| Ann Widdecombe 16:51 - Jul 21 with 14730 views | GlasgowBlue |
Hit over the head with a hammer 21 times.
Regardless of one's views of her religious beliefs, no one deserves to go like that. Sickening. |  |
| |  |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:00 - Jul 23 with 1514 views | balcombeblue |
| Ann Widdecombe on 13:49 - Jul 23 by itfcjoe |
Iain Dale was very interesting on this, and was a good friend of Anne Widdecombe's. He said she also had a lot of other gay friends like Andrew Pierce and was close and caring with them - and at one point had gone down to a local constituency and dragged them over the coals for basically stopping someone standing because they were gay.
He said he had a really difficult decision when he was having his civil partnership, because needed to invite her but knew she wouldn't come, awkwardly she accidentally sent him some correspondence she'd had with the PA to let him down gently after having said she was busy...!
But his main point is that how can someone who had constantly and consistently shown great care and love to gay people be considered homophobic, just because she didn't think they should be married and were sinful. Which is the same argument people were claiming about Sam Morsy on here - judge him on what he does, not whether he'll wear a rainbow armband |
I made this point on the thread a bit further up but got some push back. The world is not as clear cut as some want to believe it is. I just think that labels are really easy to throw around. If you are not in favour of large scale migration then you're racist, if you don't want to pay more tax you have no compassion and so on. Yet it's often the self-same people who display venom at others. |  | | |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:02 - Jul 23 with 1501 views | leitrimblue |
| Ann Widdecombe on 18:52 - Jul 22 by GlasgowBlue |
It's not the biggest religion in the world. There are 2 billion Muslims globally.
Unfortunately, some Roman Catholics and some Muslims (and members of other religions) interpret the text of their Holy books literally when it comes to same sex relationships. Even though those texts were written when the world was a less tolerant place.
We recently had a captain of our football club refuse to embrace the Rainbow laces campaign citing his religious beliefs. I don't believe Morsy was a vile bigot with hatred in his heart. I believe that his interpretation of his religion was intolerant and discriminatory. Just as AW's were. |
Though if yer think about it the Bible was wrote during a period when what we would consider to be homosexuality was a pretty normal aspect of the culture of the time.
( beginning with the old testament, roughly composed around a 1000 years BC, to the new testament probably composed around the 1st -2nd century AD. So covering the time of the Roman Empire, The ending of the Greek Empire and Iron Age Celtic Europe).
Homosexuality appears to be common amongst all of the dominant cultures of the time. (Look at the Greek Symposium or the sacred band off Thebes or Roman 'anthropologist' accounts of Celtic tribes of wife sharing and men sleeping with men). Generally, prior to the existence of Christian 'morals' sexuality ( and many other aspects of normal for the time culture) would seem absolutely wild to us modern humans. Orgies appear quite normal in many of these societies. Many Iron Age 'Celtic' groups engage in wife sharing ( especially amongst brothers) and many of the festivals ( Solstice and Equinox now) appear to have been drug and alcohol fueled celebrations of fertility as much as anything else
If yer look at it from a anthropological kinda way the Bible is literally setting out and the writing down on paper of a moral code. In many ways it's the writing down and following of this code by future generations that 'others' homosexuality. Rather then being wrote at a time when the world was a less tolerant place i would suggest it was the existence of and the following of the biblical text that made the world a less tolerant place |  | | |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:04 - Jul 23 with 1485 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Ann Widdecombe on 13:49 - Jul 23 by itfcjoe |
Iain Dale was very interesting on this, and was a good friend of Anne Widdecombe's. He said she also had a lot of other gay friends like Andrew Pierce and was close and caring with them - and at one point had gone down to a local constituency and dragged them over the coals for basically stopping someone standing because they were gay.
He said he had a really difficult decision when he was having his civil partnership, because needed to invite her but knew she wouldn't come, awkwardly she accidentally sent him some correspondence she'd had with the PA to let him down gently after having said she was busy...!
But his main point is that how can someone who had constantly and consistently shown great care and love to gay people be considered homophobic, just because she didn't think they should be married and were sinful. Which is the same argument people were claiming about Sam Morsy on here - judge him on what he does, not whether he'll wear a rainbow armband |
Well firstly, she didn't just think they shouldn't be married. She thought it was an illness they could be cured of with medical treatment. That's a horrible and damaging view to be spouted by a public figure.
