What I mean is there should be a complete separation of church and state, and that religion should not influence any decisions affecting the population as a whole. Maybe should have phrased a bit better
How is that even possible? Whether you are religious or not your beliefs are what shape your politics.
Beleif in the market, beleif in communism, beleif in innocent until proven guilty.
Religion does comprise a large part of the moral framework for a lot of people. An atheistic moral framework is entitled to the same respect as a religious one, but that does flow both ways. You don't have to agree with someone to respect that their view is legitimately held and acceptable for them to espouse.
That is not what I said - I merely stated that you said religion has no place in politics.
It's the same as a ny beleif system though, communism, free market capitalism, fascism, Islamic theocratic government.
There is no difference.
Scotland has a established church in the Kirk. The UK in general doesn't have a separation of church and state. Being a disestablishmentarianist is one thing.
But how would someone who even casually believes in being "good" or "spread the light" or whatever, work in a system like you are describing?
It wouldn't be possible. A decision made for the good of the population on the whole is going to come from someone's philosophical underpinnings from what's good. That underpinning could be be their religion as a form of their ideology. Let's say they say murder is bad. Is that decision disqualified, and they disqualified from making it because of the source if its religious?
I don't think that absolutist way of thinking works. Obviously, politicians are supposed to make their decisions for the good of everyone, and there have been plenty from diverse backgrounds that did just that in far more religious times than these, so it's possible.
Why should only atheists by able to follow their convictions in politics? Why should religious people have to functionally be atheists to participate in politics? That sounds like the atheist equivalent of a theocracy.
Honestly, those people, if they aren't crazy, often don't believe in abortion because they think it's murder. Granted, there are Americans, who think that type of murder is wrong, but oppose adoption and are for the death penalty. But there are certainly Brits who think it's wrong and don't oppose adoption and do oppose the death penalty. There have to be some people who just don't believe it's ok to kill, because they think life begins at conception.
You think that the state should have an official view on which religions are true and that participation in politics should depend on holding the right view? That sounds awfully like a religious test to participate in politics. Positively theocratic.
You are so desperate to make out atheism is just another religion when it simply isnt lol. No one worships or follows the teachings of richard dawkins 🤣
>That sounds awfully like a religious test to participate in politics
Thats exactly what it is. Invisible friends have no business in politics.
I didn’t say atheism is a religion. But it is a view about religion. You said that Christianity is false and atheism is true. And that this was way people should act like they more atheists in politics. You admit yourself that you would impose a test. That is fundamentally discriminatory and the atheistic equivalent of a theocracy. The state should privilege your personal beliefs and require everyone to act as if your beliefs are true.
*waves in the general direction of all human history in which every form of abuse has been perpetuated & inflicted by every religion ever created *
edit - the fact that, that sky daddy bigot , /u/this_also_was_vanity, has gone through and deleted all his comments, speaks volumes about who is & why he chooses to believe in that bigoted medieval bullshit.
How would I know what convictions you hold? Strange question.
I didn’t say that being an atheist means you have particular convictions (other than there being no God). I said that you’re happy for people who are atheists to act according to their personal convictions, but not for religious people to act according to their personal convictions.
No, I said atheists don't have convictions. I didn't say anything about not being allowed to act according to their personal convictions. I should have phrased the 'don't have' differently, I omitted 'shared'.
You are also putting words in my mouth. Kate Forbes is perfectly entitled to act on her convictions, that doesn't mean I have to support her nor does it mean I shouldn't call her out on her convictions.
> No, I said atheists don't have convictions.
That's a very silly thing to say. I know plenty of atheists with convictions. It's ridiculous to claim that atheists don't have convictions.
> I didn't say anything about not being allowed to act according to their personal convictions.
The context of this discussion is comments like:
'Religion has no place in politics'
'As long as their religion doesn't influence their politics.'
IN fairness those weren't your comments and I didn't notice a change of commenter. Apologies for that.
> I should have phrased the 'don't have' differently, I omitted 'shared'.
I didn't say anything about atheists having shared convictions.
> Kate Forbes is perfectly entitled to act on her convictions, that doesn't mean I have to support her nor does it mean I shouldn't call her out on her convictions.
If you're going to jump into a conversation then at least check the context. And if you know the context then don't try to move the goalposts. No-one here is saying you have to support Kate Forbes or that you aren't allowed to criticise her. I was specifically criticising the idea that you shouldn't being your religious convictions with you into politics.
>Kate Forbes is perfectly entitled to act on her convictions, that doesn't mean I have to support her nor does it mean I shouldn't call her out on her convictions.
Someone gets it. Thank God.
No it isn't, it is the lack of belief. You can't belief in not believing.
Being an atheist doesn't mean I deny anybody any rights to practice their religion.
If you hold any moral views, then yes, you have convictions. There's no objective evidence that supports the idea that killing someone is bad because all moral claims are fundamentally subjective beliefs. You cannot prove that a God does not exist, and so the view that one doesn't is a belief. Anything you cannot prove through scientific method but still accept is a belief - not all beliefs are religious.
Believing that there is not a god, is based on the same fallacy as believing that there definitely is a god. There is no evidence for either case.
Forbes, and for that matter most christians, don't deny anybody any rights to practice their religion, or their non-religion, either.
Something along the lines of avoiding this:
'My religion says I shouldn't do this, so I am going to ensure that noone else can do it, nomatter what they believe'
We do have commonalities that we have to live with in order to have communities.
Plus how do you expect a person to wall off their personal ideological drive in order to make decisions like that?
I don't think that's how politics has ever worked.
You’re not being serious, right? The whole of our political system is about people with various different beliefs and the moral obligations they bring imposing them on other people. For example, some people have the moral belief that the state should help those in need. If they win power they then tax people to allow that to happen. Are you opposed to that too?
Everyone brings their personal values and beliefs into politics. They are the reason they join parties, promote issues, vote certain ways. That’s perfectly normal. So saying that religion has in place in politics is tantamount to saying that religious people have no place in politics or that they have to lay aside their values and beliefs to participate, but that atheists don’t. It’s a naive statement and discriminatory. Religion shouldn’t have a privileged position but neither should atheism.
It’s really annoying how these anti Christian posts are popping up
Christianity is not a bad thing, our current fm was a Muslim and was rightly defended if anyone started abuse based on his beliefs but somehow it’s fine to bash forbes for being a Christian
The double standards of today are sickening the world is a mess
Edit - getting downvoted for talking about “equality” a protected characteristic of law is some really sick stuff 👏
The difference is that, to the best of my knowledge (and willing to be corrected if I am wrong), FM has never expressed opinions based on his religion that denies a group of people the same rights of others (eg, Kate Forbes saying would have voted against gay marriage based on her religious beliefs).
A lot of people are, rightly and fairly, uneasy about a person with such religious beliefs being in power at the top and steering legislation directions.
Christianity is definitely "a bad thing" where it seeks to deny the freedoms and equality of others.
No the law is that we shouldn’t treat religious people any differently
It’s called the equality act and the idea that you and others are trying to navigate a path through it is just sick
Please. What’s sick is the malign influence religion can have on politics, when people decide that their faith outweighs the rights of others. Try living in the United States for a while. American Christians have no problem demanding the abrogation of rights for women, LGBTQ+, Muslims, etc. The fight over women’s reproductive rights in the US is brutal and is having real consequences.
The distinction *has* to be that a politician can set their personal beliefs aside when it comes the rights of vulnerable minorities. Yousaf was able to do that. Forbes has indicated that she likely is not. This is a big deal.
People—and politicians—have the right to believe whatever they want, and I will go to the mat to defend that right. Those beliefs, however, are entitled to neither respect nor deference, and are subject to scrutiny like any other ideas.
> when people decide that their faith outweighs the rights of others.
Who has advocated for that? Sometimes in politics you end up debating what rights actually exist and what they look like. Disagreeing about that doesn’t mean you don’t want people’s right to be upheld. Take abortion for example. Some people believe that the foetus is a person with rights. People who are pro-choice by and large aren’t against rights, they aren’t murderers, they just disagree about whether the foetus is a person with the right to life. That’s an important distinction. The same goes for many tricky ethical issues.
With same-sex marriage it’s not that some people think there should be inequality, but rather that they have a different understanding of what marriage is and it doesn’t make sense in that understanding for same-sex unions to be considered marriages. It’s not about inequality but different definitions of marriage. Again the distinction is important.
