The rest is politics - “The Taliban took over the country and it's much safer”

[HiggledyPiggledy33]

Just outraged at what I’ve just heard in the rest is politics.

They are discussing why aren’t we boycotting Afghanistan, and I can’t believe what Rory is saying.

“For the first time in over 20 years, you can travel safely through the country.”

Well maybe you can Rory, but I don’t think women can - is that fine? Throw half the population under the bus, as long as you’re OK.

“The Taliban have very repressive views on women, but they've also in other ways changed”
oh well that’s ok then.

“We're in a culture now where it really suits a lot of people, particularly on the far right, to emphasise Muslim countries where women are not treated correctly”
Women not being treated correctly is the problem. Once that’s sorted, let’s look at any sensitivity about muslims.

From The Rest Is Politics: Question Time: Assad’s People - Syria, Torture, and Justice, 9 Jan 2025

@RoyalCorgi forgive me, despite having been made to attend Anglican Church services weekly until the age of 18 my knowledge of the bible is shockingly bad; but don’t those passages only emphasise fealty to Jesus ahead of your family, not strangers?

Btw although I am now an atheist I have really enjoyed listening to podcasts which dissect and explain the meaning of Exodus and so on. I find it endlessly fascinating, perhaps I was unlucky but what a pity the various Clerics and RE teachers from my childhood didn’t make it as interesting.

Politicians find it much easier arguing about political philosophy and what God meant, than consider how women and girls are doing in Afghanistan.

All very interesting.

Could be interpreted as culty dynamics, encouraging the severing of family ties.

Could be interpreted philosophically, in various ways.

For those who have given up on TRIP other political podcasts worth a listen are 'The News Agents' - Emily Maitliss is on this one, 'Electoral Dysfunction' - Beth Rigby, Ruth Davidson and Harriet Harman. 'Not Another One' is also interesting, has 4 hosts from the left, middle and right of politics.

I've never understood why Alistair Campbell is revered by so many people, he's so aggressive and arrogant. I've tried to listen to TRIP a few times but they both irritate me too much. His and Rory's attitude to women's rights are appalling. Their recent political analysis on the US elections was so out of touch. They can't understand people not like them and this includes women.

I still remember Sunday School lessons in which I was taught about what it might mean to love another as I love myself. And there was always the question, "Who is my neighbour?" To which the correct answer was, "Everyone!"
I think it's interesting the message was universalised this way. I now think it actually dilutes it. It's not about having a warm fuzzy feeling in general towards all people on the planet equally. It's about, who is here, before me, right now. I think of Levinas or Buber, now, rather than, I don't know, Bentham. Also, who needs me, I guess, given the Good Samaritan story is the answer Jesus gives to the question.
This is well and truly OT but grateful for the discussion.

"That sounds like a cult" is exactly what I thought reading that.

I wonder if I'll get deleted again for using the 'c' word, but not relating to genderism this time...?

Many if not most religions start off as groups that display what could be called cult dynamics.

But it could also be interpreted in more generous terms - like an emphasis on 'oneness' or the encouragement to be more selfless and generous. And of course these are reported words, filtered through different accounts, with various potential motivations.

Is it "high demand religious community" that people studying cults say instead? Something like that.
I think that would describe the first century disciples.

Actually the word "cult" does come from Christian tradition and wasn't perjorative originally. A bit like "woke" I guess.
Obvs I have housework to do I am blathering badly.

Yes, you're right. But in terms of this debate, the passages do at least show that Jesus doesn't tell people to prioritise their families - quite the opposite.

When it comes specifically to the importance of caring for strangers, probably the best example is The Good Samaritan, where Jesus specifically defines the word "neighbour" to mean "complete stranger". (In fact, it's even stronger than that: Samaritans were considered not just strangers, but enemies.) To put it another way, everyone is your neighbour, and you must care for everyone equally.

I've copied and pasted the below from a site called Bible Gateway:

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’b]”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denariic] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Interesting discussion on Christianity.

yes I agree with pp and in todays thinking we would think of Christianity as a cult.

I do think Christianity’s refusal to engage in animal sacrifice unlike Roman and Viking beliefs and Judaism at the time was good.

Mary as the (virgin) mother was I believe developed by later Christians and promoted heavily and you could argue is very successful.

So surely religions evolve and a bit of common sense is employed by most who try to align their lives with their religion.

With regards to the religious discussion, I believe that Vance was reliant on a few arguments - I have copied and pasted below.

