Politics and personal beliefs

[iSteve]

Originally Posted by me283

It's ironic, that some people on here are saying that you shouldn't confuse her own opinions and beliefs with her ability in politics... yet the same people kept ripping into Nick Griffin's beliefs and opinions, using them as a reason for him being dangerous as a politician!

I knew this was coming, but I don't see any contradiction here.

The BNP are 'institutionally racist'. There is evidence of criminality throughout the organisation, and they promote racism. Their ideology is fascism. This is not merely Nick Griffin's 'opinion' - it's the opinion of a majority of that party, they activate stir racist hostilities, the party is dedicated to it.

Labour is not, and there is not a shred of evidence she has ever condemned, injured, or sought to harm the interests of anyone who is gay.

If she was condoning violence, or promoted racism, she would be unsuitable for high office.

I have every confidence she would not have been given this post if there was any issue of her acting in a discriminatory way against gays. If her views ever interfere with her office or the performance of her duties, then she would hae to resign.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Point taken but we are talking about sin here. She presumably believes that homosexuals are going to hell for acting against Gods wishes.

I don't see why she would condemn homosexuality seeing as the bible doesn't say it's a sin.

I can't see where her beliefs could be a problem for her position.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Point taken but we are talking about sin here. She presumably believes that homosexuals are going to hell for acting against Gods wishes. That has to translate into a less than tolerant attitude on her part.....

Not if she takes the whole Bible seriously ... it also says that God says 'vengeance is mine, I will repay' ... I.E. it is not Ruth Kelly's job to persecute someone for living a lifestyle God forbids.

Incidentally, the Press likes to concentrate on homosexuality because it makes good headlines. In all probability RK would personally disapprove of unmarried heterosexual sex as well. There are lots of things that are considered normal in modern life that form no part of a Biblical lifestyle. Let's not forget it's the media, not Kelly, that is making an issue of this right now.

Originally Posted by me283

It's ironic, that some people on here are saying that you shouldn't confuse her own opinions and beliefs with her ability in politics... yet the same people kept ripping into Nick Griffin's beliefs and opinions, using them as a reason for him being dangerous as a politician!

Sorry, On the face of it it seems like what your are saying but there is a difference. As iSteve says there is a difference. First of all she is religious and has not said homosexuality is a sin. Also she knows not to say this because she is in high office.

Nick Griffin has repeatly said in BNP speechs and publications that the jews made up the holocaust. That Islam is a wicked faith that has spread itself though rape.

There is a difference in the seriousness of the comments. The fact that one has said them and the other is presumed to feel that way. And the medium in which such comments have been issued. I.E She hasnt expressed any of her personal views in labour newsletters or speechs.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Not if she takes the whole Bible seriously ... it also says that God says 'vengeance is mine, I will repay' ... I.E. it is not Ruth Kelly's job to persecute someone for living a lifestyle God forbids.

Incidentally, the Press likes to concentrate on homosexuality because it makes good headlines. In all probability RK would personally disapprove of unmarried heterosexual sex as well. There are lots of things that are considered normal in modern life that form no part of a Biblical lifestyle. Let's not forget it's the media, not Kelly, that is making an issue of this right now.

It all depends on what her own personal beliefs are.
There are many christians who don't think homosexuality is a sin, there are many who believe it is.
Similarly with premarital sex, or non-reproductive copulation.
The bible may say that it is down to god to dish out punishment, but that didn't stop the inquesition, who were extremely devout (for their own definition of christianity).

This goverment has a history of poor minister selection.
Wasn't one of the previous children's ministers found to have been incompetent while running a childrens' home or something?

OK let me have a go at this.

I'm a supply teacher, you all know this.I'm an athiest as well.

So when I teach an Religious Studies lesson is it possible for me to do so?Even though I do not believe in God?

Of course it is.I can put my athiesm to one side and teach the subject very well indeed.I need never even tell the students I'm an athiest though if they ask I will be truthful about it.I pride myself on being a teacher and that I can try and teach anything provided I have the knowledge base to do so.

So can Kelly be fair towards homosexuals whilst having severe doubts about their predilections? I think so.

[me283]

Originally Posted by iSteve

I knew this was coming, but I don't see any contradiction here.

The BNP are 'institutionally racist'. There is evidence of criminality throughout the organisation, and they promote racism. Their ideology is fascism. This is not merely Nick Griffin's 'opinion' - it's the opinion of a majority of that party, they activate stir racist hostilities, the party is dedicated to it.

Labour is not, and there is not a shred of evidence she has ever condemned, injured, or sought to harm the interests of anyone who is gay.

If she was condoning violence, or promoted racism, she would be unsuitable for high office.

I have every confidence she would not have been given this post if there was any issue of her acting in a discriminatory way against gays. If her views ever interfere with her office or the performance of her duties, then she would hae to resign.

Ha ha!!! I thought you were talking sense up to that point! This is Tony's bunch we're talking about here...?