miss_s_b: (Default)
[personal profile] miss_s_b
... which has remained screened and will continue to remain screened for not sticking to my comments policy. I am going to pull out one point from it, however.

Anonymouse says: It just won't wash to say - or to imply - that you think it's morally wrong for homosexuals to express their love physically, but that you're still a liberal because you support their legal rights.

No, no, no.

That's EXACTLY what liberalism is. Liberalism is legislating for the rights of people to do things that you personally disapprove of, because as long as they aren't harming anybody else it's not within your gift to intervene. If you can't grasp something this basic about Liberalism, then I'm sure everyone else can understand why I'm not unscreening the rest of your comment.

Liberalism isn't about purity of thought, about everyone being in agreement, about Borg-like adherence to conformity. That's the antithesis of liberalism. Liberalism is about defending the rights of people to do things you detest, because even though you detest their actions, they are not hurting anyone else.

I think people who drink mass-produced lager are the scum of the earth and morally reprehensible. Doesn't mean I'm going to do anything to stop them doing it. Doesn't mean I didn't live with one for ten years. I think people who prefer cats to dogs are utterly wrong. I'm deeply in love with one of those people right now, as I type.

And yes, the example you gave in your comment, dear anonymous, was intentionally far more inflammatory than those I give above. I know people who would agree with the view in your example, as well. And yes, I think those people can be liberals, so long as they actively agitate for the rights of people to do the thing they disapprove of.

Now don't get me wrong here, I think the very concept of sin is utter bollocks. I'm not going to defend the view that homosexual sex is a sin, because I don't agree with the concept of sin, and even if I did, I wouldn't think that any number of people of any gender enjoying themselves sexually would be a sin anyway. But I absolutely am going to defend the person who expresses that view from some sort of permissiveness thought-purity test. The question is not what Tim Farron (or anybody else's views) are of morality. I don't care if my leader thinks it's morally indefensible to eat cheese on a Tuesday, so long as he defends my right to eat cheese on a Tuesday.

Tim Farron's voting record is there for all to see, and the fact that the mainstream press are trying to misrepresent it to bash his private religious convictions is something that I, personally, find far more reprehensible than him having religion.

I'll say it again:
I'm an atheist.
I'm bisexual.
I'm polyamorous.
I voted for Tim Farron in the leadership contest, and I do not regret it.

Date: Tuesday, July 21st, 2015 12:02 pm (UTC)
matgb: (Caffeine)
From: [personal profile] matgb
scum of the earth and morally represhensible

You shoul;d've sobered up by now darling ;-)

Date: Tuesday, July 21st, 2015 12:07 pm (UTC)
hollymath: (Default)
From: [personal profile] hollymath
*had a cheese sandwich for lunch this Tuesday*

Yay liberalism.

Date: Tuesday, July 21st, 2015 12:25 pm (UTC)
hollymath: (Default)
From: [personal profile] hollymath
Welsh cheese with mustard seeds in. It was delicious...but a bit mustardy for my sensitive mouth-parts.

Date: Tuesday, July 21st, 2015 12:40 pm (UTC)
hollymath: (Default)
From: [personal profile] hollymath
Probably. I couldn't read the label; I just had it explained to me. :) It was nice but I think possibly in smaller quantities.

From Andrew (DW's OpenID thing is borked)

Date: Tuesday, July 21st, 2015 12:34 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
There's also the interesting elision here of "sin" and "morally wrong". Note that Tim *has* said he doesn't disapprove of same-sex acts, even as he's not said whether or not he thinks it's a sin:
" can you reassure gay Liberal Democrat members that you do not disapprove of their sexual practices?

TIM FARRON: Yes, of course I can. "
(From the Murnaghan interview.

This suggests that Tim differentiates between "sin" and "things that are wrong". I *suspect*, though I've not asked him, that he takes the attitude of many religious believers, that there are things that believers should not do for ritual purity reasons but that what is "wrong" is a consequentialist question. Orthodox Jews, for example, believe that Jewish people shouldn't break any of the 600-odd Mosaic laws, but Gentiles only have to obey the seven Noachide laws.