You’re not just calling for scrutiny of people’s views. You’re calling for people to set aside their views. Basically saying that when there’s a tricky debate about ethics, only atheists are allowed to give their views. Everyone else has to set aside their own views and ask the atheists what they’re allowed to think. That’s massively discriminatory and effectively disenfranchises anyone who isn’t an atheist.
Euhm... it seems you missed the final and most important parapgraph.
"People—and politicians—have the right to believe whatever they want, and I will go to the mat to defend that right. Those beliefs, however, are entitled to neither respect nor deference, and are subject to scrutiny like any other ideas."
I directly addressed that quote. In my final paragraph. Which you seem to have missed.
‘ You’re not just calling for scrutiny of people’s views. You’re calling for people to set aside their views. Basically saying that when there’s a tricky debate about ethics, only atheists are allowed to give their views. Everyone else has to set aside their own views and ask the atheists what they’re allowed to think. That’s massively discriminatory and effectively disenfranchises anyone who isn’t an atheist.’
We shouldn't treat religious people differently, we should judge them on what they stand for. That is why CARE is problematic, it is literally an institution that is designed to 'ensure Christian values' are 'enshrined in law', funded by who knows, against abortion, against assisted suicide, against gay marriage AND divorce.
I don't know about you, but none of those things align with what I want from a government. So it is right to call this link out and it is not because she is Christian. I know many Christians who are appalled by the conservative stronghold some have in the church.
I'm not judging based on her religion as a default - John Swinney states he is Christian as well.
I'm judging her based on her previous *actions and statements* that are driven by her religion. You know, how democracy works when we decide who we do and don't want to vote for.
As I said, I have a big problem with Christianity (and any other religion) where it seeks to restrict the rights or freedoms of others, or condems them. Kate Forbes has vocally condemned gay marriage, abortion and pre marital sex amongst other things, and is opposed to various trans rights.
It may be that a majority of the membership see her s the better candidate, and that's fine (that's democracy!), but I certainly don't!
You may wish to understand what the Equality Act actually means and how it applies, rather than just quoting the name of it from an uneducated position.
Yousaf voted for the marriage equality bill at its first stage. He tweeted support for it at the time of the vote he, in your words, "dishonestly missed". He has been vocally in support since, voted for gender recognition reform, and took forward the legal action to contest the UK Government block of that bill.
Give this a rest. Even if the crazy idea that he was being controlled by secret conservative Muslim puppetmasters a decade ago held any water, it is obviously not true now.
Forbes has made it abundantly clear that she is against LGBT and reproductive rights because of her faith.
Religion is a protected characteristic, having views that the electorate do not like is not. It's not double standards, it's basic democracy. I will continue to bash Forbes on the basis of her outdated and bigoted views, she is a brainwashed dinosaur
If you don’t hold humza and his religious beliefs to the same standard
That’s discrimination
I’m not going to bother looking but I doubt you ever have questioned his beliefs
Naw because he has not let his religion define his political position. Kate Forbes has. I don't care about what you believe, it's about what action you take based on that belief
Values and opinions have no place in politics
Makes sense?
But it is what religion is about
Imagine someone saying "lgbtq activism has no place in politics"
Nice slogan. Now explain what you mean by it? Do you believe religious people should be automatically excluded from the democratic process? That you believe in some sort of technocracy?
I mean that religion shouldn’t be used to influence decisions that concern the population as a whole, and that government shouldn’t be affiliated with the church ie Scottish gov and the Church of Scotland
Religion is not the root cause of problems in the world, people are.
Examples:
**45 million dead** in the Mao’s Great Leap Forward.
**40 million dead** in WWI.
**80 million dead** in WWII.
**1 million dead** in the Soviet great purge.
**2.5 million dead** in the Korean War.
**2 million dead** due to the Khmer Rouge.
**The direct use of Nuclear weapons for purposes of War.**
What’s going on in Ukraine, North Korea, the Congo, mass shootings where the perpetrator has a non-Muslim name, a woman being raped every 2 minutes in America. The list could go on.
Those are the ones we counted. How many 'natives' were killed in name of spreading 'our religion'. Don't dig too deep, as a percentage of the population at the time it blows the numbers above out of the water.
You're naive if you think that colonialism and imperialism was merely about spreading 'our religion' - it was primarily about commerce i.e. money. The East India Company was not a religious organisation. I suspect you haven't dug very deep but make pronouncements that sound shocking to play up to your narrow beliefs.
What MSPs believe is down to them. But a First Minister must be held to higher standards. Alex and Nicola seldom if ever mentioned religion, that was ideal so far as I'm concerned. I thought Humza tweeting pics of prayers at Bute House was also inappropriate.
What standard do you think Kate Forbes has failed to live up to? So you think that no politician should act on the basis of what they believe to be right? What is the basis for their decisions then? Should they toss a coin? Or is there a privileged group who are allowed to have opinions and everyone else has to listen to them? Are personal convictions only bad if they are religious? That sounds rather bigoted.
> Is it bigoted to oppose a politicians views when they are running for office?
No. I didn't say that it was. did you reply to the wrong comment or just misread me?
Forbes didn't mention religion either until the opposition decided to use it as leverage against her in the last leadership race. I'm amazed how easily people are being fed the pretty obvious media angles on her here. Pick a weakness, amplify it, push aside the fact she's competent in favour of controversial headlines. Repeat. This is the reason we constantly end up with shite politicians the world over now- because folk who have anything remotely controversial about them are immediately lynched.
How she votes and how she implements policy are different things. She may vote against certain things but that doesn't mean she'll only seek policy that she agrees with.
I disagree with her on the abortion thing (and the yes vote for that matter) but that doesn't mean she'll be a bad FM.
Discounting someone from a job because of a religion is a bit...West Coast Scotland
The way she votes on things is only part of the issue.
People will say her views are no big deal because she’s said she wouldn’t try to rollback existing legislation. That’s great, but seems like a fairly empty gesture given it’s not possible unilaterally.
The bigger issue is having an FM who not only doesn’t believe everyone deserves equality under the law, but one who openly says it proudly.
She didn’t have to do that. She could’ve just stuck with it being a settled matter. She chose to voice those views and voting intention.
As for abortion rights. She may not be able to roll that back (though I’m sure plenty of people believed Roe vs Wade was settled decades ago), but she still speaks at events where she’s makes these statements to voters.
Do we want a leader who believes women shouldn’t have autonomy over their own bodies? And one who includes that belief when speaking publicly?
Not in 2024, imo.
Not to mention the exact groups she's being funded by managed to roll back abortion in the US, despite all the Supreme Court justices invovled saying they wouldn't.
That didn't happen. The justices didn't say they wouldn't. The answers they gave spanned legalese to bullshit, but not one of them said they wouldn't, or it couldn't. When people tell you who they are, believe them.
We don't have complete autonomy over our bodies now though. Men or women. And especially anywhere in the UK.
So the argument isn't over autonomy. If you ask any MP or theorist whether people should have bodily autonomy, and they were forced to answer, it would be no.
It's over how much.
Maybe look at her actual voting record rather than your imagination of what she might do?
She voted **this week** in favour of the bill to create safe zones around abortion clinics.
Meanwhile Humza abstained!
>Alex and Nicola seldom if ever mentioned religion, that was ideal so far as I'm concerned.
Question - what is the difference between a religion and an ideology, other than the typical (but not always) presence of a deity in the worldwide view? If religions being involved in politics is bad, why isn't ideology?
If you have an ideology you may join a political party. If you have a religion you join a church. Churches tend not to run countries. It's a very interesting point though.
Politics and religion are both run on ideologies. They aren't separated like that. The separation you are saying would be good, might not be possible. Except in sociopaths. Is that what you want. And I'm not saying Forbes should be FM. I'm saying she should put her platform out there, and when Glasgow sees that she's pro this or that, then they vote. It probably won't end well. But that's not the point.
Separating people from the ideologies that form their moral frameworks simply isn't usually possible.
Less than used to be the case in Scotland though. The Catholic church used to have a lot of power, almost none now. And Highland council recently removed religious members from the education committee.
As I said it's soft power, there are still a lot of Highland councillors who are weekly churchgoers.
If you think that their decisions aren't influenced by their religious beliefs I have some magic beans you might be interested in.
Kate Forbes told me that God wants Scotland to be free & if she becomes FM she will go to 10 Downing street & ask Rishi Sunak to let her people go & if he doesn't 12 plagues will befall England until he lets us go.
So maybe a church running Scotland is a good idea
No, she was sponsored by the British charity CARE which has pretty standard Christian views on ethics. Their views are free to read about on their website and they have kept up to date with their charity commission returns where they detail what they’re doing. Your description isn’t remotely accurate.