Also, the rest of it reads a bit like the whole "some of my friends are black" trope. It's not really that surprising she was nicer to people close to her. My dad was against "immigrants getting benefits" but when my work partner, a Bulgarian, wasn't sure if she should claim (even though she qualified) he said she should totally go for it. It was different because he knew her.
That's the thing about intolerance, it can soften if you actually meet and engage with the people you're intolerant of. Nevertheless, her being nice to people close to her doesn't expunge the public stuff she spouted about people she didn't know. |  |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:06 - Jul 23 with 1472 views | MattinLondon |
| Ann Widdecombe on 13:49 - Jul 23 by itfcjoe |
Iain Dale was very interesting on this, and was a good friend of Anne Widdecombe's. He said she also had a lot of other gay friends like Andrew Pierce and was close and caring with them - and at one point had gone down to a local constituency and dragged them over the coals for basically stopping someone standing because they were gay.
He said he had a really difficult decision when he was having his civil partnership, because needed to invite her but knew she wouldn't come, awkwardly she accidentally sent him some correspondence she'd had with the PA to let him down gently after having said she was busy...!
But his main point is that how can someone who had constantly and consistently shown great care and love to gay people be considered homophobic, just because she didn't think they should be married and were sinful. Which is the same argument people were claiming about Sam Morsy on here - judge him on what he does, not whether he'll wear a rainbow armband |
Someone either believes in equality or they do not - they might well not have issues with someone on an individual basis but that doesn’t take away from the fact that she was homophobic and campaigned against such equality.
Someone might well not have issues with black or white people etc but if they refuse to go to a wedding because they do not agree with two people from different getting hitched together - that will still make that person racist.
Same with Morsy - the reasons why very few footballers have come out as gay is because respected professionals like SM make excuses for not highlighting equality. |  | | |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:12 - Jul 23 with 1425 views | eirannach_gorm |
| Ann Widdecombe on 10:28 - Jul 23 by positivity |
fair enough.
much repression and state control of religion though to fit his apalling political views , could argue that nazism was the religion? |
The Catholic Church has a chequered history regarding the Nazi regime. They initially were actively anti Nazi but as the threats to the church increased they moved to appeasement. The Reichskonkordat is a treaty signed on July 20, 1933, between the Vatican and Nazi Germany. It guaranteed the rights of the Catholic Church in Germany—such as freedom of religion, protection of religious orders, and control over religious education in exchange for the Church removing itself from the political sphere. Like all appeasement, the Nazis immediately broke the deal. Pope Pius XII’s public silence regarding the Holocaust remains highly questioned while lower rank Vatican officials notably assisted the escape of Jews. |  | | |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:17 - Jul 23 with 1397 views | positivity |
| Ann Widdecombe on 13:12 - Jul 23 by redrickstuhaart |
Yes they do. They just outgrew actually doing what their books say. |
so you're saying they did back in the dim and distant past, but they don't now...
that's fair | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:20 - Jul 23 with 1372 views | positivity |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:12 - Jul 23 by eirannach_gorm |
The Catholic Church has a chequered history regarding the Nazi regime. They initially were actively anti Nazi but as the threats to the church increased they moved to appeasement. The Reichskonkordat is a treaty signed on July 20, 1933, between the Vatican and Nazi Germany. It guaranteed the rights of the Catholic Church in Germany—such as freedom of religion, protection of religious orders, and control over religious education in exchange for the Church removing itself from the political sphere. Like all appeasement, the Nazis immediately broke the deal. Pope Pius XII’s public silence regarding the Holocaust remains highly questioned while lower rank Vatican officials notably assisted the escape of Jews. |
yes, the last couple of pope's have at least been a bit stronger at pushing back against today's equivalents! | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:23 - Jul 23 with 1333 views | lowhouseblue |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:06 - Jul 23 by MattinLondon |
Someone either believes in equality or they do not - they might well not have issues with someone on an individual basis but that doesn’t take away from the fact that she was homophobic and campaigned against such equality.
Someone might well not have issues with black or white people etc but if they refuse to go to a wedding because they do not agree with two people from different getting hitched together - that will still make that person racist.
