I have attracetd a couple of comments about a site link on the right hand side that links to a website that claims to represent a Christian view of the Lib Dems. As I have said many times on this blog ultimately it is up to others to decide the truth or not of what is written here and the same is true of the site this blog links to.
I am a committed Christian. I have been attending church since I was seven and will have been attending the same church in Kingston for twenty five years this year. I am probably of the more conservative Anglo Catholic wing rather than the evangelical wing, so in religion I am not a hardliner. However, there are many reasons why the Lib Dems need to be exposed for the policies they squirrel away and never seek to speak about. I have already had some of these on my blog before such as the Lib Dem policy of allowing 16 year olds to buy pornography and making it easier to set up sex shops, as reported by the BBC.
So ultimately it is for voters to judge whether the document on the site mentioned has sourced what it says directly to Lib Dem policy papers and quotes or it has not.
26 comments:
I'm a committed Atheist/Humanist and I hate the bloody, sanctimonious, two-faced, holier-than-thou Lib Dems too!
Kevin,
This comment is a cop-out. Either you agree with the message of the site or you don't - which is it?
I think the reason this site is wrong is because it tries to suggest that the LibDems are "nasty" and un-Christian, just because some of their policies don't happen to agree with the views of the site's author. In fact, very few of the LibDem policies cited there are un-Christian per se. Take church schools for example. Is it really un-Christian to say that children should be educated in a secular environment free from proselytising, and left to make up their own minds on religious matters when they are old enough to decide for themselves? Why is promoting freedom of conscience considered un-Christian by church school advocates? There is a world difference between being un-Christian and simply not agreeing with the self-proclaimed "Christian" political lobby.
Many aspects of this site are very un-Christian and even downright sinister. I particularly object to the section entitled "parental authority". This site seems very concerned with the "rights" of parents, but what about children's rights? Should some children be allowed access to sex education, whilst others are denied it because their parents want to force their religious views on them? That hardly seems fair to me. Surely all children should have equal access to this important resource (the extent of that access being a matter of national policy), but this so-called Christian seems to think they should be discriminated against because of the family they were born to. Not very Christian in my view.
Kevin,
I'm unsure...do you agree with the points put forward in the link 'a Christian view of the Lib Demms'? It's not clear.
Do you, for instance, think that the tax payer should foot the bill for faith based schools? If so, how do you justify that point of view?
Do you agree that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children? If so, why?
Do you agree that gay couples should continue to be denied the right to formalise their relationship in the same way as a straight couple can? If you do agree, why?
Are you pro-life or pro-choice?
The age of consent is 16. Do you see any logic in forbidding 16 year olds to buy pornography?
I could go on but the point I'm trying to get across is that we are all entitled to our religious point of view but we should not seek to impose our particular morality on others. Our own state religion was not imposed by any kind of democratic process, and indeed, the Christian Church, in cahoots with 'the state', spent centuries persecuting and murdering those who chose to worship their native deities. We have come along way since then yet the annual Witchfest still attracts Christian demonstrators eager to condemn that which they don't understand. It's time for public to have their say about whether a 'state religion' is relevannt or necessary in the 21st century....a referendum perhaps?
I respect your commitment to the Christian Church but having a link to such narrow-minded website on your blog does you no credit.
For the record I'm not a Lib Dem supporter!
God doesn't play politics.
You're right, He doesn't, and nor does She.
Come on Kevin- you have to give an answer on your personal beliefs sometime.
21. And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly:
22. Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?
23. But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?
24. Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's.
25. And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
26. And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.
Luke 20:21-26
Similarly, for those who follow a traditional path, the deities give life and are life.
The rest is down to us.
I am not sure I understand your question here. Do I agree with Lib Dem policy on a number of these issues; I do not. Do I agree with this site being allowed to put a case that is sourced and backed up by Lib Dem policy papers and quoted from their MP’s; then of course I do. Do I believe that those who read it have a right to make their own judgements; then I do? The site I have linked to is responding to Lib Dem policy and I see nothing wrong in a view point being given and others making their judgements as to whether they approve or not. In fact there are criticisms of the Conservative position on some of these issues in the document and I am liberty to have links to whosoever I wish whether I agree with them in totality or not. It is a little like suggesting that because the Conservative party has a link to an online bookshop that it must be a supporter of everything the bookshop sells.
