More dodgy dealings from Living Hope

[JoeyDeaconsCat]

2 hours ago, Chinahand said:

Interesting comment, Aristotle. 

The problem is when everyone has principles and states them it can make the messy compromises of politics impossible. 

That is a very good point. For that reason it's difficult to believe that anyone who has deliberately stood for public office doesn't have any 'core beliefs' as stated above as surely every politician has to have some quite firm core beliefs in order to stand in the first place? Some just choose not to publish them because, as Tim Farron found out very recently, the public might not actually like them very much and they compromise their position on a particular issue.

What is your stance on abortion Mr Callister? I tried to find the statement you refer to on your Facebook page but there's far too much stuff to read through on there to be honest and I couldn't find it.

[j2bad]

2 hours ago, Rob Callister said:

No, I said I had no connection with the Living Hope Church and it's Directors, which is true. 

Mr. Moss worked at the Louis Group until around 2011, but he isn't a Director of the Living Hope Church. 

Any other person connected with the Living Hope Church had left before I arrived in 2010. 

Mr moss was a director of living hope up until he was recently barred from being a director, he is still a pastor so your statement of fact conceals an association with Living hope.  I assume the Louis group would only hire those who were believers so are you denying that you are a follower of Christ or do you accept him as your Lord and saviour?

[JoeyDeaconsCat]

31 minutes ago, j2bad said:

Mr moss was a director of living hope up until he was recently barred from being a director, he is still a pastor so your statement of fact conceals an association with Living hope.  I assume the Louis group would only hire those who were believers so are you denying that you are a follower of Christ or do you accept him as your Lord and saviour?

Almost everyone who worked at LG in its final years had an unhealthy interest in God. I also heard of one or two who even had a sudden finding of their faith when it suited their career paths to experience a reawakening by the Lord. I think you ask a very pertinent question j2bad and I would also like to know what the stance on abortion is too. I have looked but I can't see anything on Facebook.

[Chinahand]

J2bad, Talk about inappropriate badgering concerning people's deeply held religious beliefs. 

[Mr Helmut Fromage]

I wonder if in Rob's unpicking and reporting of the investment structures did he find all the Barclays commercial lending to these funds strangely sanctioned by Stuart Nelson elder in the Living Hope Cult and now Director of Barclays ?

[JoeyDeaconsCat]

3 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

J2bad, Talk about inappropriate badgering concerning people's deeply held religious beliefs. 

I used the example of Tim Farron above and I don't think this debate is any different. If someone holds deep seated religious views that will necessarily drive their voting habits and the initiatives they support. They should be honest and declare these where they exist. If a person as able to directly answer j2bads question then their stance will be perfectly clear to all. 

[Max Power]

Religious beliefs are personal in my opinion. If you can't get a flavour of what a candidate is about from their manifesto, then what are you doing voting for them? We are founded upon Christian principles and what some are suggesting is tantamount to religious persecution.

I am not religious in any way but it is everyone's right to believe and worship as they please, without interference from anyone. Because they use the guiding principles of their religion is no reason to criticise. We may have a few Satanic MHK's, who knows? We judge them on their actions, not their beliefs.  

[La Colombe]

44 minutes ago, j2bad said:

 I assume the Louis group would only hire those who were believers so are you denying that you are a follower of Christ or do you accept him as your Lord and saviour?

 This might be a clue. 

[Roger Mexico]

4 hours ago, Aristotle said:

I feel my questions are borne out of a frustration with the fact that so many, if not all, of our elected members of parliament are wishy washy and never disclose to us their core beliefs, religious or philosophical. I just like to know where people stand on subjects. The way most of our MHKs have voiced no opinion whatsoever on the abortion debate, for example, is very disconcerting. It's not just Rob, it's all of them. I'd like a straight-up explanation from all of them in their manifestos but all we get is the usual three legs and apple pie.

Yes, there's a pathological fear of causing offence that most MHKs seem to have.  They think the best way to get re-elected (which seems to be the limit of their political ambitions) is to do and say nothing that might upset any portion of the electorate - no matter how small.  It also means that they avoid any sort of confrontation, especially with the civil service, and so end up as rubber stamps for whatever they put forward.

To be fair to Rob, he did mention his stance on abortion on his blog - though it is a little vague and 'something must be done'.

Quote

 

During the requisition meeting held in Onchan for the House of Keys General Election, a question was raised in respect of the Island's current Abortion Law.

My response at the time was that I would support an update to the Island's current Abortion Legislation, and thereafter I felt it was down to personal choice.

Just to be open and honest with Onchan Constituents, I do intend to keep my election promise by fully supporting Dr. Allinson, MHK and his Private Member's Bill to have the island's current legislation updated.

I fully understand that this is a very emotive topic but as the island's lawmakers we have a duty to update legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose.

I wish Dr. Allinson all the very best with his Private Member's Bill.

 

As he doesn't say exactly what changes he would like to see.

On the wider question, I think the problem that people are worried about here isn't so much about belief, but about affiliation.  Churches are not just gatherings of like-minded believers, they are social groupings and people who associate in this way, may also support each other outside as well - rather as say Freemasons are accused of doing.  This particularly applies with  organisations such as Living Hope with its prosperity gospel approach.

 

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

I am not religious in any way but it is everyone's right to believe and worship as they please, without interference from anyone.

Agree entirely however someone holding public office and choosing to substitute rigid belief for evidenced reasoned debate in decision making (affecting believers and non-believers) chooses to be accountable. 

