• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Jacob Rees-Mogg

A Roman Catholic holds Roman Catholic views. That's news?

I wonder if this thread would have been started if the subject were a Muslim.

I think it will be a while before we see a muslim as a prospective Conservative leader but I take your point.

Gay marriage and abortion are legal in this country and if Jacob Rees-Mogg or anyone else doesn't like it then that is tough **** irrespective of their personal opinions.
 
A Roman Catholic holds Roman Catholic views. That's news?

I wonder if this thread would have been started if the subject were a Muslim.
the most prominent Muslim politician is the Mayor of London and he doesn't hold such views.

JRM should be judged on the views he holds and not be excused by anyone trying to hide it behind Catholicism. What would the Church say about him voting to decrease disability benefit by £30 a week, or a third child not benefiting from government support, or people being forced into poverty through the bedroom tax? If he says his faith is dictating his views then he should be fair to his faith and take on its positive views on charity and not just its restrictions on personal rights.
 
Strange one for me this one. Read it in the paper earlier and wasn't surprised at his archaic, out-of-touch views which I completely oppose. BUT, I actually appreciated someone stating their views and backing that up with reasoning. I swear everybody is scared to share their beliefs in today's fence sitting society.

Its an odd one.

He has out of date views which Im sure will kill his chance of being PM, yet he was being honest. If he had been dishonest he would have been more likely to get the job.

Interesting comparison between the UK and US where not mentioning religion and god would scupper anyone running for president whilst over hear its more of a hinderance to mention it.

I think it will be a while before we see a muslim as a prospective Conservative leader but I take your point.

Gay marriage and abortion are legal in this country and if Jacob Rees-Mogg or anyone else doesn't like it then that is tough **** irrespective of their personal opinions.

Thats the problem though isnt it, if he were in charge would those laws remain. Cant imagine one person could influence such big changes but that would be what people would vote for or against.
 
the most prominent Muslim politician is the Mayor of London and he doesn't hold such views.

JRM should be judged on the views he holds and not be excused by anyone trying to hide it behind Catholicism. What would the Church say about him voting to decrease disability benefit by £30 a week, or a third child not benefiting from government support, or people being forced into poverty through the bedroom tax? If he says his faith is dictating his views then he should be fair to his faith and take on its positive views on charity and not just its restrictions on personal rights.

JRM cares more about unborn fetuses than he does about child refugees drowning in the med.
 
A Roman Catholic holds Roman Catholic views. That's news?

I wonder if this thread would have been started if the subject were a Muslim.

I guaran-****ing-tee you it would've done. If Sadiq Khan came out and said homosexuality was a sin because the Koran says so, not only would it have been discussed on here, but be front page news of every national newspaper, discussed at length on chat shows and used against him.

And quite rightly, too.

Jacob Rees-Mogg is a nasty piece of work, cartoonified in much the same way Boris was. Thankfully this little stunt should have all but ended his chance of leading this county.
 
Most of us (I would imagine) would be totally opposed to Rees Moggs views on same sex marriage or abortion, however there maybe mixed views in terms of his voting record on other matters.

I do respect however that he is prepared to put his beliefs on record, however much I disagree with them...and that his voting record reflects his conscience.

He has also stated that he holds the will of parliament and the law above his own personal beliefs, and is not seeking any change.

I don't know enough about Rees Mogg to be able to decide if he is being refreshingly honest for a politician or just misguided...but can see a danger if we treat any views that are based on a belief system in an orwellian manner....that we will drive debate underground.
 
Most of us (I would imagine) would be totally opposed to Rees Moggs views on same sex marriage or abortion, however there maybe mixed views in terms of his voting record on other matters.

I do respect however that he is prepared to put his beliefs on record, however much I disagree with them...and that his voting record reflects his conscience.

He has also stated that he holds the will of parliament and the law above his own personal beliefs, and is not seeking any change.

I don't know enough about Rees Mogg to be able to decide if he is being refreshingly honest for a politician or just misguided...but can see a danger if we treat any views that are based on a belief system in an orwellian manner....that we will drive debate underground.