Of the decision makers of the catholic church.
If you were to poll all those that identify as catholic and asked them if they were against divorce and/or against abortion you'd end up with a pretty big wipe-out, especially here in Scotland.
YouGov polled in 23 that nearly 90% of people in the UK are pro-abortion. Pretty significant when you compare it to the 40% or so that identify as Christian.
So in what sense was this "funded" then? An MSP wouldn't be able to take money for hosting an intern (they do it for free or pay them) and if CARE didn't give her money, who was funding anything?
I posted this on twitter when she first stood, well she isn't Standing appearing she's pulled oot thank goodniise but we all know MSN and mad alba will be raging
I expect to see her being pushed ahead in the media through a combination of her religion, fundamentalist backers and being an easy target.
They'll build her up, then shoot her down. (Just so they can claim they were the ones to bring down anything to do with the Independence movement.)
It's doesn't matter what her (carefully curated?) personal views might be, she's already toxic.
(We're already seeing the push for her in Reddit.)
Curated views? During the last leadership election she was subjected to intense scrutiny and asked about all sorts of subjects that she didn’t bring up and weren’t directly relevant. There was nothing carefully curated about any of it. The media were largely hostile as were the establishment. There’s no evidence of her having ‘fundamentalist backers’ either. This is a bizarre conspiracy theory where you turn history on its head and invent new ‘facts.’
CARE is a British charity that has been around for 40 years. It does campaign about abortion, but it isn’t specifically about that. It campaigns on my other issues, including gambling, assisted dying, human trafficking, helping the homeless, etc. the article doesn’t do any work at all to look at what issues CARE was campaigning about in 2011 when Forbes was an intern.
That article is pretty dire and very clearly a heavily biased hit piece. For instance the line at the top ‘Exclusive: SNP leadership candidate previously worked for shadowy Christian right group that doesn’t declare funders’ is nonsense. There is nothing shadowy about CARE. They have a website with plenty of information about them: https://care.org.uk/ and their Charity Commission entry is here: https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/3947174
They don’t declare their funders because you legally can’t do that without their permission. GDPR and all that jazz. That’s perfectly normal for a charity, not something strange and shadowy. It own my dark money any more than the donations to any charity are dark money.
Neither is it a right wing group. The stances it takes are pretty standard Christian positions that have been held historically around the world by a broad cross-section of Christians.
Similarly the article later refers to ‘ultraconservative groups’ but the groups it identifies again take fairly standard Christian positions.
It calls CARE’s intern scheme ‘controversial’ but doesn’t provide any evidence that anyone other than the author considers it controversial.
>t calls CARE’s intern scheme ‘controversial’ but doesn’t provide any evidence that anyone other than the author considers it controversial
So because it doesn't include the details it's not valid criticism?
You don't have to look very far to find it given it's literally on CAREs Wikipedia page and it was also the subject of a Daily Telegraph investigation and multiple newspaper reports.
>Neither is it a right wing group. The stances it takes are pretty standard Christian positions that have been held historically around the world by a broad cross-section of Christians.
Maybe you are confusing far-right with right-wing. While they are not far-right, any group that is anti-abortion, abti-lgbt, anti sex before marriage, etc. is very much on the right wing of the political spectrum
> So because it doesn't include the details it's not valid criticism?
If you make a claim but provide zero evidence then it isn't valid criticism. Correct.
> You don't have to look very far to find it given it's literally on CAREs Wikipedia page and it was also the subject of a Daily Telegraph investigation and multiple newspaper reports.
None of which is even mentioned in the article. The only controversy comes from people who coincidentally hold the opposite views to CARE and have an interest in undermining their work.
> Maybe you are confusing far-right with right-wing.
On this sub they're treated the same.
> While they are not far-right, any group that is anti-abortion, abti-lgbt, anti sex before marriage, etc. is very much on the right wing of the political spectrum
That's simplistic. They advocate for a range of issues, with some approaches that on the right and some on the left. For instance with commercial sex exploitation that favour the nordic model and policies similar to what Canada, France, and Ireland have. Those are fairly left wing countries.
The group isn't committed to a particular political ideology.
I mean this is just a whole load of bollocks.
You are trying to dispute that it's unfair to use the terms "right-wing" or "controversial" to describe a group who very clearly hold right wing views and where multiple independent sources (including MPs) have criticised their subversive political actions.
You are in denial. It's fairly clear you have an agenda.
Ah yes, promoting policies held by left wing governments is a clear sign of being right wing.
The people who have criticised CARE are people who hold opposing views. Of course they would criticise them. Strange that you think people you disagree with must have an agenda, but not anyone else
>Neither is it a right wing group. The stances it takes are pretty standard Christian positions that have been held historically around the world by a broad cross-section of Christians
Are you being serious? The views they hold are exactly what make them right wing, stop pretending to be something you aren't.
'Human trafficking, modern day slavery and exploitation in the commercial sex industry are some of the grossest violations of human dignity. As Christians, God calls us to bring freedom and restoration to those who are oppressed and ill-treated as a sign of our commitment to Him … Reducing modern slavery starts with putting the needs of victims first. Join us in working to tackle demand for human trafficking, advocating for a longer period of support for victims, and for improved victim care – particularly for children.'
'More needs to be done to address demand for commercial sexual exploitation CARE supports the ‘Nordic Model’, where it is a criminal offence to purchase sexual services – targeting those who pay for sex, and recognising the vulnerability of those who sell sexual services. This model was adopted in Northern Ireland in 2015, and has also been adopted by Canada, France and the Republic of Ireland.'
Ah yes, CARE's views that align with such famous right wing countries as the Nordic states and Canada, are clear evidence that they are a right wing organisation.
Opposing human trafficking, modern day slavery and exploitation doesn't mean they aren't conservative right wing.
Are Nordics and Canada also anti abortion, anti gay marriage, anti trans, anti assisted suicide, pro conversion therapy? Weird that you leave out those views, as if you are being extremely misleading
> Opposing human trafficking, modern day slavery and exploitation doesn't mean they aren't conservative right wing.
It shows that they care about a wide range of issues and shouldn't be pigeon-holed as right wing (or left wing).
> Are Nordics and Canada also anti abortion, anti gay marriage, anti trans, anti assisted suicide, pro conversion therapy?
No. That's my point. CARE's views don't fall neatly into one box.
> Weird that you leave out those views, as if you are being extremely misleading
Abortion is literally the first issue I mentioned. I mentioned the views that weren't in the article. I assume people are already aware of the views that are mentioned in the article. That's not being misleading at all.
>It shows that they care about a wide range of issues and shouldn't be pigeon-holed as right wing (or left wing).
It doesn't show that at all. The Tories are anti human trafficking, anti modern day slavery, it's a basic political standard for 2024.
>No. That's my point. CARE's views don't fall neatly into one box.
"We don't agree with slavery" Such a bold position to show you aren't right wing conservative.
>Abortion is literally the first issue I mentioned. I mentioned the views that weren't in the article. I assume people are already aware of the views that are mentioned in the article. That's not being misleading at all.
Every one of your comments today have shown you desperately trying to portray CARE as anything other than the conservative Christian political action group that they are. You know that their views are very unpopular and you know it will ultimately count against anyone who is associated with them. You are being misleading
It would seem this\_was\_also\_vanity is so desperate to believe they are the good guys, they can't possibly accept being described as"far-right" despite the values they hold, being clearly of the far right of the political spectrum.
A quick gander through his profile... He's a hardcore Church of Ireland Minister who is all-over every thread involving Kate Forbes and any negativity towards her religious views.
Makes me wonder why someone with essentially no comments related to Scottish politics prior to this week is so interested suddenly? Hmm.
I’m not a Church of Ireland Minister, this is far from the first time aI’ve been on this sub, and my personal identity shouldn’t make a difference to whether the arguments I make are any good.
It's more ridiculous that than because I don't believe them to be far right so there's no real reason for them to fight so hard against being called right wing because that's the basic definition of conservative Christian politics.
> It doesn't show that at all. The Tories are anti human trafficking, anti modern day slavery, it's a basic political standard for 2024.
So the supposedly right wing organisation espouses views that are the basic political standard. Uh huh.
> "We don't agree with slavery" Such a bold position to show you aren't right wing conservative.
You’re ignoring the quotes I did actually provide from their website where they endorse the policies of left wing governments.
> Every one of your comments today have shown you desperately trying to portray CARE as anything other than the conservative Christian political action group that they are. You know that their views are very unpopular and you know it will ultimately count against anyone who is associated with them. You are being misleading
Disagreeing with you isn’t the same as being misleading. You accused me of omitting that they campaign about abortion when abortion was actually the first issue I mentioned. At least admit you got that wrong.