Same with Morsy - the reasons why very few footballers have come out as gay is because respected professionals like SM make excuses for not highlighting equality. |
"Someone either believes in equality or they do not"
so by your logic the CofE doesn't believe in equality and is homophobic? is that right? is there no other explanation of why they don't have wedding ceremonies for gay people? does the CofE display this rejection of equality and homophobia in anything else it does? |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:27 - Jul 23 with 1327 views | Mullet |
| Ann Widdecombe on 13:49 - Jul 23 by itfcjoe |
Iain Dale was very interesting on this, and was a good friend of Anne Widdecombe's. He said she also had a lot of other gay friends like Andrew Pierce and was close and caring with them - and at one point had gone down to a local constituency and dragged them over the coals for basically stopping someone standing because they were gay.
He said he had a really difficult decision when he was having his civil partnership, because needed to invite her but knew she wouldn't come, awkwardly she accidentally sent him some correspondence she'd had with the PA to let him down gently after having said she was busy...!
But his main point is that how can someone who had constantly and consistently shown great care and love to gay people be considered homophobic, just because she didn't think they should be married and were sinful. Which is the same argument people were claiming about Sam Morsy on here - judge him on what he does, not whether he'll wear a rainbow armband |
I heard him too on LBC - he was clearly shocked and grieving .
One thing that struck me about it was how it seemed fine in her circle, the political class et al. But didn’t seem to apply that as a whole.
Same as I think Jeffrey Archer (I think) who she was quite praiseworthy ofas a person, but was happy to defend dehumanising and poor treatment of regular prisoners etc
It seems her good points were very much transactional to me and based on who you were. I’m not sure that’s unique, but it does make me question the revision of her the right are doing. |  |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:34 - Jul 23 with 1307 views | MattinLondon |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:23 - Jul 23 by lowhouseblue |
"Someone either believes in equality or they do not"
so by your logic the CofE doesn't believe in equality and is homophobic? is that right? is there no other explanation of why they don't have wedding ceremonies for gay people? does the CofE display this rejection of equality and homophobia in anything else it does? |
Yeah. | | | |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:44 - Jul 23 with 1274 views | Blueschev |
| Ann Widdecombe on 13:56 - Jul 23 by mellowblue |
Nazism was anti-religious in nature. It tolerated the established churches to keep the people onside. If there are doubts, substitute Nazism for China of the last 80 years. ! |
Have you read Mein Kampf? It is littered with references to God, and the wretched antisemitism propagated within it are regularly justified in religious terms. |  | | |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:56 - Jul 23 with 1249 views | Hugoagogo_Reborn |
| Ann Widdecombe on 13:46 - Jul 23 by J2BLUE |
If we are giving credit for those things, shouldn't we also credit god with all of the bad things?
Sorry, I know you said you don't want to get into it but the cherry picking drives me nuts.
If I was god and loved humanity I would spend my time making it rain in drought areas, striking down the evil and spreading peace. |
That really is going down a rabbit hole, so I'll just drop in 1 John 5:19 - We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.
Happy to DM for a more in depth chat, but, as I said, don't want to derail the thread. Wanted to acknowledge your response, and also Flashers response, to my Biomimetics comment, too, but feel this is the wrong thread to get into detail.
👍🏻
There have been too many topics that have nosedived recently, and I am just cautious about getting involved in any heated debates. [Post edited 23 Jul 15:03]
|  |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:58 - Jul 23 with 1218 views | Mullet |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:44 - Jul 23 by Blueschev |
Have you read Mein Kampf? It is littered with references to God, and the wretched antisemitism propagated within it are regularly justified in religious terms. |
The Catholic Church loved a bit of collaborating innit | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 15:09 - Jul 23 with 1194 views | bartyg |
| Ann Widdecombe on 13:49 - Jul 23 by itfcjoe |
Iain Dale was very interesting on this, and was a good friend of Anne Widdecombe's. He said she also had a lot of other gay friends like Andrew Pierce and was close and caring with them - and at one point had gone down to a local constituency and dragged them over the coals for basically stopping someone standing because they were gay.
He said he had a really difficult decision when he was having his civil partnership, because needed to invite her but knew she wouldn't come, awkwardly she accidentally sent him some correspondence she'd had with the PA to let him down gently after having said she was busy...!