I suspect that Tim would give similarly ambiguous answers about, say, masturbation or shopping on Sunday. I also suspect that he wouldn't think anyone who did those things a bad person.

Re: From Andrew (DW's OpenID thing is borked)

Date: Tuesday, July 21st, 2015 01:04 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)

Re: From Andrew (DW's OpenID thing is borked)

Date: Tuesday, July 21st, 2015 01:40 pm (UTC)
pseudomonas: (harp)
From: [personal profile] pseudomonas
IME most observant Jews don't even think that non-observant Jews are thereby bad people. As in, they might think that ideally they'd refrain from writing on the Sabbath or eating cheeseburgers, but they don't feel that these activities are *immoral* in the same way that say, theft is.
Edited Date: Tuesday, July 21st, 2015 01:41 pm (UTC)

Re: From Andrew (DW's OpenID thing is borked)

Date: Tuesday, July 21st, 2015 03:37 pm (UTC)
sashajwolf: text: "So I just eat this and I can breathe underwater?" (breathe underwater)
From: [personal profile] sashajwolf
I have the same suspicion, fwiw. The people I've seen articulating that position most clearly have been Orthodox Jews, but it's not unknown in Christian circles and makes a lot of sense. And, well, as a Pagan I'm well acquainted with the notion of gods having idiosyncratic and inconvenient ritual requirements (see for instance the many instances of geasa in the Irish myths), so I have no quarrel with any Abrahamic believer who is content to take that view of it.

Re: From Andrew (DW's OpenID thing is borked)

Date: Tuesday, July 21st, 2015 03:49 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
The people I've seen articulating that position most clearly have been Orthodox Jews, but it's not unknown in Christian circles and makes a lot of sense

It's less easy to square with Christian theology, though. The Jewish God is specifically the God of the Jews; He doesn't much care what other people get up to, but He very much cares what Jews do.

Whereas the Christian God is supposed to be the God of everybody, whether they acknowledge Him or not. The things Christians aren't supposed to do aren't loyalty tests, things you're not supposed to do because you're a Christian; they're things you shouldn't be doing anyway.

This ties in with the whole point of Christianity being about salvation and regeneration; if sin is only a problem for christians, then why would non-Christians need to be saved from sin? It wouldn't be a problem for them to sin. But the whole thrust of Christianity, from its earliest written traces in Pauls's letters in the mid-first-century, has been 'You were sinners, in a bad state, before you became followers of Christ; now you are saved from sin because you follow Christ; go likewise and save others.'

Which doesn't really make sense from a point of view of 'sin is just a ritual requirement for Christians, not something non-Christians should worry about'.

Re: From Andrew (DW's OpenID thing is borked)

Date: Tuesday, July 21st, 2015 04:14 pm (UTC)
sashajwolf: books with text "warning: overeducated and not afraid to use it" (overeducated)
From: [personal profile] sashajwolf
Sorry, not going to debate theology with an anon whose identity I don't know. Especially Pauline theology, which is a thing of great subtlety and complexity about which I still feel quite strongly, despite not being a Christian any more.

About This Blog

Hello! I'm Jennie (known to many as SB, due to my handle, or The Yorksher Gob because of my old blog's name). This blog is my public face; click here for a list of all the other places you can find me on t'interwebs.

Charities I support:

The Survivors' Trust - donate here
DogsTrust - donate here
CAB - donate here


Creative Commons License
Miss SB by Jennie Rigg is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Based on a work at miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org.

Please note that any and all opinions expressed in this blog are subject to random change at whim my own, and not necessarily representative of my party, or any of the constituent parts thereof (except myself, obviously).

Printed by Dreamwidth Studios, Maryland USA. Promoted by Jennie Rigg, of Brighouse, West Yorkshire.

Most Popular Tags