As to your specific questions.
The tax payer already pays for faith schools. C of E and Catholic make up the majority of them. These schools do not follow a process of indoctrination in a specific faith and in fact in my own children’s primary school, which is C of E, they have those of other faiths who may or may not participate in an act of daily worship. Most church schools go out of their way to teach about other faiths.
The history is of course that the churches were running schools long before the Education Act of 1870 and in fact the 1870 act came as a direct response to the 1867 Reform Act when politicians of the time thought that having widened the franchise they had better now “educate their new masters”. It has been said that it would be impossible for the state to stop church education as it could never afford to buy out the Churches from the assets that they own in the schools.
The real issue is however one of choice. It has been overwhelmingly proven that parents would rather select a church school than a non church school. I cannot tell you exactly why that is but I would presume this is to do with the belief of parents that a Church school would have a better chance of teaching moral beliefs that they believe their child should have. I have no knowledge if that is the case but that appears to be what they believe. Arguably one of the real problems of Kingston’s Education system is that whilst there is definitely choice at primary level at secondary that is removed through the lack of a C of E secondary school.
Now to the gay questions. I have a number of gay friends and some of them, rightly, are long term couples. In all the significant number of years that I have known them never has the issue of “marriage” arisen, nor has there been an issue about adoption of children.
But let me address them individually. What my gay friends do say is that they do wish to see some form of legal status attached to their relationship. This is particularly relevant to inheritance rights and the rights to visit your partner in hospital or have a conversation with their Doctor over issues of health. All of these are legal issues, which should rightly be addressed. They should also be addressed for long term couples who are not in a sexual relationship, such as parents and siblings who live together etc. For me there is no direct relationship in legal status and the issue of a religious marriage and to try and confuse the two is misleading.
On the issue of gay couples adopting we may have some difference. Firstly my problem is that the assumption you make is that this is about the rights of the gay couples and you ignore the rights of the child. There is plenty of evidence that two parents are the best environment for a child to be raised in. This is particularly true of boys who need a father figure to look up to and model their own behaviour on. So speaking from a non-religious point of view I believe the judgement as to whether a gay couple can raise a child would need to be backed by strong evidence that it would be in the best interests of the child that the adoption took place. So, I do not say ‘no’ at any cost but I do say we need to understand more about the effect on children before we allow it.
Pro life or pro choice?
Pro choice but again with caveats. I believe that the current date at which terminations can be allowed should be reduced. Science has changed and moved on and I think there is a real chance that we are currently destroying sentient human beings that could exist outside of the womb.
The issue of buying pornography at 16. Sorry just think this is wrong and there is absolutely no link between the age of consent and pornography. Are we now going to have another quango that will rate hard core pornography as opposed to soft porn and what can be bought by a child. What about some of the more dangerous material? Have you ever thought that all this will do will create an even bigger playground problem with pornography getting into the hands of even younger children. You should remember that there is another Lib Dem proposal that says that 16 year olds should be able to participate in pornography!!
The issue of a state religion is a red herring. I am not sure it matters a jot to the C of E that they are a state religion and I see nothing that would impinge upon our daily lives were there to be no state religion. It is all too easy to focus on what you perceive to be the ill that the Church does when in fact for a very long time it has been working in a much more effective and sustained way than any Government has done to cure the so called “five evils” identified by Beveridge. Instead of attacking the Church with their silly policies the Lib Dems should be finding ways of working with them to bring about a real sea change in the delivery of public services, something I am sure will be an agenda that both the major parties will be pursuing as they come to rely more on the voluntary sector to deliver health and education, amongst other services.
As I have said all along it is for others to judge the findings of the linked website. If it was full of unsourced accusations then I would remove the link, but it is not. If people think it ridiculous than they will make that judgement.
On the twin issues of inheritance rights and "health information rights" for unmarried couples/relatives, both gay and otherwise: can you clarify your views on this? Are you saying that the law should be changed, and, if so, to what?
The law as it currently stands says that doctors CAN discuss health issues with unmarried partners, but only with the specific consent of the patient. Similarly, unmarried couples CAN already inherit from each other, but only if they have specifically willed their property to the other.