But his main point is that how can someone who had constantly and consistently shown great care and love to gay people be considered homophobic, just because she didn't think they should be married and were sinful. Which is the same argument people were claiming about Sam Morsy on here - judge him on what he does, not whether he'll wear a rainbow armband |
That's all just proof that she knew that being a part of the media/political class trumps all else. Empathy on the right only extends to personal friends.
We are judging her on what she did- spent her working life advocating against rights for minorities.
Funny to mention Andrew Pierce, given he has quietly been removed from his various jobs. Another potential scandal where the media class are happy to protect their own. |  |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 15:14 - Jul 23 with 1163 views | balcombeblue |
| Ann Widdecombe on 15:09 - Jul 23 by bartyg |
That's all just proof that she knew that being a part of the media/political class trumps all else. Empathy on the right only extends to personal friends.
We are judging her on what she did- spent her working life advocating against rights for minorities.
Funny to mention Andrew Pierce, given he has quietly been removed from his various jobs. Another potential scandal where the media class are happy to protect their own. |
Love the comment about empathy on the right……how very self aware!
Regarding Pierce , do tell | | | |
| Ann Widdecombe on 22:46 - Jul 23 with 1004 views | Hugoagogo_Reborn |
| Ann Widdecombe on 11:03 - Jul 23 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Thing is, scientists copied that stuff over a relatively short period of time. The kingfisher's beak, etc, had millions of years to evolve. It's not proof of a god (or proof there's not a god). |
Argh. Didn't want to engage in a debate. Still don't want to, but just wanted to point out that I said in my post "faith in God", not "proof of God". The two are very distinct. I do agree that there is no proof of God or proof of no God. Which means that both of evolution and creation theories are in the same stasis. Theories. Not fact.
Am I going to regret reacting to this? I hope not.🙈 [Post edited 23 Jul 22:49]
| |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 23:43 - Jul 23 with 950 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ann Widdecombe on 22:46 - Jul 23 by Hugoagogo_Reborn |
Argh. Didn't want to engage in a debate. Still don't want to, but just wanted to point out that I said in my post "faith in God", not "proof of God". The two are very distinct. I do agree that there is no proof of God or proof of no God. Which means that both of evolution and creation theories are in the same stasis. Theories. Not fact.
Am I going to regret reacting to this? I hope not.🙈 [Post edited 23 Jul 22:49]
|
One is based on a mountain of evidence and one on blind faith. A starker false equivalence is hard to conceive. A scientific theory is a term of art and describes a thoroughly tested and evidenced explanation. I didn't think there were people outside of the us bible belt who really thought and propogated this stuff! | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 23:51 - Jul 23 with 940 views | Hugoagogo_Reborn |
| Ann Widdecombe on 23:43 - Jul 23 by redrickstuhaart |
One is based on a mountain of evidence and one on blind faith. A starker false equivalence is hard to conceive. A scientific theory is a term of art and describes a thoroughly tested and evidenced explanation. I didn't think there were people outside of the us bible belt who really thought and propogated this stuff! |
This is exactly what I didn't want to envoke on this thread.
Probably shouldn't have engaged on the theology side of
things.
As I said before. Happy to engage in a DM discussion, but won't engage in a thread about religion because I have seen plenty of open forum discussions get nasty on this topic. [Post edited 23 Jul 23:53]
| |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 00:26 - Jul 24 with 899 views | StokieBlue |
| Ann Widdecombe on 22:46 - Jul 23 by Hugoagogo_Reborn |
Argh. Didn't want to engage in a debate. Still don't want to, but just wanted to point out that I said in my post "faith in God", not "proof of God". The two are very distinct. I do agree that there is no proof of God or proof of no God. Which means that both of evolution and creation theories are in the same stasis. Theories. Not fact.
Am I going to regret reacting to this? I hope not.🙈 [Post edited 23 Jul 22:49]
|
Are you seriously arguing that evolution and creation are theories of equivalent scientific merit?
Hard to know what to say to that. You are absolutely entitled to your faith and any beliefs that leads to but evolution and creationism are not "in the same statis".
Evolution has been conclusively proven in lab bacteria due to their high reproductive rates. It's disingenuous to imply the two theories have equal scientific merit or that evolution hasn't been proven.
