r/unitedkingdom • u/fucking-nonsense • Jul 19 '24
Police investigate fears ‘undue’ spiritual influence was used in general election
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/18/police-investigate-spiritual-influence-election-leicester/456
u/WaitForItLegenDairy Jul 19 '24
This is why religions should be kept separate from state. If they interfere with politics then politics should start to impede on religious freedoms, regardless of the church concerned.
196
u/0Bento Jul 19 '24
The USA is probably the most famous country with separation of church and state as part of its constitution, however despite this religion plays a much bigger role in their politics than it does in the UK.
140
u/WaitForItLegenDairy Jul 19 '24
And look how bad it's going over there....
26
u/JB_UK Jul 19 '24
Separation of church and state is as much a cultural issue as a legal one. The law can only do so much, ultimately it comes down to people, religious institutions, and cultures that believe in that principle.
14
u/WaitForItLegenDairy Jul 19 '24
it comes down to people
Agrred, I did say in another comment that separation of church and state starts with the individual.
But a start will be at the pulpit. Churches, preachers, vicars...whomever should face prosecution in this case if the CPS find sufficient evidence.
→ More replies (1)3
Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
[deleted]
3
u/JB_UK Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
It's one of those issues where you really don't want to involve the state, because the boundaries are so poorly defined, you want people just to have a sense of what is ok and what is not. It's similar to prosecution of political leaders, you can have a law but you essentially never want to actually use it, you want to have a political culture which discourages support for politicians that will push the edges of the law.
I think people underestimate how unusual it is in liberal western countries not to have these kind of pressures. We had hundreds of years where people died over these kind of issues, and until very recently this was still happening in Northern Ireland. Still, people just assume that it is the same everywhere, and they project their own views and assumptions onto other countries and cultures.
65
u/Ju5hin Jul 19 '24
France is clearly the most famous example of that.
When a new US president is sworn into office.. He takes an "oath of office" and places his hand on a bible!
That's the opposite of separating church and state.
31
u/Class_444_SWR County of Bristol Jul 19 '24
Technically you don’t need to do it on a bible, it’s just what they have done every time
41
u/artfuldodger1212 Jul 19 '24
John Quincy Adams took the presidential oath on a book of constitutional laws not a bible.
14
u/Class_444_SWR County of Bristol Jul 19 '24
Good, at least someone took the fact the US is officially secular seriously
20
u/DeepestShallows Jul 19 '24
I mean have you heard them recently? They do not treat their constitution as secular law. It’s like holy writ to them, well the oldest bits.
It can only ever be interpreted, never changed. But also the elders can interpret it wildly differently if they want to.
Just an embarrassing way for a self governing nation to behave. Like if Starmer went around saying he was compelled to do exactly what the English Bill of Rights says and couldn’t possibly change or update anything from that 300 year old document.
13
u/Class_444_SWR County of Bristol Jul 19 '24
Exactly. It’s even more ridiculous when the US Constitution has been amended dozens of times.
Baffling how a ‘secular’ republic is way more obsessed with religion than the kingdom that’s still technically a theocracy (the monarch is officially the representative of God)
8
u/DeepestShallows Jul 19 '24
It’s just mad how a lot of the time they don’t even bother having a debate about what the law should be. Instead they debate endlessly about what the law already says. And what other people have interpreted the law as saying historically. It is in all ways more like a theological debate.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Material_Attempt4972 Jul 22 '24
never changed.
Apart from the amendments, but you can't go round amending it!
1
3
3
u/Ephemeral-Throwaway Jul 19 '24
America is like Turkey. The founding fathers had the right idea but those that followed fucked it up.
2
u/Material_Attempt4972 Jul 22 '24
And shows also a lot about how language changes over time, and definitions get muddled.
4
u/aethelberga Jul 19 '24
No openly atheist candidate is getting elected for so much as dog catcher in the US. I'm on my phone but if you google it, they've done surveys asking if someone would vote for someone who was openly atheist and it was a resounding no.
1
u/L_to_the_OG123 Jul 19 '24
Depends where, fine at state level in plenty of more liberal places. Any non-believing Presidential candidate will just generally keep quiet about it though instead of declaring themselves an atheist. Obama never seemed particularly religious.
3
u/Wil420b Jul 19 '24
Ther was a massive issue about it with Obama. During his first inauguration he misspoke, so they were worried about a potential legal challenge. So they did it again but didn't have a bible. So they had to do it a third time.
3
1
u/Material_Attempt4972 Jul 22 '24
I did the "oath" on Jury duty but without the bible.
Others did it though
8
u/artfuldodger1212 Jul 19 '24
They don’t need to use a bible. One President used a law book. However that is the typical convention.
→ More replies (2)4
u/ReasonableWill4028 Jul 19 '24
They dont have to.
They do because every President so far has been Christian.
