Already banned from the job with the metal hat, I think (certain religions anyway).Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Printable View
Already banned from the job with the metal hat, I think (certain religions anyway).Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
You're doing it again. Equating a reference to fundamental beliefs (which all faiths have) with accusations of religious fundamentalism? There is a significant difference between the Christian faith expressed by more progressive practitioners than those who literally believe every word of the people reflects their Gods law. Is that something you recognise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
On a personal level I find religions to be rooted in deep superstition, outlandish by their very nature and deeply divisive. I don't want our political leaders to be devout anything, other than to be devoted to social justice and improving the lives of our citizens.
No one is suggesting banning people of religion from any jobs, but I think it's perfectly reasonable and not bigoted at all to say that you prefer that our political leaders were not motivated by their religious beliefs.
I would also suggest that you do some reading about religious fundamentalism and it's influences, 0.1% or whatever figure you just plucked out of the sky. You do understand that not all people who could be described as fundamentalist in their views are Muslim?
A person’s beliefs should only prohibit them from the office if it would impact their ability to operate in a fair and impartial manner that is representative of those who put them in that office.
Forbes is one such bigot who has already said she would vote with her faith and conscience (on gay marriage). If she can’t separate her faith from the office, she doesn’t belong in politics, never mind the highest Scottish office.
She's said she's quitting Westminster. Not sure she's said she's quitting politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenlex
Is there a vote coming up on gay marriage? Forbes has said she would not be bringing one and has no interest in making it an issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylar
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry, I should have said “has previously said”. Around the time of the last leadership election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The ‘Christian right’ in the UK may not be anywhere near as powerful as its US counterpart, but it still tries to exert influence on public policy. This has become increasingly difficult as fewer Britons identify themselves as Christian. Steven Kettell finds that although these campaigners bemoan the effects of secularisation, they have found themselves adopting secular arguments in order to oppose same-sex marriage, abortion and assisted dying.
The US Christian Right would seem to be enjoying something of a resurgence. Evangelical voters have helped propel Donald Trump to the White House, potentially ushering in an era of renewed political influence and religiously inspired policy-making. Research in Britain, on the other hand, has typically concluded that no parallel ‘Christian Right’ movement exists. Compared to their US counterparts, conservative Christians in Britain are far fewer in number, tend to engage with a different set of issues, are typically more left-of-centre in their economic outlook and have far less political clout.
But to ignore the political activities of conservative Christian groups would be to ignore some of the more politically active members of British society. In recent years such groups have contributed to a number of contentious disputes around free speech, abortion and assisted dying, as well as protests about religious freedom and equalities legislation.
Conservative Christian activism typically centres on number of core organisations. These include the Christian Institute, the Evangelical Alliance, Anglican Mainstream, Christian Concern, Christian Voice, Christian Action Research and Education, the Conservative Christian Fellowship, the Christian Medical Fellowship, Core Issues Trust and the Christian Legal Centre.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandp...iscrimination/
"This article considers two streams of Christian Right mobilisation in the UK – the Christian Peoples Alliance and the Conservative Christian Fellowship – in the context of neoliberalism and resurgent communitarianism. The article notes their roles as moral swords of justice in challenging a lack of local democracy, the weight of multinational corporations, racism and hostility towards migrants. Conversely this article also shows how that same morality underlines an assault on women's reproductive rights and enables the perpetuation of Christian supremacy and anti-Muslim sentiment within the context of a national turn to communitarianism and a discourse about British values and cohesion. The article concludes by highlighting the conditions within which these Christian Right organisations garner political space and legitimacy, the registers they utilise to make their claims and the specific aspects of their interventions and ideology that make them fundamentalist formations"
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...oral_Crusaders
Now, can we stop making ridiculous assertions about people being bigoted, stop assuming that anyone who uses the word fundamental is a Daily Mail reader, accept that politics and religion are not always comfortable bedfellows and get the thread back on track.