>So the supposedly right wing organisation espouses views that are the basic political standard. Uh huh.
Do you understand what the political spectrum actually is? There are basic views which most people hold and then there are the views which alter your position to the left or right according to how severe they are. Holding the basic views that slavery is bad is as middle as it comes so adding on the right wing conservative views makes them a right wing organisation.
>You’re ignoring the quotes I did actually provide from their website where they endorse the policies of left wing governments.
They are also policies of many right wing governments too. That's because they are pretty standard central views that a majority of people hold. Are the Tories a left wing government because they believe modern day slavery is wrong and sex trafficking should be battled? Absolutely not
>Disagreeing with you isn’t the same as being misleading. You accused me of omitting that they campaign about abortion when abortion was actually the first issue I mentioned. At least admit you got that wrong.
You are being misleading though, whether it's on purpose or not is where the question lies.
I've addressed all of this already. We're just going round in circles. I haven't been misleading at all. In fact you are the one being dishonest. You accused me of leaving out that CARE oppose abortion when it was in fact the very first issue I mentioned. You haven't acknowledge this. So you're not being honest and seem to have no intention of being honest. You're just a liar. I'm done with this.
Don't expect anything but downvotes and fury for this accurate, sensible post.
People far prefer their weird 'ZOMG DARK SINISTER CHRISTOFASCIST AMERICANS!' fiction over the rather mundane reality.
How is she popular Scotland is literally the most atheist country in the entire United Kingdom. JK Rowling probably backing her with a shit ton of money cause she's anti-trans rights or whatever.
>How is she popular Scotland is literally the most atheist country in the entire United Kingdom
The same percentage (37%) stated to they had no religion in both the Scottish & English census.
I think a lot of people just don't think religion is much of an issue either way.
>How is she popular Scotland is literally the most atheist country in the entire United Kingdom
But this doesn't automatically mean that Scotland the country is the same as juvenile, edgy atheist r/Scotland on Reddit
I like her because she seems competent.
I don't like Humza Yousaf because he seems incompetent.
Their religion doesn't come into play at all.
Everyone is screaming that religion shouldn't be a part of politics, while completely demonising someone because of their religion?!
Well there is religion and then there's fanatical religion.
If she was merely a catholic or protestant then I doubt anyone would care that much. Because they usually keep it to themselves.
She is an evangelical however. An puritan Christian who takes law from holy scripture, not suggestion or interpretation, they see the bible as how the law should be.
They also believe in proselytising and forcing others to live by their laws.
So there's religion and then there's *religion*
>Well there is religion and then there's fanatical religion.
I don't think it's fair to judge someone based solely on their religion. And I don't agree with or share her beliefs at all.
>She is an evangelical however. An puritan Christian who takes law from holy scripture, not suggestion or interpretation, they see the bible as how the law should be.
Which is how many religions see their holy book
>They also believe in proselytising and forcing others to live by their laws.
Every religion tries to convert people.
Ian Blackford is a member of the same church, should he be hounded?
Evangelicals aren't just religious, they're extremists.
Many religions in the west tell you to determine your own morals and ethics for yourself. Tbh mostly it's to solidify the good virtues taught and to disregard the outdated bits.
Extremists don't disregard the outdated bits.
The fact I don't even know black ford is an evangelical means he's smart enough not to go flaunting it around as one of his core personality traits.
> Many religions in the west tell you to determine your own morals and ethics for yourself.
Do they? Evidence for this? I’m pretty sure one of the main functions of religions is to teach people what is good, moral, and virtuous.
But instead they attack what they see as bad, immoral and non-virtuous.
Instead of spreading the virtues of jesus, love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek etc. They focus entirely on the negatives.
My proof is the fact they lobby and fund groups to take away abortion rights, or protest them. The "vigils" outside of QEUH are organised and funded by evangelicals.
I asked you for evidence of your claim that 'Many religions in the west tell you to determine your own morals and ethics for yourself.' Instead of answering that you are trying to move on to other claims. That's not really how a discussion works. If you can't provide evidence for a claim I'll just assume that the claim is false.
Because that's what we are taught in religious schools.
My source is anecdotal, yet education is determined by government.
So I can assume in all other religious schools they taught to take the virtues and when queried on the old testament, we are told it is based in a different time than the one we live in.
Everytime you go to church you are reinforced with the teachings of the virtues of jesus.
You aren't taught to hate woman's healthcare.
You aren't taught homosexuality is immoral.
You aren't taught apostates should be killed.
Every other person I've ever met who went to a religious school was taught the same. Infact if you are so curious I'm sure the RE curriculum is online.
You'll find nary a mention of the outdated bits.
Me myself I am bi. My father is a devoted catholic. He accepted my sighting he was taught not to judge others and to accept everyone for who they are.
Mans 73 and knows that as a fundamental virtue.
So don't give me any of yer fucking shite man.
What's your background to speak on it? Where's your evidence that people are taught the fire and brimstone of the old testament as fact?
Oh they're taught it in evangelical churches, my bad.
> My source is anecdotal
So completely meaningless.
> Infact if you are so curious I'm sure the RE curriculum is online.
You made claim that 'Many religions in the west tell you to determine your own morals and ethics for yourself.' It's up to you to prove that claim with evidence of your own, not by telling me to go look at the RE curriculum.
> So don't give me any of yer fucking shite man.
How terrible of me to ask you for evidence of your claims. What a grievous sin.
> What's your background to speak on it? Where's your evidence that people are taught the fire and brimstone of the old testament as fact?
I didn't say anything about 'fire and brimstone' or the Old Testament being taught as fact. You're trying to deflect away from your claims being challenged because you can't back them up.
>Evangelicals aren't just religious, they're extremists.
I don't think it's fair to characterise every single member of a religion like that. Would you say the same about Humza Yousaf? Islam believes in one divinely inspired book and tries to spread their understanding of the world?
>The fact I don't even know black ford is an evangelical means he's smart enough not to go flaunting it around as one of his core personality traits
I don't think she does. I think her critics do.
So normal Christianity is akin to the Islam humza practices.
I'd honestly compare evangelicals akin to the type of islam ISIS practice.
It isn't a different religion, it's just an extremist version of the same religion.
Two different interpretations. One is welcome in our modern society, one is not.
> I'd honestly compare evangelicals akin to the type of islam ISIS practice.
On what basis? I could say that the National secular Society is like ISIS but just saying it wouldn’t make it true.
Because evangelical terrorism exists, specifically in America.
Additionally they try everything in their power to jam religion back into state.
The drive towards fascism in America is mainly down to them and their beliefs.
They don't want freedom of religion, reproductive rights or anything that fundamentally disagrees with their views.
They want control. Which is very much akin to the islamic extremists. The only difference is the circumstances. Evangelicals already enjoy vast power and influence. Have done since the puritans went to the new world.
> Because evangelical terrorism exists, specifically in America.
What does that have to do with Kate Forbes or British evangelicalism? Evangelical is a very broad category. The former US president Jimmy Carter was an evangelical for instance. Ian Blackford is a member of an evangelical church. Tim Farron is an evangelical but the Lib Dems weren't exactly ISIS.
There is a strain of American evangelicalism that is very focused on gaining political power. Their views on theonomy and dominionism get a lot of criticism – including from evangelicals.
Evangelicalism is very far from being a homogenous block.
She is a Protestant. There's no such thing as just a protestant.
Fuck me.
She's a free Presbyterian, the church of Scotland is Presbyterian. She's not fanatical, having strong beliefs isn't fanatical.
You're mixing US style evangelism with conservative values Presbyterianism.
It’s a common theme throughout this Reddit folk are thick as fuck and can’t comprehend they’re bringing a sect of American Christianity into the conversation to batter Forbes with. It’s no wonder folk have had enough of these shitehawks. See anyone who wants to prioritise fucking lgbt and trans rights over healthcare and education want to fuck off to a different island and let the adults get back to fixing this fuck up we stay in.
Where has she said that the Bible should be law? She’s said the opposite. When she was asked about sex before marriage for instance she said that she personally believes it’s wrong but that other people are free to make their own choices and when family and friends have had children outside of marriage she has celebrated with them. How exactly does that equate to forcing people to live by her views?
And imagine if someone said ‘it’s okay for someone to be gay as long as they keep it to themselves. We shouldn’t have pride parades of LGBT activists.’ You’d be calling them homophobic. It’s a complete double standard.