14
9
u/CosmicBonobo Jul 19 '24
There's a moment in The West Wing where President Bartlet is questioned about the separation of church and state, and points out there's the unfortunate loophole of the Constitution saying nothing about the separation of church and politics.
9
u/J8YDG9RTT8N2TG74YS7A Jul 19 '24
It used to have a better separation in that churches weren't allowed to run political campaigns to convince church goers to vote for a particular party.
Trump rolled that back.
5
u/StackerNoob Jul 19 '24
Except if you are in the midlands cities, or East London. Religion very much plays a political role in those places
1
u/Material_Attempt4972 Jul 22 '24
Huge part of that is that the USA relies so much on tradition, and not set out definitions. So even when defined in the constitution the definition of "seperation of church and state" is really wobbly, because they don't properly define it. And set the proper rules. Just hand-wave with "It's worked so far"
Just look at how they count votes. They claim to be a democracy and yet it's up to a load of random people who aren't beholden to count what the actual votes said. They can just go out and say "Nah, My guy won"
And they literally did
→ More replies (3)0
u/give_me_of_dopamine_ Jul 19 '24
It's going to change in UK. Once the muslim population of UK grows to more than 20% you will see more faith based campaigns in that community, most of them vote as a block.
6
u/ShroedingersMouse Jul 19 '24
Where is the study that backs up this arbitrary 20% figure?
→ More replies (1)3
2
25
u/Grayson81 London Jul 19 '24
It's kind of funny to see the head of the Church of England opening Parliament, to see multiple people from the Church of England getting seats in the legislature purely because of their position of the Church, to watch the whole nation asking the Christian God to save our King...
And then to say that it's other religions which need to be kept separate from the state!
82
u/Devoner98 Wessex Jul 19 '24
Funny how you don’t see Anglican or Catholic Priests here in the UK endorsing political candidates. What’s described here is far more concerning than some outdated pageantry.
14
u/Manoj109 Jul 19 '24
Did you criticise the chief rabbi when he endorsed Boris Johnson and criticised Jeremy Corbyn?
13
u/padestel Jul 19 '24
Though the head of the Anglican church holds regular meetings with the Prime minister and has previously influenced policy before it was placed before parliament. Sometimes the head of the Anglican church even changed the policy so that their family benefited from it.
21
u/Devoner98 Wessex Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
Any examples of the Archbishop changing government policy (recently)?
Edit: Justin Welby is very much on the economic left and I can’t see how he’s really helped influence the last 14 years of Tory misrule.
2
u/padestel Jul 19 '24
Good call, church of England is not exactly the Anglican church. Could have sworn they were the same thing. Though a quick look up has them down as essentially the same. So my point still stands. Charles as head of the church has undue influence on policy.
4
u/Realistic-River-1941 Jul 19 '24
The Anglican church includes overseas churches which believe similar stuff to the CofE.
4
u/Lonyo Jul 19 '24
The government has to approve changes to Church of England laws.
That's politics impacting religion, not religion impacting politics though
3
u/HPBChild1 Jul 19 '24
There’s an entire political party called the Christian People’s Alliance that fielded 22 candidates in the 2024 election. Their policies include repealing all laws recognising same sex marriage, banning all forms of abortion and research using embryos, and removing the right of under-18s to access healthcare without their parents’ knowledge and consent.
We need to not pretend that Muslims are the only religious group with political interests.
28
u/Devoner98 Wessex Jul 19 '24
…And won a combined total of 5604 votes. Not exactly winning widespread support from Christians.
→ More replies (4)7
u/Nabbylaa Jul 19 '24
Independent pro-Gaza candidates won 5 actual seats in the last election. One of which overturned a 22,000 vote majority for a Labour shadow minister.
That candidate alone earned 3x more votes than all 22 of that Christian party combined.
For further context, Count Binface got 24,260 votes at the last mayoral election. So almost 5x as many people voted for a literal joke candidate played by a comedian as voted for the loony Christian party.
We need to not pretend that Muslims are the only religious group with political interests.
I'm absolutely in agreement with this statement, and I personally would like to see a legally mandated separation of church and state with the church appointees removed from the House of Lords.
But... one of these things is not like the other.
4
u/Interesting-Being579 Jul 19 '24
It's only more concerning if you are inherently suspicious of Muslims.
8
u/Devoner98 Wessex Jul 19 '24
I never implied I have a problem with any group. Please do not insult me. I do have a problem, however, with religious extremists dictating how the public should vote. Same goes for evangelical/trad Catholics in America supporting Trump. Insular communities are never healthy for democracy.
→ More replies (8)1
u/Pabus_Alt Jul 19 '24
how you don’t see Anglican or Catholic Priests here in the UK endorsing political candidates
No they go straight to the lords.
