the Front National slogan Rassemblement Bleu Marine (Navy Blue Rally), a pun on the name of the FN leader Marine Le Pen. And the image itself was a mocking attack on a series of right-wing publications and websites bunged to the brim with disgraceful imagery of the minister. Without the snipped-off text underneath, and the knowledge of the lamentable tosh it was lampooning, of course Charlie would seem racist. It would seem racist to me too. But to strip the image of its fundamental components like this is akin to saying the incomparable Jonathan Swift was a baby-eating Nazi and that A Modest Proposal was actually a cookbook.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/if-you-don-t-speak-french-how-can-you-judge-if-charlie-hebdo-racist
All in all not a great interview.
@Mavarine
You said that “They must be on the electoral roll at the Borough Council to vote in an election” that is factually wrong as shown by the extract from the CofE form above. I used the phrase synonymous you made the absolute statement “they must”. You’re wrong…..
You said the House of Laity represented the common people of “this country” again you are wrong. Even going on your definition above, the House of Laity only represents a small proportion of the “common people” of this country. What about RC laity they are not represented, Muslims, Hindu’s etc etc plus Agnostic and Atheists. The only “common people” the House of Laity represents are Anglicans…
As I believe we are just going to have to disagree. Herewith my final thoughts:
There has to be a keen sense of the proportion of the faith and also to maintain a clear distinction between what is fundamental a conviction and as to that of a real presence that we are agreed; our controversy is as to the mode of it.
“Let me think upon thy name in the night season, and keep thy law; let the evening prayer go up unto thee, and thy pity come down unto us, O thou which givest songs in the night, which makest the outgoings of the morning and evening to praise thee, which givest thy beloved wholesome sleep.” (Bedtime Prayer by Lancelot Andrewes 1555-1626)
I am beginning to think faith and modern political thought are no longer really compatible. Christians should not seek to impose their values on others, but they, as well as Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and Buddhists have a right to follow their faith and beliefs in peace and without harassment in accordance with the Human Rights Act – which the Tories wish to abolish.
Let’s not forget Article 9 of the Human Rights Act states:
“The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion includes:
the freedom to change religion or belief;
the freedom to exercise religion or belief publicly or privately, alone or with others;
the freedom to exercise religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance; and
the right to have no religion (e.g. to be atheist or agnostic) or to have non-religious beliefs protected (e.g. philosophical beliefs such as pacifism or veganism).”
I believe no one should be punished for their beliefs, which is why in the 2015 Liberal Democrat Manifesto we called for there to be an Ambassador for Religious Freedom.
So you make claims which are proven not to be true, make arguments which you can’t back up and then run away with “let’s agree to disagree”.
How courageous.
Exactly George!
George Potter
“So you make claims which are proven not to be true, make arguments which you can’t back up and then run away with “let’s agree to disagree”.
How courageous.”
Is that necessary? Your tone says more about you than anyone else.
Judy, I’m not prepared to accept that faith and politics are incompatible yet. Given we have two candiddates for the leadership who both hold differing religious beliefs, maybe they aren’t either?
George, I disagree with Mavarine but you didn’t have to put the boot in.
Faith and politics are not incompatible. If someone wants to run on a Faith based agenda and gets elected that is fine. But if a politician runs as a Liberal they cannot allow their own faith to be barrier to other individuals practising their faith (or having none). This is also in my opinion extended to restricting others carrying out an activity just because the politician’s individual faith view would preclude it. This isn’t a criticism of Tim as I don’t think he has done so although I wasn’t happy with his abstention on Equal Marriage he has at least explained his logic.
And I say that as someone who has a deeply held faith, I just happen to believe that individuals are free to chose….
Sadly, although I have a lot of respect for Tim, particulaly for his personal integrity, this looks too much like an attempt to close off several issues in order to gain votes from every highly visble single issue group within the party, whether it is LGBT, All women shortlists, secularists or whatever. I was hoping for better.