No religious beliefs of any shape or form should come into politics.
 
Most of us (I would imagine) would be totally opposed to Rees Moggs views on same sex marriage or abortion, however there maybe mixed views in terms of his voting record on other matters.

I do respect however that he is prepared to put his beliefs on record, however much I disagree with them...and that his voting record reflects his conscience.

He has also stated that he holds the will of parliament and the law above his own personal beliefs, and is not seeking any change.

I don't know enough about Rees Mogg to be able to decide if he is being refreshingly honest for a politician or just misguided...but can see a danger if we treat any views that are based on a belief system in an orwellian manner....that we will drive debate underground.

Probably both. IMO he is misguided, but he was being honest. I guess we have to at least commend him for that. Doesn't stop him being an idiot though.

A friend of mine was at school with him. This is what my friend had to say about him:

This guy went to my school. He was and still is one of the best public speakers I have ever heard. However, if I find his opinions difficult to listen to, and sometimes rather distasteful. He doesn't live in a world that intersects with 99.999999% of the world's population.
 
Most of us (I would imagine) would be totally opposed to Rees Moggs views on same sex marriage or abortion, however there maybe mixed views in terms of his voting record on other matters.

I do respect however that he is prepared to put his beliefs on record, however much I disagree with them...and that his voting record reflects his conscience.

He has also stated that he holds the will of parliament and the law above his own personal beliefs, and is not seeking any change.

I don't know enough about Rees Mogg to be able to decide if he is being refreshingly honest for a politician or just misguided...but can see a danger if we treat any views that are based on a belief system in an orwellian manner....that we will drive debate underground.

He's not seeking any change because it would be suicide to do so, his views are in the minority (fortunately). But, he did vote against gay marriage (and gay rights, and equality and human rights)(ref) and so he's directly using his own personal beliefs to guide his voting intentions.
 
He's not seeking any change because it would be suicide to do so, his views are in the minority (fortunately). But, he did vote against gay marriage (and gay rights, and equality and human rights)(ref) and so he's directly using his own personal beliefs to guide his voting intentions.

Which was rather my point....in this case he has voted against something that according to him is not compatible with his belief system....yet he holds his belief in Parliament and the Law above that....whilst I appreciate that there will many on here that disbelieve him, equally there will be others that will see it as an honest approach.
 
No religious beliefs of any shape or form should come into politics.

Genuinely interested as to why you think that this should not be the case...and where you would stop and start with observing faith.
 
Genuinely interested as to why you think that this should not be the case...and where you would stop and start with observing faith.

I dont see any reason why you would base politics or law on any religion.

JRM stated that he believes what he does because of the catholic church. Why should we be basing policy or law on a book written 2000 years ago.

Religion offers nothing that normal morality and common sense cant provide.

If anyone covets my ox though I want someone to pay big time.
 
Genuinely interested as to why you think that this should not be the case...and where you would stop and start with observing faith.

As Jam said, I'd rather not base modern day laws on fantastical archaic books, written by desert tribes 2000+ years ago that are extremely morally dubious.
 
I dont see any reason why you would base politics or law on any religion.

JRM stated that he believes what he does because of the catholic church. Why should we be basing policy or law on a book written 2000 years ago.

Religion offers nothing that normal morality and common sense cant provide.

If anyone covets my ox though I want someone to pay big time.

And yet faith is still prominent amongst many of our politicians...and I would say that possibly with the exception of John Major most of the UK's political leaders (and potential) in my lifetime appear to have belonged to a faith system....it is impossible to imagine that their faith cannot or does not influence how they think, act and vote.

Whilst you have faith and belief systems this will continue to be the case...we live in a country that describes it self still as Christian or Multifaith....until that description stops then it will continue to have influence.
 
As Jam said, I'd rather not base modern day laws on fantastical archaic books, written by desert tribes 2000+ years ago that are extremely morally dubious.

I'm following that line of argument, however whilst we have faith and belief systems it is naive to think that there won't be an influence.
 
Back
Top