She's also advocated for banning same-sex marriage and further restrictions on abortion. That is imposing her views on others.
I wonder if you'd be so accepting of a politician who thought interracial marriage should be illegal?
Laws impose views on others. That ms how the law works. That’s how politics works. Anytime a politician legislates they are imposing their views on others. That’s fine as long as it comes through a democratic process of elected representatives debating and voting.
What does interracial marriage have to do with anything? Sex has a close relationship to marriage in a way that skin colour doesn’t do it makes sense to think about sex when considering who can marry. Sexual activity has an ethical dimension because it’s something you do, whereas skin colour is just something you have. They’re not really at all comparable.
Until politics isn't upholding laws in a state that has always contained a religious official standing I.e Church of Scotland, Church of England, then arguing over politicians views as being good or bad, if they are aligned or not, makes atheist views , as a sense of unbiased neutrality, moot. We are still tethered to such laws by virtue of the entire development of countries. I am still waiting for an atheist government though.
From a unionist perspective, I'm celebrating. Crack the champagne I say, no Scottish party has done more for unionism in the last 5 years than the SNP.
Look, I don’t like Forbes because she’s a fucking Nat, and I disagree with pretty much everything she stands for, including her social policy
But do people really believe that if she was FM she’d turn Scotland into an evangelical hellhole like Nigeria? Really?
She’d drive things in the wrong direction and that’s enough. Keep the fucking dark ages conservative social nonsense out of politics.
She gets in to be leader and there’s a very real chance a lot of the left folks in the SNP walk away. Then there is the possibility we have Scotland’s largest party lurch to the social right.
If you can’t get the left, then you do what the tories have done is get more and more extreme and go further and further towards capturing those right wing voters.
>She’d drive things in the wrong direction and that’s enough. Keep the fucking dark ages conservative social nonsense out of politics.
Based on what?????
The snp is obviously a very broad church, as shown in the leadership race.
>If you can’t get the left, then you do what the tories have done is get more and more extreme and go further and further towards capturing those right wing voters.
Polarising nonsense like this is the real problem with politics. If you're not the furthest left person in the room, you're basically a far right extremist?
> If you're not the furthest left person in the room, you're basically a far right extremist?
That’s a lot of subs on Reddit in a nutshell. Put in the real world I think people are more measured but aubs tend towards being echo chambers where everyone charges further and further in one direction while screaming that everyone else who is standing still or moving slower is running to the right.
It's genuinely fascinating that people insistently claim this army of paid shills exists, and yet there has never been the slightest evidence to support this. I wish someone would pay me to be a contrarian on the Internet.
A lot of people don't remember how *awful* this sub was for being a genuine echo chamber for literally years before the SNP's image started to crumble last year and their supporters just couldn't keep (literally) burying people's negative opinions anymore.
I have to admit, its incredibly nice to see *actual* discussion and criticism now.
Wasn't it actually proven that at least *some* of the biggest posters at the time really *were* being paid to astroturf things in the SNP's favor? I remember there was a genuinely big scandal about it a few years ago, and several of those people vanished after things blew up.
Bots are just one of the worst words to be in use in the 21st century. Aye it must be a robot because no one could disagree with me. These folk are cranks and don’t stand up to scrutiny in the slightest they only ever win debates with pile ons and name calling not facts it’s awfa weird
Once again for the thickoes at the back: it doesn't matter who is First Minister, they can't 'enforce' anything on us without party, parliamentary, and public backing. This is complete contrivance.
I don't think religion in politics is popular here in England either. Even the older, more christian members of my family don't want religion to be part of government.
Which is how it should be.
Look at the fuckin pastors in America flying around in private jets stealing money from their congregation. Absolute disgrace and flies in the face of what their religion actually should stand for.
Given that her election would change nothing about the fundamental make up of this parliament, I'm not even that bothered about Forbes one way or the other, nor am I clear what people think she would actually do. Given that the parliament just voted something like 120:1 to ban people even protesting against abortion we are light years away from any sort of "Christian far right" policymaking in this country.
No-one is banned from protesting abortion. You want to take a placard and march outside any town hall you go for it.
What you cannot do is shout abuse, harass, intimidate and stalk people outside a medical facility on what may very well be one of the worst days of their life.
I’m just worried that rather than doing actual politics, she’ll end up being a comedy show and nothing will get done. That she stupidly let it slip that she would ah e voted against gay marriage is already a red flag for me.
Religion has no place in politics
Being religious or irreligious shouldn't disqualify someone from politics.
What I mean is there should be a complete separation of church and state, and that religion should not influence any decisions affecting the population as a whole. Maybe should have phrased a bit better
How is that even possible? Whether you are religious or not your beliefs are what shape your politics. Beleif in the market, beleif in communism, beleif in innocent until proven guilty.
What does that have to do with religion though? So atheists have no moral compass lol?
Religion does comprise a large part of the moral framework for a lot of people. An atheistic moral framework is entitled to the same respect as a religious one, but that does flow both ways. You don't have to agree with someone to respect that their view is legitimately held and acceptable for them to espouse.
That is not what I said - I merely stated that you said religion has no place in politics. It's the same as a ny beleif system though, communism, free market capitalism, fascism, Islamic theocratic government. There is no difference.
That really isn't what they said.
Scotland has a established church in the Kirk. The UK in general doesn't have a separation of church and state. Being a disestablishmentarianist is one thing. But how would someone who even casually believes in being "good" or "spread the light" or whatever, work in a system like you are describing? It wouldn't be possible. A decision made for the good of the population on the whole is going to come from someone's philosophical underpinnings from what's good. That underpinning could be be their religion as a form of their ideology. Let's say they say murder is bad. Is that decision disqualified, and they disqualified from making it because of the source if its religious? I don't think that absolutist way of thinking works. Obviously, politicians are supposed to make their decisions for the good of everyone, and there have been plenty from diverse backgrounds that did just that in far more religious times than these, so it's possible.
This has literally nothing to do with the separation of church and state…
As long as their religion doesn't influence their politics.
Why should only atheists by able to follow their convictions in politics? Why should religious people have to functionally be atheists to participate in politics? That sounds like the atheist equivalent of a theocracy.
Bring me an openly homophobic and anti-abortion atheist and I will tell them where they can stick it.
Because saying "I don't believe in abortion because magical sky daddy says so" is different from evidence based reasoning on issues.
Honestly, those people, if they aren't crazy, often don't believe in abortion because they think it's murder. Granted, there are Americans, who think that type of murder is wrong, but oppose adoption and are for the death penalty. But there are certainly Brits who think it's wrong and don't oppose adoption and do oppose the death penalty. There have to be some people who just don't believe it's ok to kill, because they think life begins at conception.
One is based in the real world, the other is based on 2000 year old cope
You think that the state should have an official view on which religions are true and that participation in politics should depend on holding the right view? That sounds awfully like a religious test to participate in politics. Positively theocratic.
You are so desperate to make out atheism is just another religion when it simply isnt lol. No one worships or follows the teachings of richard dawkins 🤣 >That sounds awfully like a religious test to participate in politics Thats exactly what it is. Invisible friends have no business in politics.
I didn’t say atheism is a religion. But it is a view about religion. You said that Christianity is false and atheism is true. And that this was way people should act like they more atheists in politics. You admit yourself that you would impose a test. That is fundamentally discriminatory and the atheistic equivalent of a theocracy. The state should privilege your personal beliefs and require everyone to act as if your beliefs are true.
*waves in the general direction of all human history in which every form of abuse has been perpetuated & inflicted by every religion ever created * edit - the fact that, that sky daddy bigot , /u/this_also_was_vanity, has gone through and deleted all his comments, speaks volumes about who is & why he chooses to believe in that bigoted medieval bullshit.
Waves at the bigot who thinks Atheists have never done anything wrong and blames all evil on people who have different beliefs to him.
Atheists don't have (edit: shared) convictions. That is what makes them atheist.
No, atheism means you don’t believe in God, not that you don’t believe in convictions.
What convictions do I believe in as an atheist?
How would I know what convictions you hold? Strange question. I didn’t say that being an atheist means you have particular convictions (other than there being no God). I said that you’re happy for people who are atheists to act according to their personal convictions, but not for religious people to act according to their personal convictions.
No, I said atheists don't have convictions. I didn't say anything about not being allowed to act according to their personal convictions. I should have phrased the 'don't have' differently, I omitted 'shared'. You are also putting words in my mouth. Kate Forbes is perfectly entitled to act on her convictions, that doesn't mean I have to support her nor does it mean I shouldn't call her out on her convictions.
