Tim Farron is a Christian, so of course he’s not allowed an opinion

Tim Farron is a Christian, so of course he’s not allowed an opinion, by Rod Liddle.

Maybe I’m wrong about this, but I don’t remember the BBC running a documentary 100 days into Barack Obama’s first presidency and kicking him from pillar to post. Interviewing almost exclusively people who hated him, pouring scorn on his every utterance. They did it this week to Donald Trump, though …

With Obama, as I remember, it was a very different approach. … The Nobel committee bunged Obama the Peace Prize in December 2009 for ‘reaching out to the Muslim world’ — a policy which has brought such wonderful dividends for us all. Frankly, the further you reach, the more likely you are to get your hand chopped off. …

In France, the pretend anti-establishment candidate won. You can tell he’s pretend by the smirk of jubilation on the face of that arrogant and flatulent perpetually half-cut halfwit Jean-Claude Juncker. But I suppose at least Macron was savvy enough to understand that he had to present himself as anti-establishment. …

Even as the establishment politicians modify their language on such stuff as immigration and Islam, so that they sound a little closer to the views of the ordinary citizen, there is still plenty of stuff which they simply cannot countenance in any form. One of these, in this country particularly, is the dissing of homosexuality — as the Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron discovered recently.

Farron’s enormous crime in the eyes of the establishment was to refuse to deny (for a while, at least) that he thought homosexual sex was a sin. Farron is a born-again evangelical Christian, so of course he thinks homosexual sex is a sin. My guess is that this view is shared by at least 50 per cent of the population and possibly more, although they might prefer the words ‘yucky’ or ‘vile’ or ‘a bit rum’ rather than ‘sin’. …

What was interesting to me was the point-blank refusal even to consider that his view might be allowable — a view shared, to a greater or lesser degree, by a great many people.

David Shariatmadari or the Bible. Hmmm, tough choice.

A chap called David Shariatmadari, writing in the Guardian, tried to be kind. He said we liberals should all give Timbo a break: ‘I don’t care what he considers sinful, so long as it doesn’t translate into policy. For that reason, however, he should be watched like a hawk for any hint of discriminatory law-making.’ He can think what he likes, then (for which many thanks, Mr Shariatmadari), but he should not be allowed to let this deep-rooted belief inform his politics.

Instead, it is Mr Shariatmadari’s views, rather than the views of the Holy Bible, which should inform Tim Farron’s politics. This is because Mr Shariatmadari, like the rest of the liberal establishment, believes that his views count for a lot more than the Holy Bible — indeed his views are inviolable. …

And yet the reason people go into politics is to articulate their points of view and convince the public of the rectitude of them. In a normal society, that would even include people who have views which differ from those of Mr Shariatmadari — they would be allowed to speak too.

hat-tip Stephen Neil