At least she was honest, did Humza not hide to save him voting? I don’t believe for one minute he supports gay marriage either he just didn’t say it, instead he came out with ridiculous excuses for not voting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylar
Forbes was made out to be some kind of religious mad women by some but we ended up with Humza who tweeted about religion all the time.
I don’t believe in any religion, personally think it’s all nonsense but if the new FM is religious who cares as long as they keep it to themselves and don’t let it influence their decisions.
HY conveniently missed the vote on gay marriage? Think he had a prior commitment which made him miss an important vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylar
Well said. In America, Joe Biden who is a staunch Christian is fighting for abortion rights for woman again, whilst the ex New York playboy who has bedded many woman banned abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibee
Bonkers but at least Biden can seperate his political beliefs from his religious ones.
Religion and politics don’t belong together but if we excluded people with faith from politics then it would hardly be the most democratic thing.
If KF decides to stand, it’s up to the members to judge her religious views and in fact the last leadership campaign was between two candidates with strong religious views.
I demand to know what football team the candidates support, it would narrow down my choice candidates quite significantly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
I think your making up a religious fear like some right wing parties do against sharia law. I've not seen any mainstream Scottish politician who would let their religion supercede the will of the people and the laws we have. Both Yousaf and Forbes have said they wouldn't change any laws and have both shown progressive budgets. We are not America where religion changes policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
I'm personally strongly atheist but I wouldn't bar the large percentage of Scots who believe in what i think are fairytales, from holding our top office
Personally I worry about letting any evangelical atheist with their fundamental beliefs regarding the absence of any spiritual dimension to our lives within a mile of any of the top offices of state. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Your last sentence is the crux of my point: she’s explicitly said she would let it influence her decisions and voting, and that’s where my issue lies. Im not religious and wouldn’t hold it against anyone under any circumstances. But our elected officials need to represent the people who elect them: not the particular church or deity they adhere to.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibee
Someone mentioned football allegiance above. It may have been flippant, but religion should be like a business declaration of interest for me that MPs/MSPs are required to disclose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
+1
:greengrin
Be careful, we might end up with Ian Blackford.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
https://x.com/frasernelson/status/17...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
A sign that Forbes is feared by unionists? Normally Nelson would be all for someone like her if she was on his side?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The problem for Forbes is that so many in her own party will share those views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Feared is a bit much…respected, yes, admired for her competence yes but not frightened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
He's not the only one. Here's well known ***** Kenny Farquharson in the TimesQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2...8f4abdbaf2a048
Quote:
Kate Forbes is unfit to be first minister of a 21st-century Scotland. A 1920s Scotland, maybe. A 1950s Scotland, perhaps. But not Scotland in 2024.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
those comments are shocking. Personal attacks, inferring she’d be looking to repeal civil rights laws, absolutely horrible.
If similar had been said about Sunak or Yousaf when they were in the running their respective party leadership, we’d have seen those commenters being accused of racism or prejudice, yet Forbes seems to be fair game.
It’s the same article, not two different ones. They are shocking comments though.Quote:
Originally Posted by McD
Sorry, my mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
https://twitter.com/DalgetySusan/sta...22055560675661
For anyone criticising KF over her religious views.
Especially when she can easily be targeted for some of her viewsQuote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
He clearly knows she isn’t capable personally to repeal anything however he isn’t interested in that and is just doing his masters job.Quote:
Originally Posted by McD
Sort of takes away 90% of people's arguments against her. I think she's always said she would rule by the will of the people and the landQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibs4185
The thing is there is far more pressing things you could criticise her for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs4185
She's fiscally conservative/right in a lot of areas (her support for the grifters dream of free ports anyone?). I'd be far more concerned about her economic policy than I would be that she is going to suddenly repeal same sex marriage laws and criminalise abortion.
Why isn’t HY getting such abuse for missing yet another vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I find it so strange the abuse she gets.
It’s either because she’s a woman with strong beliefs or the media and other parties are scared of her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
She also supports decentralising and giving more power to councils along with creating more local councils to serve communities better at a local level, I agree about the freeports but there's also positives.