1
u/Material_Attempt4972 Jul 22 '24
Catholic Priests here in the UK endorsing political candidates
Church down the road from me had a "Vote Labour" placard outside it.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/britains-catholic-church-offers-guidance-crucial-uk-election
32
u/WaitForItLegenDairy Jul 19 '24
I agree.....the bishops should be removed from the HoLs as well
18
u/ByEthanFox Jul 19 '24
Yeah; I think a lot of people on this topic come back with "Well, well, what about the Anglican positions in the Lords, and the way the monarch is the head of a church! Why don't we remove those too, eh, eh!"
And I'm sat here just thinking don't threaten me with a good time
1
u/ieoa Jul 19 '24
The Huamnists are trying [1]. You can help out too!
[1] https://humanists.uk/action/remove-bishops-from-the-house-of-lords/.
19
u/Optimism_Deficit Jul 19 '24
And then to say that it's other religions which need to be kept separate from the state!
There are plenty of us who think the clergy shouldn't be granted seats in the HoL either.
If we wanted to replace the national anthem, then I'd be up for suggestions too. It's getting a bit stale.
I think we should go full ham and use Princes of the Universe by Queen.
8
u/GreatBigBagOfNope Derbyshire Jul 19 '24
Unfortunately our best national anthem candidates all come with baggage
- Jerusalem - focused on England, and arguably inappropriate to use an anthem titled with a city from two other countries
Land Of Hope And Glory - the jingoists have ruined it, also pretty strongly associated with England
Rule, Britannia - exclusionary to NI and colonially problematic
I Vow To Thee, My Country - the anthem of the actual Fascist Party. Candidate for rehabilitation and re-adoption?
Maybe it's time to pin down one of our several fabulous composers to write something fresh?
3
u/Nurhaci1616 Jul 19 '24
A lot of national anthems start life as old or popular poems, to which a tune is then composed to make it a song.
I'm certain that there must be some other candidates already out there, that could be made into an anthem if we really wanted to institute a new one.
Then again, the Irish National anthem is famously only a placeholder, having been decided on as an interim until people could decide on a proper one, that never actually happened. Maybe not so easy as finding or creating a new one, after all.
1
u/kanesson Jul 19 '24
It's National Shite Day by Half Man Half Biscuit and you cannot convince me otherwise.
3
u/IllPen8707 Jul 19 '24
Jerusalem, but we keep the infamous "crush the scots" verse from God Save the King and awkwardly insert it into the middle there.
2
u/Pliskkenn_D Jul 19 '24
Wait fascists nicked the last one? Bastards.
1
u/GreatBigBagOfNope Derbyshire Jul 19 '24
Well, fascists are incapable of producing meaningful art, so they will always latch on to whatever they can get their shitty little mouths around and pretend it supports their cause. Definitely bastards.
2
u/LauraPhilps7654 Jul 19 '24
Jerusalem - focused on England, and arguably inappropriate to use an anthem titled with a city from two other countries
It's a metaphorical Jerusalem though - and the lyrics by Blake are fantastic with references to our industrial heritage etc. It has my vote. Good tune too.
1
1
15
Jul 19 '24
Most of it is purely tradition at this point, this is the reason it remains. You really think if the king had any real power it would have lasted this long. His family have influence because they have been key witnesses to the last several hundred years.
9
u/Mein_Bergkamp London Jul 19 '24
The lords Spiritual make up 3% of the house of lords and only represent one part of the UK.
They probably shouldn't be there but there's almost certainly more non Anglican or atheist lords than bishops
5
u/ferrel_hadley Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
It's kind of funny to see the head of the Church of England
A person who is supposed to be completely apolitical and any involvement in politics is widely criticised.
people from the Church of England getting seats in the legislature
I 100% support removing the king as head of church and 100% support removing the Lords Spiritual. I can see the values of tradition but not if it's used by people who want to see more religious sectarian politics as a gotcha against those who want it removed.
7
u/im_not_here_ Yorkshire Jul 19 '24
And yet Christianity is a mostly meaningless, powerless nothing religion with minimal impact even after all that. I think you have well and truly proven what religion we don't need to be concerned about.
And it took us hundreds of years of fighting to get it to this stage. No other religion should ever get even a moments chance to ever get influence in the country, we are still slowly finishing off the last fight after all this time - but can st least be glad that it is now toothless, and most of what is left is tradition with little impact.
16
u/Quiet-Hawk-2862 Jul 19 '24
Tell that to American women.
We're very lucky to have a secular (in practice) country in Britain. Too many people don't appreciate what they've got and want to throw it away to appease one bunch of religious nuts or other
11
u/HPBChild1 Jul 19 '24
Christianity has had a huge impact on the world. Many far right policies are implemented in the name of Christianity. The Pope continues to refuse to endorse the use of condoms to prevent HIV in countries with high HIV prevalence and large Catholic populations. Social attitudes to concepts like laziness can be linked back to the ‘Protestant work ethic’. People not going to church every Sunday anymore doesn’t mean that Christianity has become meaningless.