Surely this is the only acceptable position for the law to take? The property being inherited and the health records belong to the deceased/patient, not to their partner. The current system respects that by only allowing the partner access/inheritance with the specific consent of the deceased/patient. If you change the law to allow automatic access, you run the risk that the partner will gain access to these things against the wishes of the other. If you change the law to allow unmarried partners or co-habiting relatives such access, how will you define "unmarried partners" etc? I mean, how long will they have to have been together and/or lived together to acquire these rights? I might ask my girlfriend to move in with me some day, but that doesn't mean I want her accessing my health records! If I did, I would say so to my GP and have my file noted accordingly. I would consider it a massive infringement of my civil liberties if the law just gave her this access.
Please clarify your position, because I feel that you have treated this issue in the above post in a rather off-hand way - you seem to have called for a change in the law, but without really thinking about the rights and liberties this would affect.
I think you make a fair point.
The inheritance issue is actually a tax one. What I was trying to say is that as the law stands were I to die my wife would inherit my entire estate, even if there were no will. (Although I accept that not having a will causes enormous complications) The advantage that a married couple get over an unmarried couple is that there is no payment of inheritance tax on the estate if the will bequeaths to the partner. It is that aspect that I believe needed to be clarified for those in long-term relationships or those where the form of their relationship is long term but not sexual. (The mother and daughter scenario) I am aware that Government has done some work on this through the Civil Partnerships Bill and that this is a complex area to establish who should have those rights and how you prevent abuse. The Conservatives in Parliament had a free vote on this and I would have agreed with it. It was however a shame that the Lib Dems chose to oppose an amendment that granted the same rights to non sexual partnerships as to gay and lesbian partnerships. By not allowing this aspect you cure one inequality but create another.
On the health records issue. I will use myself again in the what if..... I were to fall into a coma from which Doctors said there was no likelihood of recovery. The decision to turn off the life support belongs to my next of kin; legally this is my wife. For couples in a long term relationship that right does not lay with the partner. In fact this is not really an issue of whether someone is gay or not! I accept that I may have misled slightly on the issue of medical records although I hear that it is rather more difficult than you say to get access to a partners records. I again accept that some tidying of this aspect of the law has been done with the recent bill.
I think the point I was trying to make was that there needs to be some form of legal contract that grants a couple (gay or not!) the rights that marriage brings should they decide to enter into it. It has been done for those in a sexual relationship but sex should not be the sole qualifier for rights. I would emphasis here that the term "marriage" would probably be the wrong term in such a scenario as it gives it religious overtones, which it clearly is not.
Thank you, that clarifies things. You are quite right on the tax issue, and I am glad to see that you support this contract thing for non-sexual couples as well as sexual ones.
I am amazed the LibDems want to discriminate against co-habiting relatives like that! What if you have two sisters living together - would they have to admit to a lesbian relationship in order to get the legal recognition? And if they did, would it count or would it be incest? These are crazy scenarios, and I think the only way to avoid them, as you say, is to allow non-sexual couples to enter into these contracts too.
Two questions:
1) Regardless of the content of the so-called 'Christian Lib Dem' website do you not think it is an extremely cheap and dirty political trick to pass it off as an 'official' Lib Dem page? Isn't it just the sort of tactics the Lib Dems were accused of in Tower Hamlets?
2) Do you know at what age people can participate in pornography at the moment? I seem to recall Sam Fox being just 16 when she appeared on page 3 of the (then) Tory supporting Sun. Are you calling for an increase in the age of participating in porn (and therefore I guess the age of consent) as you seem to attacking the Lib Dems for something ('porn at 16') which is already the law and wasn't changed in the 18 ears you had the opportunity?
You may be able to have sex and get married at age 16, but you still can't get into a 18 certificate movie.
You make my point.
Funny how Mr Davis can't be bothered to reply - maybe he's embarrassed - or has all that time he spends surfing the net numbed his faculties?
No one at 16 should be able to buy pornography because there are too many types of pornography that are not appropriate to school children. As for allowing 16 year olds to participate in porn it is so ludicrous I hardly know where to begin. Schools have enough problems with discipline and we have seen a 22% rise in sexual crimes in London alone this past year. Films of bestiality or brutal sex acts hardly encourage a level of bahviour that a sixteen year old should be encouraged in. In fact what you are arguing for is a complete scrapping of the film certification system. There is already a proven link between violence and violent games and films. I do not believe we need to go down the same road with pornography.