If they can't cope with such scrutiny, they shouldn't be in public office. The church and the state should be completely separate.

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

 I think the problem that people are worried about here isn't so much about belief, but about affiliation

I don't care about affiliation or religious beliefs unless it demands privilege. What was nobody else's business then suddenly becomes so imo.

[Aristotle]

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

Religious beliefs are personal in my opinion. If you can't get a flavour of what a candidate is about from their manifesto, then what are you doing voting for them? We are founded upon Christian principles and what some are suggesting is tantamount to religious persecution.

I am not religious in any way but it is everyone's right to believe and worship as they please, without interference from anyone. Because they use the guiding principles of their religion is no reason to criticise. We may have a few Satanic MHK's, who knows? We judge them on their actions, not their beliefs.  

They're not personal if you're running for public office, especially in a country which has no separation of church and state. They should at a bare minimum disclose or give an indication as to what those beliefs are.

Beliefs and actions cannot arbitrarily be kept separate. Beliefs lead to actions. Beliefs will significantly factor into how a person will vote on any given issue. As MHKs are our representatives, it is not unreasonable to expect them to give us an indication as to their beliefs, so we can assess whether they would adequately represent us, as constituents. I believe Zac Hall is a case in point of a man who jumped on Peter Karran's bandwagon, having never declared his beliefs; and then, when push came to shove, he put his own personal religious beliefs first -- beliefs which had hitherto not been declared -- in terms of his vote; and, thereby, I feel, failed to represent the people of his constituency. Had his constituents known his beliefs and how they would factor into his voting behaviour, I am sure many would not have voted for him.

People are free to believe and worship -- or to not believe and worship -- as they please, but if they're going to run for public office then they have a duty as a representative to let people know what it is exactly that they represent, prior to being voted in.

[Max Power]

I understand your point Aristotle but how do you determine the extent of those beliefs? Religion itself is divided into its many forms, ranging from violent cults to extremely passive. Even within a particular religion there are multiple divisions of beliefs. If you went to a church on Sunday, you would find many different opinions amongst the congregation on a variety of subjects. 

A candidate would need to declare every nuance of his faith in order to make clear his intentions. That's why they publish a manifesto, which should give an indication of where they stand, there are doorstep face to face meetings and requisition meetings, where the public are invited to ask direct questions of their candidates if they feel that their faith is an important part of the electoral process. At one time, religious belief was assumed, which in my opinion is wrong, but it shouldn't be a barrier or a stick to beat a candidate without the chance to discuss it face to face. Then we would be a society which is becoming intolerant of religion. 

[Aristotle]

22 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I understand your point Aristotle but how do you determine the extent of those beliefs? Religion itself is divided into its many forms, ranging from violent cults to extremely passive. Even within a particular religion there are multiple divisions of beliefs. If you went to a church on Sunday, you would find many different opinions amongst the congregation on a variety of subjects. 

A candidate would need to declare every nuance of his faith in order to make clear his intentions. That's why they publish a manifesto, which should give an indication of where they stand, there are doorstep face to face meetings and requisition meetings, where the public are invited to ask direct questions of their candidates if they feel that their faith is an important part of the electoral process. At one time, religious belief was assumed, which in my opinion is wrong, but it shouldn't be a barrier or a stick to beat a candidate without the chance to discuss it face to face. Then we would be a society which is becoming intolerant of religion. 

To take the example of Zac Hall a step further, a simple "I'm a Roman Catholic; if ever the issue of abortion comes up, I will vote according to papal dogma first and foremost and not according to the views of my constituents" would suffice. An alternative could be "I'm a Roman Catholic / Agnostic / Jew / Buddhist; if ever the issue of abortion comes up, I am open minded and will listen to the views of my constituents and vote accordingly". If abortion, as just one example, is a subject upon which they would put their own personal religious views before representation of their constituents, then I think they need to make very clear what those views are during the election and not months or a couple of years later when that subject comes before them in Tynwald and they have to vote upon it. Our elected representatives need to be open and transparent. You can't say religious belief is a strictly personal matter when the person in question is going to be voting on public matters.

We need to know who our MHKs are and what they stand for. In advance of giving them the ability to vote on our behalf!

[Max Power]

20 minutes ago, Aristotle said:

To take the example of Zac Hall a step further, a simple "I'm a Roman Catholic; if ever the issue of abortion comes up, I will vote according to papal dogma first and foremost and not according to the views of my constituents" would suffice. An alternative could be "I'm a Roman Catholic / Agnostic / Jew / Buddhist; if every the issue of abortion comes up, I am open minded and will listen to the views of my constituents and vote accordingly". If abortion, as just one example, is a subject upon which they would put their own personal religious views before representation of their constituents, then I think they need to make very clear what those views are during the election and not months or a couple of years later when that subject comes before them in Tynwald and they have to vote upon it. Our elected representatives need to be open and transparent. You can't say religious belief is a strictly personal matter when the person in question is going to be voting on public matters. We need to know who our MHKs are and what they stand for.

As I say, ask them a direct question. At one of our requisition meetings, Chris Robertshaw made it clear that his beliefs would not allow him to be pro-abortion. It seems that even if people offer information, many people can't be bothered to ask the question, read manifestos and take an active part in the electoral process. They then complain when something doesn't happen to suit them. I declared all information which I believed to be relevant in my manifesto, people may likewise judge me on something which was missing?