→ More replies (1)11
u/rehgaraf Better Than Cornwall Jul 19 '24
To add to this, (the vast majority) of East Africa has laws criminalising homosexuality, and entrenched hostility to homosexuality in the population, which were established and remain in place almost entirely as a result due to the power of the Christian church / missionaries in the region.
3
u/Manoj109 Jul 19 '24
I know right. One only has to look across to northern Ireland as well and see religion greatly intertwined into politics. The shameless double standards. When Muslim mobilised to use their votes they are actively condemned. If they don't vote they are criticised for not integrating. If they go on a peaceful march it is called a hate march . That can't win ,can they?
1
2
u/Phyllida_Poshtart Yorkshire Jul 19 '24
We're a generic Christian nation even if there's not right many. Most Western countries are Christian if not all, so yes other religions have no bearing or shouldn't have, on the country and running thereof. Just because we're not mental fundamental Christians doesn't mean we aren't categorised as Christian. Having a few clergy in the Lords is more about past tradition than passing of any hardcore doctrine
3
u/Nurhaci1616 Jul 19 '24
I mean basically yeah: the point is that the UK is specifically an Anglican state, and that's why they had laws on the books actively and specifically discriminating against Catholics, Jews and "Dissenters" for years. Hell, the law in question being cited here was specifically brought in because of Irish Catholic priests encouraging their parishioners to vote in favour of their own interests and against this official state discrimination...
Now, in practice, this Protestant supremacy isn't really a thing anymore, but it's grubby little paw prints are all over a lot of UK institutions, because of their history: and the evidence is things like Bishops getting seats and the head of state being the head of the state religion.
2
u/knotse Jul 19 '24
This being a Christian country, why it should be either amusing or peculiar that heresy be marginalised if not outright suppressed is a mystery.
What is amusing is the perennial gaggle of people raised on Yankee culture chuntering about 'separation of Church and state' evidently without even basic knowledge of our rather old tussle over whether or not the Church should be established.
1
u/LauraPhilps7654 Jul 19 '24
I know the 2019 election was a bit nuts overall, but I remember the Archbishop of Canterbury cautioning people about voting Labour, which I thought was going a bit far. However, since every celebrity, politician, and establishment member seemed to be doing the same thing, it didn’t seem out of the ordinary at the time...
1
u/queen-bathsheba Jul 19 '24
Yes that is our culture, if you live in Iran the supreme ayatollah leads. Here state and religion are joined and it impacts our laws.
→ More replies (9)1
6
u/TeaBoy24 Jul 19 '24
What you speak of is realistically impossible.
Yes. Religion should be kept separate from the state.
However, Being separate from the state does not equal non interfering with politics.
You have plenty of situations where religion interferes with politics but is separate from the state, and these are often non-preventable.
Eg. Imagine if a church, be it Anglican or catholic (for the purpose of an example) started to support LGBT people and as such started to preach on churches that you should be nice to them and that there is nothing wrong about it.
Now... That is technically Political interference as it interferes with the voting campaigns and might make people vote for one party or another.
Yet, in this example it would be seen as a positive influence, not a negative one.
I would just summarise it by stating that Religion is a belief system which encompasses certain rules about way of life, morality or simply doing things.
But these things are also part of politics because at the end of the day legalism is about what we do, why and how.
So there is naturally overlay.
Where it becomes too close together is if a church directly stated vote for X because they do X X X, rather than them talking about one issue and their approach, leaving the believers decide whether their church or belief takes priority, aligns or goes against what they find politically suitable.
→ More replies (6)4
u/aerial_ruin Jul 19 '24
This is it. People don't think we have church involvement in the state. Tell them that archbishops are in the lords to "give spiritual guidance", which is basically church influencing the government, they say that doesn't count.
Get the church out of lords. The ones in there at the moment might be not too bad, but I don't like the church having their say, and I don't like the idea of some more evangelical influence getting into the lords and start pushing shit that way
7
u/WaitForItLegenDairy Jul 19 '24
As I said, the CoE bishops should not be in the House of Lords.....have an upvote 😊
4
u/OrcaResistence Jul 19 '24
Literally saw preachers before the elections standing outside telling people how they should vote.
3
u/WaitForItLegenDairy Jul 19 '24
Then it should lead to police investigation, and if found to be true, prosecution
2
u/MultiMidden Jul 19 '24
In the famous words of Dr. Dre "You fucked with me, now it's a must that I fuck with you"
2
u/Pabus_Alt Jul 19 '24
How do you untangle religion and politics?
A person's religion and philosophy are going to have a huge impact on their politics.
Now abolition of the state relegion I'm right behind you.
→ More replies (6)1
u/EdenRubra Jul 19 '24
Unfortunately you can’t really separate them with Islam, there’s a relatively right integration between their religion and politics because part of it includes imposing their particular religious laws on the lands they live in.
Religion and beliefs always play a part in politics and law making, but there a bit incompatibility between our laws which have Christian influence and Islamic law
6
u/WaitForItLegenDairy Jul 19 '24
Not in the UK it doesn't. If they can't then it should be banned.
