thirdcrank wrote: ↑20 Oct 2021, 3:45pm
Thanks for that.
Re gay marriage I can see that anybody with religious faith is likely to vote in line with that rather than on party lines.
Perhaps decisions about EU citizens are more constituency-related eg if the likes of Nigel Farage attract a lot of support in the area.
I was really posing the question in respect of things like penal reform, which all parties have tended to sideline.
Farage was actually in favour of EU citizens having the right to remain.
Religious faith should have no part in political decisions.The UK is not a theocracy.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
As usual, I tried not to make a judgment but rather a hopefully factual analysis. eg A fact here is that elected representatives with religious faith are likely to vote in line with that rather than on party lines and our system - and those of other democracies - accommodate that. I don't think that that amounts to theocracy.
(I've no religious faith but I recognise that others have.)
thirdcrank wrote: ↑20 Oct 2021, 3:45pm
Thanks for that.
Re gay marriage I can see that anybody with religious faith is likely to vote in line with that rather than on party lines.
Perhaps decisions about EU citizens are more constituency-related eg if the likes of Nigel Farage attract a lot of support in the area.
I was really posing the question in respect of things like penal reform, which all parties have tended to sideline.
Farage was actually in favour of EU citizens having the right to remain.
Religious faith should have no part in political decisions.The UK is not a theocracy.
Religious faith should have no part in political decisions. But people of religious faith should not be excluded and their POV is as valid as anyone’s but should have neither more nor less value.
An interesting development here, which has the air of something likely to be rushed through. Presumably, in the interests of equality, this must be available to people of every faith and treat victims and suspected assailants alike.
An interesting development here, which has the air of something likely to be rushed through. Presumably, in the interests of equality, this must be available to people of every faith and treat victims and suspected assailants alike.
Without knowing the detail, my initial reaction is that it concerns me if one religion is being given special rights in law. Acknowledge the horrendous nature of his murder, address security issues but to start implementing lots of his wishes as some sort of "tribute" - I'm very uncertain that is a good way to run the governance of a country.
thirdcrank wrote: ↑20 Oct 2021, 3:45pm
Thanks for that.
Re gay marriage I can see that anybody with religious faith is likely to vote in line with that rather than on party lines.
Perhaps decisions about EU citizens are more constituency-related eg if the likes of Nigel Farage attract a lot of support in the area.
I was really posing the question in respect of things like penal reform, which all parties have tended to sideline.
Farage was actually in favour of EU citizens having the right to remain.
Religious faith should have no part in political decisions.The UK is not a theocracy.
Religious faith should have no part in political decisions. But people of religious faith should not be excluded and their POV is as valid as anyone’s but should have neither more nor less value.
No one said they should be excluded but they should keep those beliefs out of political decision making.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
pete75 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2021, 4:04pm
Farage was actually in favour of EU citizens having the right to remain.
Religious faith should have no part in political decisions.The UK is not a theocracy.
Religious faith should have no part in political decisions. But people of religious faith should not be excluded and their POV is as valid as anyone’s but should have neither more nor less value.
No one said they should be excluded but they should keep those beliefs out of political decision making.
Their religious faith will colour their thinking. As someone else’s humanist views or socialist views will colour theirs. If someone because of faith disagrees with abortion why should they not vote accordingly? They can be outvoted, as indeed Amess was.
Religious faith should have no part in political decisions. But people of religious faith should not be excluded and their POV is as valid as anyone’s but should have neither more nor less value.
No one said they should be excluded but they should keep those beliefs out of political decision making.
Their religious faith will colour their thinking. As someone else’s humanist views or socialist views will colour theirs. If someone because of faith disagrees with abortion why should they not vote accordingly? They can be outvoted, as indeed Amess was.
If he truly held the Christian faith he should not have been voting against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Oldjohnw wrote: ↑20 Oct 2021, 6:38pm
[Their religious faith will colour their thinking. As someone else’s humanist views or socialist views will colour theirs. If someone because of faith disagrees with abortion why should they not vote accordingly? They can be outvoted, as indeed Amess was.
Absolutely. You'd have a hard job finding MPs whose views were not in some way influenced by the religion, culture or traditions they were brought up in, or indeed some culture/beliefs they had subsequently adopted. This is out of date but according to The Tablet in the 2015 parliament:
Around 11 percent of members in the 2015 Parliament identify themselves as Catholics, slightly more than the population at large, according to research by The Tablet. The findings of the Catholic weekly newspaper indicates that 72 of 646 members are Catholic, a slight drop from the 83 that were counted in 2010. Of the 79 MPs who identify as Catholic, 38 are Labour, 33 Conservative, four are SNP, two are Liberal Democrats, and one is from the SDLP.
pete75 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2021, 6:33pm
No one said they should be excluded but they should keep those beliefs out of political decision making.
Their religious faith will colour their thinking. As someone else’s humanist views or socialist views will colour theirs. If someone because of faith disagrees with abortion why should they not vote accordingly? They can be outvoted, as indeed Amess was.
If he truly held the Christian faith he should not have been voting against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability.
Not everyone of faith is against the poor, or in support of capital punishment. Or opposes abortion or LBGT equality. It appears you are now arguing, not that he should have views but he had the wrong kind of Christianity. I am sure you will realise that given my other posts, whilst I have faith, I oppose almost everything that Amess stood for except, perhaps, some of his views of women in prison that I have just learned about, and his opposition to fox hunting. My faith has informed my views of prisoner rehabilitation. Should I have not been involved in prison reform because I am a person of faith?
It show that we are all very complex and cannot always be simply pigeonholed.
Their religious faith will colour their thinking. As someone else’s humanist views or socialist views will colour theirs. If someone because of faith disagrees with abortion why should they not vote accordingly? They can be outvoted, as indeed Amess was.
If he truly held the Christian faith he should not have been voting against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability.
Not everyone of faith is against the poor, or in support of capital punishment. Or opposes abortion or LBGT equality. It appears you are now arguing, not that he should have views but he had the wrong kind of Christianity. I am sure you will realise that given my other posts, whilst I have faith, I oppose almost everything that Amess stood for except, perhaps, some of his views of women in prison that I have just learned about, and his opposition to fox hunting. My faith has informed my views of prisoner rehabilitation. Should I have not been involved in prison reform because I am a person of faith?
It show that we are all very complex and cannot always be simply pigeonholed.
I don't think there is any branch of Christianity that is not in favour of helping the poor. It's a central tenet of Christ's teachings. I;m not arguing that he had the wrong kind of Christianity but that he had a selective kind.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
An interesting development here, which has the air of something likely to be rushed through. Presumably, in the interests of equality, this must be available to people of every faith and treat victims and suspected assailants alike.
At the cost of allowing the defence to argue in court that any forensic evidence from the scene has been potentially contaminated.