.. to be appalled by this news about Jacob Rees-Mogg on GMB today

Perhaps if someone answered pogs' question(s) they wouldn't be repeated.

Could you answer my question, please?

Not answering these questions makes them seem wild and unjustified.

I read that Pool article to which you posted a link, btw. It struck me as rather hysterical even while accepting that the woman who wrote it might be as terrified of JRM's views as she seems. I guess her article fits with the apparent unhingedness of some of the posts on this thread.

GG MK 2

Your have provided a link that says :-

" there’s nothing funny about shitting on human rights."

Rees-Mogg is not 'shitting on any bodies human right".

He said at the end of the interview :-

" It's all very well to say we live in multicultural country until you are a christian , until you hold the traditional views of the Catholic Church. That seems to me to be fundamentally wrong, people are entitled to hold these views but also the democratic majority is entitled to have the laws of the land as they are".
----

Note : " but also the democratic majority is entitled to have the laws of the land as they are".

I believe what he is saying is he has a personal religious belief but that belief is personal and he holds the democracy and laws of the Land to be respected and adhered to.

He is not a crusade to change the Laws of the Land on either abortion nor same sex marriage. That is a shovelling of s--t hoping it sticks .

Did the original post ask the question Is he suitable to lead his party or the country????? I think that's an inference some posters have made.

Baggs we can all reply in the way that we choose to the questions we choose. You are just flogging a dead horse because you do not get the answers you want.

No. I am not replying - I don't know what you are talking about and I am not interested in finding out.

If you think we are making unhinged posts why are you involving yourself in the discussion. You have descended into personal attack and I will accept that this is probably all you can manage and have sympathy too but I don't have to stay and take part even if you think you can dictate what the rest of us do.

GG MK2

" Calm down POGS. No one has said you are not entitled to your view"

Something we can agree on.

Even I have not even said 'I' am entitled to 'MY' view.

This is usually the point on a thread where you raise the 'playground' if my memory serves me well.

GG MK 2

Another agreement.

" we can all reply in the way that we choose to the questions we choose."

However what would be hoped for is if posters make statements of a personal nature about others , posters or not, they will only make ' factual ' statements.

Kind of blows a hole in the "only substantiated and factual posts are acceptable" theory demanded by some.

Some people find it difficult to believe that Rees-Mogg was totally unaware of the sort of background and views of the senior officers and members of the Traditional Britain Group. Gregory Lauder-Frost, for instance, (with whom he is photographed at the dinner), a man who once shared a platform with the Holocaust-denier David Irving, was a prominent member of the Conservative right wing Monday Club, which the Conservatives later cut ties with because of its racist agenda.

Despite calling for Doreen Lawrence and millions of non-European immigrants to be "voluntarily repatriated" and describing her as "a nobody" who was part of the agenda to fill up the House of Lords with "spivs", it appears he is the dishonourable character - having been imprisoned in 1992 for stealing £110,000 from the NHS where he was employed as payroll manager.

Calum Rupert Heaton-Gent, who was also in the photograph and seated to the right of Rees-Mogg, is a former member of the BNP. He apparently claimed that he wanted to meet "Moggy", whom he described as “his political hero”.

Rees-Mogg says he knew nothing of all this or of these and other Traditional Britain Group's members' stated views and aims. You may conclude that he is a genuine and honest person who was somewhat naive in not finding out more about the group holding the function at which he was to be guest speaker. Or you may conclude that, even if he was totally unaware of the sort of statements made by the Group's members, the Group had formed the opinion that he was broadly supportive of their views and aims, which is why they invited him as guest of honour.

POGS I find some contradiction in JRM's words and the instructions of the Pope
"Pope Francis reaffirmed this position on March 2013, when he stated that "[people] cannot receive Holy Communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the commandments, particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged. This responsibility weighs particularly over legislators, heads of governments, and health professionals."

In other words in order to continue to receive Holy Communion JRM MUST act in some way to counter the move towards abortion and anything else the Catholic Church opposes. So although he may acknowledge that "the democratic majority is entitled to have the laws of the land as they are". He has a responsibility to act in line with his religious beliefs. I am convinced that his concern for his salvation and his soul would allow him to abandon any democratic beliefs if there was a conflict of interests.

Devongirl,
I ment a lot of people agree with most of his views, if not all of his views.
As we are not a dictatorship and still live in a democracy, we are entitled to free speech and thought, and can think what we like -even if we are an unseen, un-PC minority (or perhaps majority-who knows?)

That's an interesting viewpoint, trisher. I'm sure some Catholics act on it as far as they can though I think most in this country and throughout the Western world interpret it more loosely, just as they would seem, from falling birth rates, to interpret the church's ban on contraception much more loosely.

That said, the Catholics I knew when I was growing up did do all they could to stop any movement "towards abortion". It wasn't enough and I don't think it would be again. Likewise with what the Pope calls euthanasia. The last info I saw about approval for assisted dying (which is what he really means, I think) was that about 80% of the population is in favour of legalising assisted dying.

gg, I was referring to this post of yours when I mentioned prevarication and asked you what you meant so I'm a bit puzzled that you don't know what I'm talking about.

GracesGranMK2 Sun 10-Sep-17 10:26:24
But he is not an honest man madgran. He was honest when he had no choice but prevaricated when he thought it the best thing to do.

I suppose you could mean this that pogs quoted:

"It's all very well to say we live in multicultural country until you are a christian , until you hold the traditional views of the Catholic Church. That seems to me to be fundamentally wrong, people are entitled to hold these views but also the democratic majority is entitled to have the laws of the land as they are".

Which is fine if that is what you mean, except that I don't agree it is prevarication.

To what, exactly, you referred in your post is all I wanted to know. I can survive without knowing. Don't let me pressurise you into defending your own statements ?

Proper debating isn't for wimps.

Most of the Catholics I have met Baggs have been fairly flexible about their compliance with what might be termed the extremes of the belief, including contraception and abortion, and I have a lot of respect for them and their beliefs although I don't agree with them. They are often involved in voluntary and other areas supporting the less fortunate. I don't believe JRM is as harmless and unworldly as he pretends to be. I think he has an agenda to bring back very right wing views but has cleverly concealed this under a jolly, eccentric English mask that he quite consciously adopted. Only every now and then his real colours seep through.

You may well be right about JRM, trisher.

Where did he prevaricate GG? I read a transcipt and could ind no prevarication. My point that thinking him honest does not equate with agreeing with him and I still hold to that ...so I am unclear what your point is other than you disagree that he was honest!?

Jacob Rees-Mogg thinks it's fantastic that churches run food banks, because that is what charities are set up to do.
He never realised that it's his views that encourage the use of food banks because a million people have difficulty making ends meet.
So yes, trisher, you are right about Rees-Mogg.

This is entirely off topic but I thought someone might know the answer. On 'Sunday' on Radio 4 this morning the quoted a 'new survey' that said only 15% of the population claim a connection to the Church of England but I can't find anything about it. Has anyone seen anything?

It's here near the beginning that they mention it.

Just realised it's quite a joined up strategy dj create poverty and then you and your church can feel better because you are dishing out food and being charitable.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/17/jeremy-corbyn-rejects-association-holocaust-denier_n_8000722.html

GGMk2 this is the survey:

natcen.ac.uk/news-media/press-releases/2017/september/british-social-attitudes-record-number-of-brits-with-no-religion/

It shows that people can feel they can be more honest these days, devongirl and GracesGran. For years I used to say I was CofE when asked when in hospital. Nowhere else; just when having an operation. I don't know why, I don't think it gave me any better protection!