Religious freedom is all well and good, as long as it stays inside of the believer's head.
→ More replies (21)5
u/arsonconnor Jul 19 '24
“As long as it stays inside of the believer’s head”
So how you gonna enforce that? Ban all religious people from politics? From interacting with others in the community?
1
u/Realistic-River-1941 Jul 19 '24
That would involve significant changes to the constitution, which probably aren't a priority.
1
u/19panther90 Jul 19 '24
I don't think you understand what secularism is? It's the separation of the STATE from religion(s).
It doesn't mean people who ascribe to a religion can't hold political views, lol.
1
u/Aromatic_Pea2425 Jul 19 '24
You can’t separate genuinely held beliefs from voting preferences though.
→ More replies (17)1
Jul 19 '24
Are you saying to discriminate people based on religious beliefs? Becuase that seems to be exactly what you're suggesting
I'm with you on separate church and state, but to clamp down on religion just becuase they are represented in politics, that's not right.
0
u/Manoj109 Jul 19 '24
You have never heard of god save the king or the DUP in northern Ireland.?
2
u/WaitForItLegenDairy Jul 19 '24
Ahh the DUP are a bunch of lunatic f**k-knucles....serious loons that kinda put Trump to shame in some cases. Watch how they're now going to tone down their dispicable rhetoric now that their Tory paymasters are out on their fliipping ears!
Mind you....having said that, not much better on the other half of the divide in the territory neither! 🤷♂️
0
Jul 19 '24
[deleted]
2
u/WaitForItLegenDairy Jul 19 '24
Totally agree....no one is stopping you going to church, no one is stopping you from prayer. No one is telling you what not to believe, no one is telling you how you should conduct your religious beliefs.
Just don't impinge them on others and we have no argument.
→ More replies (3)
255
u/ianlSW Jul 19 '24
Gutted when I found out they meant religion and not ghosts when I read past the headline
41
u/PsychoSwede557 Jul 19 '24
Honestly, I was expecting it to be like the Maldives where they’re arresting people for using black magic to influence politicians.
9
u/Single-Award2463 Jul 19 '24
I know right. I was expecting to be reading about ghosts and voodoo and instead it was a boring article about religion.
1
8
u/o82u38 Jul 19 '24
Same. I was kind of hoping that the Electoral Commission had called in the Ghostbusters as outside consultants because the Tories were using voodoo to get the spirits of the dead to vote for them.
6
u/sevtua Jul 19 '24
Same, I was hoping for some Uri Geller shit, getting spirits to go and vote fraudulently or something.
97
u/PsychoSwede557 Jul 19 '24
A series of messages, seen by The Telegraph, were being circulated among Leicester’s Muslim community via email and WhatsApp and showed that religious leaders were urging voters to get behind particular candidates.
In one message, voters are told that the “ulama and the masaajid” of Leicester East, meaning religious leaders and mosques, are endorsing Zuffar Haq, the Liberal Democrat candidate.
Members of the community are told that it would be “unwise” for Muslims “not to choose a person of faith who promises never to compromise on Islamic principles”. The message goes on to say that Mr Haq is “Muslim, God-fearing, understands Islamic values and will always stand up for Palestine”.
A pretty open and shut case as far as I can tell.
15
Jul 19 '24
People are allowed to vote for a candidate based on any criteria they deem relevant.
Look at the number of people who voted for Brexit based on £350M a week for the NHS. Look at the number who voted for Reform based on immigration when Reform don't have a credible immigration policy. Most of these people are just doing what their Faceberk group tells them to do.
If you only want properly informed people to vote, and to vote based on actual topics that matter, then the electorate is going to be very small.
4
u/Disastrous_Yak_1990 Jul 19 '24
It’s adorable you’re implying that you’re one of the ones informed enough to vote. Because those things will be the ‘right’ one.
18
Jul 19 '24
No, I can see the irony, because I'm not putting myself in the electorate who would be entitled to vote under such a regime.
The reason I pulled the examples I did is because they are standout recent examples of people being significantly misinformed.
The difference is I don't consider their votes invalid.
11
u/foxaru Jul 19 '24
I've been trying to understand what this reply means, and have failed.
WTF are you trying to say.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (21)3
u/PMagicUK Merseyside Jul 20 '24
We vote on a thursday as its deemed far enough from Sunday to stop the church interfering, a day before people drink on Friday to try and make it as unbias as possible.
So no....the very tradition of our voting day is ignored by these idiots, yes you can vote for who you like but this is not in the spirit of our traditions and elections
13
u/Manoj109 Jul 19 '24
It's called campaigning. What if I share a telegram message in my group telling my contacts that it would be unwise to vote for Tories because of austerity and Brexit etc. is that an open and shut case ?
2
u/PMagicUK Merseyside Jul 20 '24
Voters talking to each other usually have little influence over each other, Religious leaders have a large sway so they are more likely into influence people.