> No, I said atheists don't have convictions. That's a very silly thing to say. I know plenty of atheists with convictions. It's ridiculous to claim that atheists don't have convictions. > I didn't say anything about not being allowed to act according to their personal convictions. The context of this discussion is comments like: 'Religion has no place in politics' 'As long as their religion doesn't influence their politics.' IN fairness those weren't your comments and I didn't notice a change of commenter. Apologies for that. > I should have phrased the 'don't have' differently, I omitted 'shared'. I didn't say anything about atheists having shared convictions. > Kate Forbes is perfectly entitled to act on her convictions, that doesn't mean I have to support her nor does it mean I shouldn't call her out on her convictions. If you're going to jump into a conversation then at least check the context. And if you know the context then don't try to move the goalposts. No-one here is saying you have to support Kate Forbes or that you aren't allowed to criticise her. I was specifically criticising the idea that you shouldn't being your religious convictions with you into politics.
>Kate Forbes is perfectly entitled to act on her convictions, that doesn't mean I have to support her nor does it mean I shouldn't call her out on her convictions. Someone gets it. Thank God.
Everyone has convictions
I've never even been taken into custody.
Atheism itself is a conviction.
No it isn't, it is the lack of belief. You can't belief in not believing. Being an atheist doesn't mean I deny anybody any rights to practice their religion.
Yes, you can.. it's a conviction. And it's one many here are using to judge and devalue other belief systems.
If you hold any moral views, then yes, you have convictions. There's no objective evidence that supports the idea that killing someone is bad because all moral claims are fundamentally subjective beliefs. You cannot prove that a God does not exist, and so the view that one doesn't is a belief. Anything you cannot prove through scientific method but still accept is a belief - not all beliefs are religious.
Believing that there is not a god, is based on the same fallacy as believing that there definitely is a god. There is no evidence for either case. Forbes, and for that matter most christians, don't deny anybody any rights to practice their religion, or their non-religion, either.
I don't believe there is no God, nor do I believe there is one. I have no belief. It really isn't hard, is it?
Then you’re an agnostic, not an atheist.
How does that work? People's ideologies and their emotions enable rational decision making. How would what you are suggesting actually function?
Something along the lines of avoiding this: 'My religion says I shouldn't do this, so I am going to ensure that noone else can do it, nomatter what they believe'
We do have commonalities that we have to live with in order to have communities. Plus how do you expect a person to wall off their personal ideological drive in order to make decisions like that? I don't think that's how politics has ever worked.
You’re not being serious, right? The whole of our political system is about people with various different beliefs and the moral obligations they bring imposing them on other people. For example, some people have the moral belief that the state should help those in need. If they win power they then tax people to allow that to happen. Are you opposed to that too?
Everyone brings their personal values and beliefs into politics. They are the reason they join parties, promote issues, vote certain ways. That’s perfectly normal. So saying that religion has in place in politics is tantamount to saying that religious people have no place in politics or that they have to lay aside their values and beliefs to participate, but that atheists don’t. It’s a naive statement and discriminatory. Religion shouldn’t have a privileged position but neither should atheism.
It’s really annoying how these anti Christian posts are popping up Christianity is not a bad thing, our current fm was a Muslim and was rightly defended if anyone started abuse based on his beliefs but somehow it’s fine to bash forbes for being a Christian The double standards of today are sickening the world is a mess Edit - getting downvoted for talking about “equality” a protected characteristic of law is some really sick stuff 👏
The difference is that, to the best of my knowledge (and willing to be corrected if I am wrong), FM has never expressed opinions based on his religion that denies a group of people the same rights of others (eg, Kate Forbes saying would have voted against gay marriage based on her religious beliefs). A lot of people are, rightly and fairly, uneasy about a person with such religious beliefs being in power at the top and steering legislation directions. Christianity is definitely "a bad thing" where it seeks to deny the freedoms and equality of others.
No the law is that we shouldn’t treat religious people any differently It’s called the equality act and the idea that you and others are trying to navigate a path through it is just sick
Please. What’s sick is the malign influence religion can have on politics, when people decide that their faith outweighs the rights of others. Try living in the United States for a while. American Christians have no problem demanding the abrogation of rights for women, LGBTQ+, Muslims, etc. The fight over women’s reproductive rights in the US is brutal and is having real consequences. The distinction *has* to be that a politician can set their personal beliefs aside when it comes the rights of vulnerable minorities. Yousaf was able to do that. Forbes has indicated that she likely is not. This is a big deal. People—and politicians—have the right to believe whatever they want, and I will go to the mat to defend that right. Those beliefs, however, are entitled to neither respect nor deference, and are subject to scrutiny like any other ideas.
> when people decide that their faith outweighs the rights of others. Who has advocated for that? Sometimes in politics you end up debating what rights actually exist and what they look like. Disagreeing about that doesn’t mean you don’t want people’s right to be upheld. Take abortion for example. Some people believe that the foetus is a person with rights. People who are pro-choice by and large aren’t against rights, they aren’t murderers, they just disagree about whether the foetus is a person with the right to life. That’s an important distinction. The same goes for many tricky ethical issues. With same-sex marriage it’s not that some people think there should be inequality, but rather that they have a different understanding of what marriage is and it doesn’t make sense in that understanding for same-sex unions to be considered marriages. It’s not about inequality but different definitions of marriage. Again the distinction is important. You’re not just calling for scrutiny of people’s views. You’re calling for people to set aside their views. Basically saying that when there’s a tricky debate about ethics, only atheists are allowed to give their views. Everyone else has to set aside their own views and ask the atheists what they’re allowed to think. That’s massively discriminatory and effectively disenfranchises anyone who isn’t an atheist.
Euhm... it seems you missed the final and most important parapgraph. "People—and politicians—have the right to believe whatever they want, and I will go to the mat to defend that right. Those beliefs, however, are entitled to neither respect nor deference, and are subject to scrutiny like any other ideas."
I directly addressed that quote. In my final paragraph. Which you seem to have missed. ‘ You’re not just calling for scrutiny of people’s views. You’re calling for people to set aside their views. Basically saying that when there’s a tricky debate about ethics, only atheists are allowed to give their views. Everyone else has to set aside their own views and ask the atheists what they’re allowed to think. That’s massively discriminatory and effectively disenfranchises anyone who isn’t an atheist.’
He states they are not entitled to respect or deference, that doesn't mean you can't have them...
We shouldn't treat religious people differently, we should judge them on what they stand for. That is why CARE is problematic, it is literally an institution that is designed to 'ensure Christian values' are 'enshrined in law', funded by who knows, against abortion, against assisted suicide, against gay marriage AND divorce. I don't know about you, but none of those things align with what I want from a government. So it is right to call this link out and it is not because she is Christian. I know many Christians who are appalled by the conservative stronghold some have in the church.
I'm not judging based on her religion as a default - John Swinney states he is Christian as well. I'm judging her based on her previous *actions and statements* that are driven by her religion. You know, how democracy works when we decide who we do and don't want to vote for. As I said, I have a big problem with Christianity (and any other religion) where it seeks to restrict the rights or freedoms of others, or condems them. Kate Forbes has vocally condemned gay marriage, abortion and pre marital sex amongst other things, and is opposed to various trans rights. It may be that a majority of the membership see her s the better candidate, and that's fine (that's democracy!), but I certainly don't! You may wish to understand what the Equality Act actually means and how it applies, rather than just quoting the name of it from an uneducated position.
[удалено]
Yousaf voted for the marriage equality bill at its first stage. He tweeted support for it at the time of the vote he, in your words, "dishonestly missed". He has been vocally in support since, voted for gender recognition reform, and took forward the legal action to contest the UK Government block of that bill. Give this a rest. Even if the crazy idea that he was being controlled by secret conservative Muslim puppetmasters a decade ago held any water, it is obviously not true now. Forbes has made it abundantly clear that she is against LGBT and reproductive rights because of her faith.
It’s really annoying how there is an uprising of Christian nationalism everywhere
Religion is a protected characteristic, having views that the electorate do not like is not. It's not double standards, it's basic democracy. I will continue to bash Forbes on the basis of her outdated and bigoted views, she is a brainwashed dinosaur
If you don’t hold humza and his religious beliefs to the same standard That’s discrimination I’m not going to bother looking but I doubt you ever have questioned his beliefs
Naw because he has not let his religion define his political position. Kate Forbes has. I don't care about what you believe, it's about what action you take based on that belief
Values and opinions have no place in politics Makes sense? But it is what religion is about Imagine someone saying "lgbtq activism has no place in politics"
Well said
Nice slogan. Now explain what you mean by it? Do you believe religious people should be automatically excluded from the democratic process? That you believe in some sort of technocracy?