As for whether the Christian website should mimic the Lib Dem website well that is not a matter for me. I do not own that site. I link with it because it expresses a distinct point of view which in a free society they are at liberty to express. If the Liberal party have problems with it then they are quite capable of pursuing the owners through the courts.
Thank you for your reply - shame you didn't answer either question.
But from your 'politicians' answer I deduce:
1) You think faking another political party's material is an acceptable form of debate.
2) You want to increase the age of consent to 18. If not how can you stop 16 year olds appearing in porn?
Actually, although he waffled a bit he did answer the question. I live in Kingston and Surbiton and get shoved through my door a paper called "the voice" which purports to be a local community newspaper full of stories our apprently dogooding MP and the cronies he controls on the council. It's only when you look at the small print at the foot of the page that you realise this is a Lib Dem propaganda sheet. As the Lib Dems themselves seem prepared to attempt to hoodwink the public then they should not be surprised when somebody does it to them.
As for the age of consent of course Kevin does not say it should be raised. You are just being provocative and as you are clearly a Lib Dem supporter I do hope you will be urging your party to give your policy of allowing 16 year olds to participate in whatever depraved porno film some paedophile wishes the maximum publicity. Perhaps it could go in your newspaper with Ed Davey saying what a great thing this would be, maybe you could get some 16 year olds in the photo as well saying how it would change their lives!!!! Don't think we will be seeing it somehow so clearly we need websites like the one discussed so these nutty policies can be exposed.
I am sad to see that Kevin 'Tory Boy' Davis has to post anonymously when discussing issues of teenage sex.
I'm not surprised you link paedophiles to the debate about 16 year olds having sex - it's only because you're too scared of answering the question.
So I'll repeat it...
Does Tory Boy want to raise the age of consent from 16? If not will he condemn Rupert Murdoch and the Sun newspaper for allowing 16 year olds (such as Sam Fox) from bearing their breasts on page three. Will you condemn new found Tory supporting media mogul and owner of the Daily Express - Richard Desmond - from publishing magazines such as 'Barely legal', 'Asian Housewives' and 'John Major ate my Curry'.
Or is it the case of no change at planet Tory where you don't care who's money you take as long as there's pots of it?
No I do not want the age of consent raised. Happy where it is but you are the one confuses the age of consent wih pornography when there is actually no connection.
Page 3 porn? You have led a very sheltered life.
Bit rich of the Lib Dems to complain about where the Conservative party gets their money when the Lib Dems have secured funds from:
Independent news and media
McDonalds Hamburgers
British Telecom
Unison
Alpha Healthcare
Canary Warf Ltd.
La Senza
People in glass houses..........
Well Tory Boy I'm glad you think it's OK for 16 year olds to participate in sexual activity - including being filmed if they wish.
As for a sheltered life - you're probably right I clearly haven't spent as much time as you crouched over my computer screen logged on the internet!
I think you should pay more attention to what I say. I did not say that I thought they should participate in pornography.
Why are you so obsessed about the time I spend online? Only takes about five minutes to write this blog.
I am more concerned for you that you are writing comments at such a late hour.
Now let me see Tory Boy...
How does this work again. You say it's OK for consenting 16 year olds to have sex, but not for them to participate in pornography?
Am I right?
So behind closed doors is OK but in front of a camera (or in a club) is a no-no?
So Sam Fox on page 3 - banned?
How do you enforce this rule? Do we have a 'sex police' - you can have sex - but we'll confiscate your cameras?
Either you have an age of consent or we don't 16 or something else?
It seems rather pointless continuing this as you seem to be determined to try and misinterpret what I am saying or just not reading what I have written.
I am happy for the law to remain as it currently is in relation to the age of consent and to Pornography.
As one of the anonymous contributors said if your party wishes to publicise its own policy on 16 year old porn then I look forward to reading about it in leaflets.
At last - you've said it!
You don't have a problem with 16 year olds participating in pornography.
So why tar other parties with lies and innuendo? It's cheap - exactly like the dummy 'Christian' site you promote from here.
Don't bother replying Kevin the man is clearly lacking a brain.
Kevin is happy with the law as it stands. It means that 16 year olds cannot participate in porn.
Lies and innuendos? No, it's called Lib Dem policy. I am a Christian Lib Dem and I am embarassed by it, so should you be. I knew nothing about it until going to the BBC article that is referenced on this diary.
Post a Comment