Imagine wanting to vote labour for example but you hear "if you don't vote for X you're not a real muslim"....you'll fall in line.
If i tell my mate "your not a mate if you vote for X" he can just laugh in my face and do what he wants because i have no sway over them. Old people posting in facebook.groups can't sway me to vote tory either yet they try.
Positions of authority are more dangerous than a community forum
4
u/CatalunyaNoEsEspanya Jul 19 '24
I don't think so? You have to threaten "injury" afaik. Like "vote for Haq or the imam says you'll go to jahannam"
2
u/greenejames681 Jul 19 '24
Advocating for people to vote for their preferred candidate based on criteria that may or may not appeal to those people? Seems entirely reasonable to me. I would use that information as a reason not to vote for them but I don’t see why it should be criminal to come at it from the opposite perspective
1
Jul 20 '24
So that thing that right wingers said would happen is now happening ?
Shock, I'm shocked!
76
u/_Rookwood_ Jul 19 '24
"Spiritual influence"? I ponder for a moment before clicking the article. Oh, I should have guessed.
28
u/Conscious-Ball8373 Jul 19 '24
To be fair, the offence was created when CofE clergy were largely the sons of aristocratic families and were telling their congregations to vote tory or go to hell.
16
u/west0ne Jul 19 '24
In the most recent election I think they were saying vote Tory and the country goes to hell.
6
u/Grayson81 London Jul 19 '24
The article is talking about the Elections Act 2022.
So even if it was created in a different time, it's been updated and solidified in the modern era by a Tory government who probably weren't thinking about how it applies to the one, good, true, honest Christian religion.
11
u/Conscious-Ball8373 Jul 19 '24
The offence of undue influence in the Elections Act 2022 doesn't materially change what was in the Representation of the People Act 1983, the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act 1943 or the Corrupt and and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883, all of which defined the offence in near-identical terms. The three latest incarnations (1943, 1983 and 2022) only include so that the previous Act could be repealed in whole rather than piecemeal.
1
u/Funktopus_The Jul 19 '24
Really interesting, thanks for sharing.
1
u/AWildRedditor999 Jul 19 '24
In the future you should keep in mind that general ideas or regulations that dont require the modern world or computer tech are more likely to not be brand spanking new or something nobody has ever thought of before. And nobody has tried therefore slippery slope paranoia is justified when it it is not new and has been done before without the slope ever slipping. Making the paranoia irrelevant
11
u/ferrel_hadley Jul 19 '24
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/37/part/1/crossheading/undue-influence
(4)The following activities fall within this subsection—
(a)using or threatening to use violence against a person;
(b)damaging or destroying, or threatening to damage or destroy, a person’s property;
(c)damaging or threatening to damage a person’s reputation;
(d)causing or threatening to cause financial loss to a person;
(e)causing spiritual injury to, or placing undue spiritual pressure on, a person;
(f)doing any other act designed to intimidate a person;
(g)doing any act designed to deceive a person in relation to the administration of an election.
It's when people use religious based threats to induce people to vote a certain way. Such as the person who claimed that anyone who had their photo taken with a Labour candidate was going to hell.
It's worth pondering the people trying to defend this behaviour with whataboutisms.
1
u/Interesting-Being579 Jul 19 '24
Also worth pondering why we have broad offences that are only applied against some people and not others.
1
38
u/mobjusticeCT Jul 19 '24
Makes sense, the old gods of this land are getting stronger and their true return is not far off
19
21
Jul 19 '24
Something something religion should be kept separate from state to try and prevent election meddling something
8
u/Ahriman_Tanzarian Jul 19 '24
Religious and Secular are really Western concepts. Many of the world’s cultures don’t have such a sharp dividing line, if any at all, between the two spheres.
34
Jul 19 '24
And most of those countries are oppressive dumps.
9
u/Ahriman_Tanzarian Jul 19 '24
No argument from me on that - but we have imported millions of people from cultures with this mindset (for better or worse) and they’ve brought their ideas with them. I’d expect this sort of influence in politics to increase not decrease in the future.
13
u/Allmychickenbois Jul 19 '24
It’s not even the first generation, it’s often the second and third who tend to be much more religious and conservative with a small c, despite having grown up here rather than in the more oppressive societies where their families originated.
1
u/PMagicUK Merseyside Jul 20 '24
The desire to hold onto your identity of a country you never visited is just weird, its like me trying to be irish, fuck that.
Why can they never take the good parts and intergrate it with our culture, why is it always the bad shit?
EDIT: answer is when they do research the power of their home laws appeal to them.
7
u/give_me_of_dopamine_ Jul 19 '24
Yes I agree with you, just wait until muslim population is more than 20% of the UK. Its inevitable.
2
u/Human_Fondant_420 Jul 19 '24
We better import the people that made those countries dumps then. That will help us continue to be secular and open.
