Conservative PPC Philippa Stroud ran prayer sessions to "cure" gays

Well NewFrontiers churches do have an all male leadership policy if memory serves.

Kay - I have met a lot of women like this as well - they become like it because their husbands are ministers in this sort of church - which looks like the case here which leads to other questions about strength of ones own mind etc.

If they've prayed for homosexual demons to come out of people then I'd question their fitness to govern, aye.

" but this is of a different order and I think she should step down. "

Along with all the other candidates who hold these views I take it?

I've been in the kind of prayer sessions that would have been held, and they're not fun. Pippa Stroud has done some amazingly good work with the poor, but this is of a different order and I think she should step down.

I would ask her but they always consult their clipboards and stride straight past my house.

She will surely be keeping her head down until Thursday anyway?

btw I fished out her literature and 3/4s of it is Cameron - only a brief introductory blurb is her.

It will be interesting to see how Stroud responds to this. She'll need to repudiate those views now if she wants to salvage any credibility at all.

"Absolutely, name and shame them! "

Couldn't agree more.

"what I really have a problem with is that she believes in demons and is therefore anti-science - this to me suggests a serious lack of judgement. "

Agreed. But then so do many other's who believe creationalism should be taught as fact instead of what science has proved.

I think it is slightly different with a christian candidate actually - I myself was brought up within the CofE tradition but this actually doesnt mean being homophobic - far from it (its a broad church ).

Whereas people rightly or wrongly will assume that a Muslim candidate will hold certain views.

I would accept someone having trouble with homosexuality because of their faith - I find that abhorrent but its honest at least - what I really have a problem with is that she believes in demons and is therefore anti-science - this to me suggests a serious lack of judgement.

Absolutely, name and shame them!

"To atlantis, of course the same applies to any candidate of any party: you'd expect them not to be openly hypocritical in this way. But what's different here is that Cameron is busy trying to portray the tories as 'changed', when the likes of Stroud and Grayling suggest that they have not. And Stroud is touted as one of those at the forefront of the 'new, caring conservatism'! "

Ok, but look how many muslim candidates each party has are they all supposed to list the same problem with homosexuality on their C.V's?

I agree, it's wrong to have these views, i'm not taking any candidates side here, but what I am saying is there are plenty of candidates across all parties who are running under a parties ethos and who are hypocrites, list them all, not just the one conservative and say, look aren't the conservatives bad.

Exactly, omni.

To atlantis, of course the same applies to any candidate of any party: you'd expect them not to be openly hypocritical in this way. But what's different here is that Cameron is busy trying to portray the tories as 'changed', when the likes of Stroud and Grayling suggest that they have not. And Stroud is touted as one of those at the forefront of the 'new, caring conservatism'!

Its just atlantis that nowhere has she mentioned this on her literature - that she has an evangelical christian background and believes in demons that can be cast out through prayer etc - I think it is important to know these things and IME a Muslim candidate for whichever party will say so in their pamphlets.

It is hypocrisy because she is standing as an advocate of social justice and those people drawn to that will assume she on the progressive side of the Tory party and have certain views because of that when it is patently not the case.

"I don't think she's awful for being a christian though. I think she's a hypocrite because she claims to espouse the views of the conservative party when she clearly does not espouse those views herself.."

But what I am saying is the same for any candidate in any party who has these 'faith' issues, so why are we hyping on about her and not every other candidate from every other party who has these faith issues?

They are all bloody hyprocrites aren't they as each party believes in gay rights.

Yes, she's a bloody idiot, but then are so many candidates who have faith issues, so should we rule out anyone of 'faith' from standing or just her?

I live in this constutuency and its very close between Lib dem and Tory - my one hope was that she seemd ok - big on social justice etc and then I read this and my heart just sank - to be parachueted in was bad enough but now this - and shes standing against a truly local lib dem mp who the evening standard say is the 'hardest working in London'

[despairs]

It's not because she's a Christian.

If she were any other faith+these views it would be an issue.

Faith does not, necessarily=these views.

OP is about, afaik, dissemination and disjunction.

Disjunction between what NuTory says it is, and what it's NuTory candidates actually think and

Dissemination of knowledge about this disjunction.

You know, there is nothing, necessarily against people running for parliament with these views. Just so long as people know.

Thoug I must admit I wouldn't vote for them. And it is to DC's credit that he has made attempts to move his party away from this madness. Though, clearly, he is finding it v. hard to get the staff.

They worry you dont they? If this is the sort of thing that goes through their minds, what else do the likes of PS think? The world was made in 7 days?

I don't think she's awful for being a christian though. I think she's a hypocrite because she claims to espouse the views of the conservative party when she clearly does not espouse those views herself, and all of this in the context of a sustained effort by David Cameron to convince the electorate that the tories have changed. As far as I know she hasn't responded to these reports to explain this discrepancy.

"Bless you atlantis, floundering about there trying to find a way to make this a non-story."

No, be fair, even if this was a candidate from another party I would say the same.

IMO people of 'faith' shouldn't be allowed to run in public office, but that would be unpopular wouldn't it?

But all parties have people of faith and I don't want to single out any particular faith but for arguement sake, and because it's topical at the moment on eastenders, all the people who are up in arms over this stupid woman should also feel the same for any Muslim candidate for any party.

You can't have it both ways, you can't say isn't she awful because she's a christian but it's ok for a muslim to hold their values.

It's hypocritical to think any other way.

Back to the OP ...

I'm in such a quandary re. our tory candidate. I feel outraged that people don't know what he is really "like". I'm not talking about the private morality stuff, whcih though unpleasant, and typical 80s tory stuff, is private, it's the other stuff.

But there is such a dissemination gap. There is no way to counter the publicly available image. It's weird.

Atlantis - i was only picking you up on the "all faiths are like this". I think it's important people remember that a lot of the laity are progressive, and to support that move for liberal faith. Just imo.

And your implicit identification of faith with certain social views. The two don't go together. It's possible to be a social liberal and a member of a faith whose leadership articulates the faith's position on those issues quite differently. Sometimes they articulate that position of dissonance from within the faith.

Don't really want to take you up on your anti-Muslim bait but, yes, I've read work by feminists and lesbians articulating the Islamic faith, form within, against a more dominant, patricarchal, anti-lesbian interpretation.

As regards going into politics. Which is separate.

Anyone can run, provided they're not breaking the law.

But people publicly holding these views? Well, we, the electorate, have the right to be fully informed, and make a judgment.

Ewe is pointing out that this candidate's views are not that widely known, and have not been widely publicly discussed, and (correctly, I feel) suggesting that this is perhaps something people might wish to take into consideration as they enter the voting booth.

Other posters have made, other, valuable, points.

Bless you atlantis, floundering about there trying to find a way to make this a non-story.

She is standing as a candidate for a party that professes to espouse equal rights for gay people, yeah?

Not only that, she is apparently one of the 'new breed' of 'social conservatives', not one of those horrid old fashioned homophobic types.

Yet she ran prayer sessions to "cure" gays.

I would be deeply suspicious of any candidate whose private views were significantly at odds with those of the party he or she is standing for.