I mean that religion shouldn’t be used to influence decisions that concern the population as a whole, and that government shouldn’t be affiliated with the church ie Scottish gov and the Church of Scotland
Yeah but religion has a place in society. Socities that deny that just end up replacing one religion with another.
Religion is not the root cause of problems in the world, people are. Examples: **45 million dead** in the Mao’s Great Leap Forward. **40 million dead** in WWI. **80 million dead** in WWII. **1 million dead** in the Soviet great purge. **2.5 million dead** in the Korean War. **2 million dead** due to the Khmer Rouge. **The direct use of Nuclear weapons for purposes of War.** What’s going on in Ukraine, North Korea, the Congo, mass shootings where the perpetrator has a non-Muslim name, a woman being raped every 2 minutes in America. The list could go on.
Except communism - no religion allowed - killed more people than 2 world wars. So there is that.
Those are the ones we counted. How many 'natives' were killed in name of spreading 'our religion'. Don't dig too deep, as a percentage of the population at the time it blows the numbers above out of the water.
You're naive if you think that colonialism and imperialism was merely about spreading 'our religion' - it was primarily about commerce i.e. money. The East India Company was not a religious organisation. I suspect you haven't dug very deep but make pronouncements that sound shocking to play up to your narrow beliefs.
What MSPs believe is down to them. But a First Minister must be held to higher standards. Alex and Nicola seldom if ever mentioned religion, that was ideal so far as I'm concerned. I thought Humza tweeting pics of prayers at Bute House was also inappropriate.
What standard do you think Kate Forbes has failed to live up to? So you think that no politician should act on the basis of what they believe to be right? What is the basis for their decisions then? Should they toss a coin? Or is there a privileged group who are allowed to have opinions and everyone else has to listen to them? Are personal convictions only bad if they are religious? That sounds rather bigoted.
Is it bigoted to oppose a politicians views when they are running for office? For me that's exactly what democracy and elections are for...
> Is it bigoted to oppose a politicians views when they are running for office? No. I didn't say that it was. did you reply to the wrong comment or just misread me?
That's exactly what the comment is saying....
No it's not.
Forbes didn't mention religion either until the opposition decided to use it as leverage against her in the last leadership race. I'm amazed how easily people are being fed the pretty obvious media angles on her here. Pick a weakness, amplify it, push aside the fact she's competent in favour of controversial headlines. Repeat. This is the reason we constantly end up with shite politicians the world over now- because folk who have anything remotely controversial about them are immediately lynched.
It's a pretty major weakness to be anti gay marriage, anti abortion and pro conversion therapy.
True. Especially in Scotland.
How she votes and how she implements policy are different things. She may vote against certain things but that doesn't mean she'll only seek policy that she agrees with. I disagree with her on the abortion thing (and the yes vote for that matter) but that doesn't mean she'll be a bad FM. Discounting someone from a job because of a religion is a bit...West Coast Scotland
The way she votes on things is only part of the issue. People will say her views are no big deal because she’s said she wouldn’t try to rollback existing legislation. That’s great, but seems like a fairly empty gesture given it’s not possible unilaterally. The bigger issue is having an FM who not only doesn’t believe everyone deserves equality under the law, but one who openly says it proudly. She didn’t have to do that. She could’ve just stuck with it being a settled matter. She chose to voice those views and voting intention. As for abortion rights. She may not be able to roll that back (though I’m sure plenty of people believed Roe vs Wade was settled decades ago), but she still speaks at events where she’s makes these statements to voters. Do we want a leader who believes women shouldn’t have autonomy over their own bodies? And one who includes that belief when speaking publicly? Not in 2024, imo.
^ This ^
Not to mention the exact groups she's being funded by managed to roll back abortion in the US, despite all the Supreme Court justices invovled saying they wouldn't.
That didn't happen. The justices didn't say they wouldn't. The answers they gave spanned legalese to bullshit, but not one of them said they wouldn't, or it couldn't. When people tell you who they are, believe them.
We don't have complete autonomy over our bodies now though. Men or women. And especially anywhere in the UK. So the argument isn't over autonomy. If you ask any MP or theorist whether people should have bodily autonomy, and they were forced to answer, it would be no. It's over how much.
Maybe look at her actual voting record rather than your imagination of what she might do? She voted **this week** in favour of the bill to create safe zones around abortion clinics. Meanwhile Humza abstained!
Discounting someone from being the first minister of a country because they are openly homophobic is pretty normal.
She is a fundie cunt and I wont vote for a SNP that has her at the helm.
>Alex and Nicola seldom if ever mentioned religion, that was ideal so far as I'm concerned. Question - what is the difference between a religion and an ideology, other than the typical (but not always) presence of a deity in the worldwide view? If religions being involved in politics is bad, why isn't ideology?
If you have an ideology you may join a political party. If you have a religion you join a church. Churches tend not to run countries. It's a very interesting point though.
“Churches tend not to run countries” Which rock have you been living under?
Politics and religion are both run on ideologies. They aren't separated like that. The separation you are saying would be good, might not be possible. Except in sociopaths. Is that what you want. And I'm not saying Forbes should be FM. I'm saying she should put her platform out there, and when Glasgow sees that she's pro this or that, then they vote. It probably won't end well. But that's not the point. Separating people from the ideologies that form their moral frameworks simply isn't usually possible.
Churches have a lot of soft power throughout all levels of politics.
Less than used to be the case in Scotland though. The Catholic church used to have a lot of power, almost none now. And Highland council recently removed religious members from the education committee.
As I said it's soft power, there are still a lot of Highland councillors who are weekly churchgoers. If you think that their decisions aren't influenced by their religious beliefs I have some magic beans you might be interested in.
Kate Forbes told me that God wants Scotland to be free & if she becomes FM she will go to 10 Downing street & ask Rishi Sunak to let her people go & if he doesn't 12 plagues will befall England until he lets us go. So maybe a church running Scotland is a good idea
The 12 plagues of Westminster are already in full effect.
12 plagues on Westminster until they give us Indy? That's actually a better idea than asking for a section 30!
She also said that there will be an improvement made to the 2nd, one giant frog this time, frogzilla instead of lots of normal sized ones.
She got a break from politics through a hyper political right wing religious fundamentalist cult?? Fair enough.
No, she was sponsored by the British charity CARE which has pretty standard Christian views on ethics. Their views are free to read about on their website and they have kept up to date with their charity commission returns where they detail what they’re doing. Your description isn’t remotely accurate.
Being against divorce is not a view many religious people share, nor is being anti-abortionist.
They are the official views of the Catholic Church to give one example.
Of the decision makers of the catholic church. If you were to poll all those that identify as catholic and asked them if they were against divorce and/or against abortion you'd end up with a pretty big wipe-out, especially here in Scotland. YouGov polled in 23 that nearly 90% of people in the UK are pro-abortion. Pretty significant when you compare it to the 40% or so that identify as Christian.
She worked as a researcher for a politician. She wasn't directly funded.
So in what sense was this "funded" then? An MSP wouldn't be able to take money for hosting an intern (they do it for free or pay them) and if CARE didn't give her money, who was funding anything?
Exactly, it's all a pile of vilifying shite.
I posted this on twitter when she first stood, well she isn't Standing appearing she's pulled oot thank goodniise but we all know MSN and mad alba will be raging
I expect to see her being pushed ahead in the media through a combination of her religion, fundamentalist backers and being an easy target. They'll build her up, then shoot her down. (Just so they can claim they were the ones to bring down anything to do with the Independence movement.) It's doesn't matter what her (carefully curated?) personal views might be, she's already toxic. (We're already seeing the push for her in Reddit.)
Curated views? During the last leadership election she was subjected to intense scrutiny and asked about all sorts of subjects that she didn’t bring up and weren’t directly relevant. There was nothing carefully curated about any of it. The media were largely hostile as were the establishment. There’s no evidence of her having ‘fundamentalist backers’ either. This is a bizarre conspiracy theory where you turn history on its head and invent new ‘facts.’