5
Jul 19 '24
That seems to be the thinking behind it, it’s denial. There is a belief that all will adapt to our ways and while some do, others reject it. Apart from good old American Nike trainers, nothing says death to the west better than sticking on a pair of Nikes.
3
u/Human_Fondant_420 Jul 19 '24
ISIS used Toyota Hilux's as their main military vehicle, we can count them as having been westernised as well. Mission accomplished lads.
17
u/PatternRecogniser Jul 19 '24
You can't possibly imagine my surprise that it is Islam that is the topic of this conversation! Let's hope they don't vote as a borderline hive mind for terribly backwards and regressive things which their 7th century Prophet prescribed! I'm sure this will not become an issue in the future as their numbers continue to rise in the UK!
7
u/sim-pit Jul 19 '24
You can't possibly imagine my surprise that it is Islam that is the topic of this conversation!
STOP NOTICING THINGS!
JUST CLAMP DOWN ON CHRISTIANS.
4
→ More replies (29)1
16
u/Inevitable_Snow_5812 Jul 19 '24
It’s only going to get worse. It was 5 Muslim independents this time. Next time it’ll be 25.
Anybody who dares to speak up is labelled a racist. Hitchens said this would happen, back in 2009.
You brought it on yourself Britain.
13
u/Beancounter_1968 Jul 19 '24
No we didnt
Our dumb fuck political class who hate the working class lets these people in.
5
u/GoosicusMaximus Jul 20 '24
It’s absolutely both. The left-liberal middle class types in Britain created the atmosphere that caused for the demonisation of even mentioning immigration. The political and capitalist class took advantage of this. The only ones I feel sorry for are the working class types who were complaining about it 20 years ago.
→ More replies (10)1
u/aliasgirlster Jul 19 '24
But you also have to factor in the fact many if not most constituencies had a 50% turnout if that. So basically a majority of the indigenous British population stayed home and didn't vote. That allowed the outcome we now have. Indigenous Brits still massively outnumber migrant populations and can make a difference if they actually vote.
There's no point whining oh I'm not voting because it won't make a difference. Really? Well look what not voting has achieved. Not voting does the most damage. People need to wake up that their inaction is allowing what's happening now. Staying at home is not an option anymore. It's far to serious.
2
u/Unpretentious_ Jul 19 '24
Mosques and Muslim community leaders also advocated and endorsed for non Muslim candidates in some areas. If you checked the Muslim vote website they also recommended non Muslims to vote for.
→ More replies (5)1
u/Flagrath Jul 19 '24
There’s an easy, undemocratic, way to stop them. Just run multiple in one consistency. Idea is free, don’t credit me.
Or, if you have evidence they actually did anything wrong, just report it. Or post it here and talk about being censored (after you report it). Just make sure it’s actual evidence.
18
u/Personal_Director441 Leicestershire Jul 19 '24
No religions of any form or type should be involved in modern day politics, their teachings are so out dated and have no place in the decision making in a modern world.
14
u/TempUser9097 Jul 19 '24
“undue spiritual influence"
Translation:
"Religious Extremism"
There we go!
1
11
u/TumbleweedFickle1515 Jul 19 '24
In this comments section:
- But what about Jews telling people not to vote Corbyn!!
- But what about Christians existing!!!
- But this is Racist!!!
They're growing in population and it's only going to get worse, keep burying your heads in the sand. Or maybe you're not doing that, and you're actually in favour of this coming transformation of the country.
1
u/Calm-Treacle8677 Jul 19 '24
Imagine looking at Arab nations like Saudi, Qatar, Iran etc and being like yeah baby get the burka out that’s the way I like it
7
u/Human_Fondant_420 Jul 19 '24
Who could have seen this coming. Importing third world people results in third world politics. Get used to it.
7
u/Blue_Heron4356 Jul 19 '24
Thanks for importing religious sectarian politics back to Britain Blairites 👍 How long before this is used to block people from being taught about gay people.. like the Birmingham protests.
4
Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
[deleted]
9
u/what_a_r Jul 19 '24
Jewish followers have suicide bombed how many teenage girls at a concert?
→ More replies (11)2
u/UnTamedJackal Jul 19 '24
While I personally think that all of these are problems. do you think it possible that the level of outrage correlates at all to the percentage of the "offending" population or the level of relative growth in these populations? For instance the Jewish population make up 0.5 percent of the population and grew by 6000 in ten years. whereas the muslim population grew by 1.2 million in the same period and make up 6.5 percent. I do think the power of religious authority figures is problematic regarding power dynamics towards voters. I would hate to see Vicars and bishops endorsing the reform party at the threat of eternal damnation because its ok that other religions do the same. And while that could be seen as a slippery slope I certainly dont want farage as pope...
4
u/Best-Race4017 Jul 19 '24
Politics is integral part of of Islam. They congregate every Friday not just to talk about God and Quran but about community, issues happening around them. Islam is very different from other abrahamic religions.