My understanding is that the debate was regards to family vs strangers and that Vance, from his point of view (political or converted catholic) was on the view that the scripture and writings of these (Aquinas) was indicating that although you should love thy neighbour like thyself, there is a hierarchy with relates to the people you are responsible for.

if you do not do something about the various wars and conflicts in the world, this may be a sin whereas if you neglect your children and people dependent on you that is definitely a sin.

happy to be told I am wrong.

St Paul:
But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. 1 Timothy 5:8

Aquinas:

“Augustine says: ‘Since one cannot do good to all, we ought to consider those chiefly who by reason of place, time or any other circumstance, by a kind of chance are more closely united to us’…
Now the order of nature is such that every natural agent pours forth its activity first and most of all on the things which are nearest to it… But the bestowal of benefits is an act of charity towards others. Therefore we ought to be most beneficent towards those who are most closely connected with us.
Now one man’s connection with another may be measured in reference to the various matters in which men are engaged together; (thus the intercourse of kinsmen is in natural matters, that of fellow-citizens is in civic matters, that of the faithful is in spiritual matters, and so forth): and various benefits should be conferred in various ways according to these various connections, because we ought in preference to bestow on each one such benefits as pertain to the matter in which, speaking simply, he is most closely connected with us. And yet this may vary according to the various requirements of time, place, or matter in hand: because in certain cases one ought, for instance, to succor a stranger, in extreme necessity, rather than one’s own father, if he is not in such urgent need…
For it must be understood that, other things being equal, one ought to succor those rather who are most closely connected with us. And if of two, one be more closely connected, and the other in greater want, it is not possible to decide, by any general rule, which of them we ought to help rather than the other, since there are various degrees of want as well as of connection: and the matter requires the judgment of a prudent man.” (Summa Theologiae II-II.31.3)

I think you're absolutely right, Hoover.

My own view, for what it's worth, is that the most reliable source for understanding Christian values is through the words of Christ himself, as reported in the Gospels. Clearly Vance takes a different view, which is up to him, but I don't think he had any business sneering at Rory Stewart for giving a perfectly legitimate view based on Christ's own teaching.

@RoyalCorgi but don’t you think RS was pretty rude and patronising to JD Vance in his initial tweet?

Yes , it's interesting that Vance goes to a later source rather than Jesus himself. ' Christianity was never tried and found wanting ; it was tried and found hard.' GK Chesterton - I paraphrase.

Of course later on writers would add little revisions and caveats. Reason is God's gift and all that.
I suppose Vance could have gone with Paul's line about salvation through faith , which Luther edited to 'faith alone' ie charity is not important. In fact its just a form of spiritual vanity. But then JD is trying to be a Catholic so that might not look good. What a tangled web...

sorry everyone but to go back to Rory Stewart and Afghanistan, could anyone give me a link to that podcast?
I have looked on youtube and my searches just get clogged up with gardening videos (possibly more useful)

https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=EEmq5zi_PVc&si=K2MJUEdO3scmGHu_

About 18 minutes in.

I had to remind myself what he wrote, which was:

"A bizarre take on John 15:12-13 — less Christian and more pagan tribal. We should start worrying when politicians become theologians, assume to speak for Jesus, and tell us in which order to love …”*

I think that was fairly mild by Twitter standards.

*The verse from John is "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."

But he went on to castigate Vance for having the temerity to even reference Christian concepts.

I think RS (Eton and Oxford educated and the son of a diplomat) was a fool to have a go at Vance (son of a drug addict and survivor of an abusive childhood in one of the poorest areas of the US) over this.

Interestingly Giles Fraser has said both interpretations are fundamentally correct.

I do like Rory but agree on the blind spots.

I also liked Vance a lot before his reincarnation as Veep. I thought his conversion to Christianity was good, but he now gives the impression of a zealous new convert w the links to Opus Dei, which worry me. (A family friend joined them and then was completely isolated from his family - still is. I have read quite a lot about them, and they do seem to be rather cult-like) Do you think he might be going a bit strong on the religion element, or am I being unfair?

Sorry to zombie again- please don't reply if it's inconvenient.

One of the things Jesus did while dying was ensure His mother would be taken care of.

John 19:25: Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

Furthermore, Luke 14:27 describes Him warning His followers to think carefully about whether they're able to follow Him to the end, and all four gospels portray the Apostles and future leaders of the Church as flawed people (as when Peter lied that he didn't know Jesus). Cults rely on doing the opposite.

From what I've read- Controversies about Opus Dei - Wikipedia- Opus Dei sounds like a cult.