SB |  |
| Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 09:34 - Jul 24 with 734 views | positivity |
| Ann Widdecombe on 23:51 - Jul 23 by Hugoagogo_Reborn |
This is exactly what I didn't want to envoke on this thread.
Probably shouldn't have engaged on the theology side of
things.
As I said before. Happy to engage in a DM discussion, but won't engage in a thread about religion because I have seen plenty of open forum discussions get nasty on this topic. [Post edited 23 Jul 23:53]
|
evolution is perfectly compatible with christianity, and the vast weight of evidence points to evolution, so not sure it's worth a big argument on this one... | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 11:14 - Jul 24 with 631 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ann Widdecombe on 09:34 - Jul 24 by positivity |
evolution is perfectly compatible with christianity, and the vast weight of evidence points to evolution, so not sure it's worth a big argument on this one... |
It isn't compatible at all, but I agree that many modern Christian belief systems have sought and found ways to read the bible such as to allow for science!
Christianity, at a base level, includes believing the bible which includes stuff which directly contradicts evolution. Creation story for a start. The Ark for another.
And whilst that is all old testament (and many Christians these days seek to sideline most of theold testament because it is all a bit awkward and problematic), without it (and without original sin et al) the rest of it starts to fall apart too. | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 11:31 - Jul 24 with 592 views | positivity |
| Ann Widdecombe on 11:14 - Jul 24 by redrickstuhaart |
It isn't compatible at all, but I agree that many modern Christian belief systems have sought and found ways to read the bible such as to allow for science!
Christianity, at a base level, includes believing the bible which includes stuff which directly contradicts evolution. Creation story for a start. The Ark for another.
And whilst that is all old testament (and many Christians these days seek to sideline most of theold testament because it is all a bit awkward and problematic), without it (and without original sin et al) the rest of it starts to fall apart too. |
the creation story is written as poetry unlike much of the bible, genesis 1&2 are completely different to each other, so it's clearly not designed to be read as a scientific textbook!
friends of mine see it as god created the universe and the physical laws which inevitably led to evolution/humanity etc [Post edited 24 Jul 11:33]
| |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 11:34 - Jul 24 with 573 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ann Widdecombe on 11:31 - Jul 24 by positivity |
the creation story is written as poetry unlike much of the bible, genesis 1&2 are completely different to each other, so it's clearly not designed to be read as a scientific textbook!
friends of mine see it as god created the universe and the physical laws which inevitably led to evolution/humanity etc [Post edited 24 Jul 11:33]
|
Yes- that's the simplest rationalisation.
The problem, of course, is that if we are picking and choosing which bits are correct and accurate, pandora's box is well and truly opened.
If the creation story goes, there was no original sin to deal with and no requirement for forgiveness etc.
The rationalisation for that tends to be a vague suggestion that people as a whole were behaving badly and that that is the sin. At that point huge swathes of the bible are massively undermined. | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 11:40 - Jul 24 with 552 views | Ryorry |
| Ann Widdecombe on 11:14 - Jul 24 by redrickstuhaart |
It isn't compatible at all, but I agree that many modern Christian belief systems have sought and found ways to read the bible such as to allow for science!
Christianity, at a base level, includes believing the bible which includes stuff which directly contradicts evolution. Creation story for a start. The Ark for another.
And whilst that is all old testament (and many Christians these days seek to sideline most of theold testament because it is all a bit awkward and problematic), without it (and without original sin et al) the rest of it starts to fall apart too. |
Agree, albeit my knowledge of theology & contemporary takes on it isn't as wide as yours.
Going to respect Hugo's wish not to discuss this further tho, humans can be kind despite being atheists ;) |  |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 11:42 - Jul 24 with 537 views | positivity |
| Ann Widdecombe on 11:34 - Jul 24 by redrickstuhaart |
Yes- that's the simplest rationalisation.
The problem, of course, is that if we are picking and choosing which bits are correct and accurate, pandora's box is well and truly opened.
If the creation story goes, there was no original sin to deal with and no requirement for forgiveness etc.
The rationalisation for that tends to be a vague suggestion that people as a whole were behaving badly and that that is the sin. At that point huge swathes of the bible are massively undermined. |
i think we can all agree that all humans are imperfect.
whether you believe that it's a natural consequence of evolution, or you understand it through an allegory, doesn't really change much.
the vast majority of humans want to be better and want others to treat them and the less fortunate better | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