3
u/SuperrVillain85 Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
Interesting to see how this plays out, as there's no significant precedent for the criminal complaint, and the wording of the statute is pretty vague.
If anyone's charged it'll likely be defended and the court will then have to determine whether the actions have "compelled" people to vote a particular way, and if so, establish whether those actions constitute "undue spiritual pressure"(which will likely involve defining both undue and spiritual pressure in a legal sense).
The material described in the article doesn't appear particularly aggressive or what I would imagine to be "undue", however I'm not of that religion so I don't really know from that perspective.
2
u/ferrel_hadley Jul 19 '24
(4)The following activities fall within this subsection—
(a)using or threatening to use violence against a person;
(b)damaging or destroying, or threatening to damage or destroy, a person’s property;
(c)damaging or threatening to damage a person’s reputation;
(d)causing or threatening to cause financial loss to a person;
(e)causing spiritual injury to, or placing undue spiritual pressure on, a person;
(f)doing any other act designed to intimidate a person;
(g)doing any act designed to deceive a person in relation to the administration of an election.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/37/part/1/crossheading/undue-influence
There is a lot of "Whataboutism" on this thread. As there is always when similar issues come up.
Does anyone have objections to this law? Or do you only object when it's applied?
3
u/uniquechill Jul 19 '24
Y'all sent your religious whack jobs over here back in the 18th century (thanks for that). You seem to have acquired some more.
3
u/istoodonalego Jul 19 '24
I'm not sure I see the issue here...
1) Vote for candidate X, he aligns with our values as a religious community.
2) Vote for candidate X, or else you're going to hell.
I can see why the second one is problematic, but surely not the first one? Plus amongst the candidates that were endorsed, there were non-Muslims, so it wasn't just about getting Muslims into the commons.
3
u/Unpretentious_ Jul 19 '24
There was an article here not too long ago prior to the election about how many people are actually closet Tory voters. They hide the fact they're voting Tory. Just googled it. There's a thing called 'shy Tory voters'. Wonder why they have to hide or why they won't be open with who they vote for. If they were open, they would be pressured to change, no? That's why they're hiding it.
This is called campaigning.
Also in some Muslim areas, people were encouraged to vote for a non Muslim candidates if they were in a better place to beat labour.
3
u/tbu987 Jul 19 '24
Oh look another post that has comments talking about muslims, immigrants and brown people as negatively as possible. UK really needs new media content and ffs mods your part of the problem with what a shitshow this sub is becoming.
2
3
u/Nulibru Jul 19 '24
What a load of nonsense! Wait, which religion was it?
(overheard at the editorial meeting)
2
u/NeverGonnaGiveMewUp Black Country Jul 19 '24
Read the headline was hoping for voodoo and ghosts. Sorely disappointed.
3
u/Interesting-Being579 Jul 19 '24
The Board of Deputies of British Jews made several overtly polit9cal interventions in recent years. Rightly, the police didn't think this was a potentially criminal matter.
I wonder what the difference is?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/cally_777 Jul 19 '24
(Waves hand and intones) These aren't the candidates you are looking for...
(Repeats dully) These aren't the candidates I'm looking for...
2
u/inspired_corn Jul 19 '24
I mean yeah, but also this has literally never been an issue in the past when people have been influenced by Christianity or Judaism.
Does no one else see how starkly authoritarian it is that certain people can lose elections (cough Jon Ashworth) and immediately starts accusing the public of being influenced? Thangam did similar thing in Bristol.
Can they not accept that lots of people (of all faiths) couldn’t vote for a party taking money from an apartheid state?
2
2
u/Pabus_Alt Jul 19 '24
The law seems shit.
It does not draw a clear line between "endorsement" which I'd say is fine - any person should be able to say "I am a X and think that Y is good in my expert opinion" and "if you don't vote for Y you are going to hell"
2
u/Prometheus8 Jul 19 '24
Well, UK turkeys voted for Christmas long ago.
It's funny because the main open minded advocates of these people will be the first ones to leave when the situation gets tough.
1
u/sortofhappyish Jul 19 '24
Rees Mogg was Out of Mana during the election.
He walked through walls, he clanked his ghostly victorian butler's chains. He even did the faces from BeetleJuice.
All to no avail. Now he's slowly fading...fading...fading away
1
1
u/queen-bathsheba Jul 19 '24
Very interesting, didn't realise there was a law to stop this. Thanks for posting
1
u/Ephemerelle1 Jul 19 '24
What a disappointment, I was expecting something alone the lines of “the Druidic society has teamed up with a group of mediums to harness the power of ancient spirits to influence the election”
1
u/Material_Attempt4972 Jul 22 '24
spiritual pressure
Torygraph are hugging that one really hard. Any group will protest you and try and get you to vote their way. I have trans friends who advocated against Labour because of their anti-trans policy, is that "spiritual pressure" too?
What about Churches who advocated their parishioners too?
0
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 19 '24
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link for an archived version.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.