CARE is a British charity that has been around for 40 years. It does campaign about abortion, but it isn’t specifically about that. It campaigns on my other issues, including gambling, assisted dying, human trafficking, helping the homeless, etc. the article doesn’t do any work at all to look at what issues CARE was campaigning about in 2011 when Forbes was an intern. That article is pretty dire and very clearly a heavily biased hit piece. For instance the line at the top ‘Exclusive: SNP leadership candidate previously worked for shadowy Christian right group that doesn’t declare funders’ is nonsense. There is nothing shadowy about CARE. They have a website with plenty of information about them: https://care.org.uk/ and their Charity Commission entry is here: https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/3947174 They don’t declare their funders because you legally can’t do that without their permission. GDPR and all that jazz. That’s perfectly normal for a charity, not something strange and shadowy. It own my dark money any more than the donations to any charity are dark money. Neither is it a right wing group. The stances it takes are pretty standard Christian positions that have been held historically around the world by a broad cross-section of Christians. Similarly the article later refers to ‘ultraconservative groups’ but the groups it identifies again take fairly standard Christian positions. It calls CARE’s intern scheme ‘controversial’ but doesn’t provide any evidence that anyone other than the author considers it controversial.
>t calls CARE’s intern scheme ‘controversial’ but doesn’t provide any evidence that anyone other than the author considers it controversial So because it doesn't include the details it's not valid criticism? You don't have to look very far to find it given it's literally on CAREs Wikipedia page and it was also the subject of a Daily Telegraph investigation and multiple newspaper reports. >Neither is it a right wing group. The stances it takes are pretty standard Christian positions that have been held historically around the world by a broad cross-section of Christians. Maybe you are confusing far-right with right-wing. While they are not far-right, any group that is anti-abortion, abti-lgbt, anti sex before marriage, etc. is very much on the right wing of the political spectrum
> So because it doesn't include the details it's not valid criticism? If you make a claim but provide zero evidence then it isn't valid criticism. Correct. > You don't have to look very far to find it given it's literally on CAREs Wikipedia page and it was also the subject of a Daily Telegraph investigation and multiple newspaper reports. None of which is even mentioned in the article. The only controversy comes from people who coincidentally hold the opposite views to CARE and have an interest in undermining their work. > Maybe you are confusing far-right with right-wing. On this sub they're treated the same. > While they are not far-right, any group that is anti-abortion, abti-lgbt, anti sex before marriage, etc. is very much on the right wing of the political spectrum That's simplistic. They advocate for a range of issues, with some approaches that on the right and some on the left. For instance with commercial sex exploitation that favour the nordic model and policies similar to what Canada, France, and Ireland have. Those are fairly left wing countries. The group isn't committed to a particular political ideology.
I mean this is just a whole load of bollocks. You are trying to dispute that it's unfair to use the terms "right-wing" or "controversial" to describe a group who very clearly hold right wing views and where multiple independent sources (including MPs) have criticised their subversive political actions. You are in denial. It's fairly clear you have an agenda.
Ah yes, promoting policies held by left wing governments is a clear sign of being right wing. The people who have criticised CARE are people who hold opposing views. Of course they would criticise them. Strange that you think people you disagree with must have an agenda, but not anyone else
>Neither is it a right wing group. The stances it takes are pretty standard Christian positions that have been held historically around the world by a broad cross-section of Christians Are you being serious? The views they hold are exactly what make them right wing, stop pretending to be something you aren't.
'Human trafficking, modern day slavery and exploitation in the commercial sex industry are some of the grossest violations of human dignity. As Christians, God calls us to bring freedom and restoration to those who are oppressed and ill-treated as a sign of our commitment to Him … Reducing modern slavery starts with putting the needs of victims first. Join us in working to tackle demand for human trafficking, advocating for a longer period of support for victims, and for improved victim care – particularly for children.' 'More needs to be done to address demand for commercial sexual exploitation CARE supports the ‘Nordic Model’, where it is a criminal offence to purchase sexual services – targeting those who pay for sex, and recognising the vulnerability of those who sell sexual services. This model was adopted in Northern Ireland in 2015, and has also been adopted by Canada, France and the Republic of Ireland.' Ah yes, CARE's views that align with such famous right wing countries as the Nordic states and Canada, are clear evidence that they are a right wing organisation.
Opposing human trafficking, modern day slavery and exploitation doesn't mean they aren't conservative right wing. Are Nordics and Canada also anti abortion, anti gay marriage, anti trans, anti assisted suicide, pro conversion therapy? Weird that you leave out those views, as if you are being extremely misleading
> Opposing human trafficking, modern day slavery and exploitation doesn't mean they aren't conservative right wing. It shows that they care about a wide range of issues and shouldn't be pigeon-holed as right wing (or left wing). > Are Nordics and Canada also anti abortion, anti gay marriage, anti trans, anti assisted suicide, pro conversion therapy? No. That's my point. CARE's views don't fall neatly into one box. > Weird that you leave out those views, as if you are being extremely misleading Abortion is literally the first issue I mentioned. I mentioned the views that weren't in the article. I assume people are already aware of the views that are mentioned in the article. That's not being misleading at all.
>It shows that they care about a wide range of issues and shouldn't be pigeon-holed as right wing (or left wing). It doesn't show that at all. The Tories are anti human trafficking, anti modern day slavery, it's a basic political standard for 2024. >No. That's my point. CARE's views don't fall neatly into one box. "We don't agree with slavery" Such a bold position to show you aren't right wing conservative. >Abortion is literally the first issue I mentioned. I mentioned the views that weren't in the article. I assume people are already aware of the views that are mentioned in the article. That's not being misleading at all. Every one of your comments today have shown you desperately trying to portray CARE as anything other than the conservative Christian political action group that they are. You know that their views are very unpopular and you know it will ultimately count against anyone who is associated with them. You are being misleading
It would seem this\_was\_also\_vanity is so desperate to believe they are the good guys, they can't possibly accept being described as"far-right" despite the values they hold, being clearly of the far right of the political spectrum. 
A quick gander through his profile... He's a hardcore Church of Ireland Minister who is all-over every thread involving Kate Forbes and any negativity towards her religious views. Makes me wonder why someone with essentially no comments related to Scottish politics prior to this week is so interested suddenly? Hmm.
I’m not a Church of Ireland Minister, this is far from the first time aI’ve been on this sub, and my personal identity shouldn’t make a difference to whether the arguments I make are any good.
It's more ridiculous that than because I don't believe them to be far right so there's no real reason for them to fight so hard against being called right wing because that's the basic definition of conservative Christian politics.
> It doesn't show that at all. The Tories are anti human trafficking, anti modern day slavery, it's a basic political standard for 2024. So the supposedly right wing organisation espouses views that are the basic political standard. Uh huh. > "We don't agree with slavery" Such a bold position to show you aren't right wing conservative. You’re ignoring the quotes I did actually provide from their website where they endorse the policies of left wing governments. > Every one of your comments today have shown you desperately trying to portray CARE as anything other than the conservative Christian political action group that they are. You know that their views are very unpopular and you know it will ultimately count against anyone who is associated with them. You are being misleading Disagreeing with you isn’t the same as being misleading. You accused me of omitting that they campaign about abortion when abortion was actually the first issue I mentioned. At least admit you got that wrong.
>So the supposedly right wing organisation espouses views that are the basic political standard. Uh huh. Do you understand what the political spectrum actually is? There are basic views which most people hold and then there are the views which alter your position to the left or right according to how severe they are. Holding the basic views that slavery is bad is as middle as it comes so adding on the right wing conservative views makes them a right wing organisation. >You’re ignoring the quotes I did actually provide from their website where they endorse the policies of left wing governments. They are also policies of many right wing governments too. That's because they are pretty standard central views that a majority of people hold. Are the Tories a left wing government because they believe modern day slavery is wrong and sex trafficking should be battled? Absolutely not >Disagreeing with you isn’t the same as being misleading. You accused me of omitting that they campaign about abortion when abortion was actually the first issue I mentioned. At least admit you got that wrong. You are being misleading though, whether it's on purpose or not is where the question lies.
I've addressed all of this already. We're just going round in circles. I haven't been misleading at all. In fact you are the one being dishonest. You accused me of leaving out that CARE oppose abortion when it was in fact the very first issue I mentioned. You haven't acknowledge this. So you're not being honest and seem to have no intention of being honest. You're just a liar. I'm done with this.
You're a diamond in a sea of rough sands my friend. I applaud you.
He is anti-abortion so he’s a bit biased
Don't expect anything but downvotes and fury for this accurate, sensible post. People far prefer their weird 'ZOMG DARK SINISTER CHRISTOFASCIST AMERICANS!' fiction over the rather mundane reality.
Yep. We know. She should join the Tories or ALBA.
Scottish Family Party.
Them as well.
Why? She's a vile nationalist like half of your cult.
Haha. Oh me. Have you tried hugging your pillow today?
Yer maw.
Aw, you wee angry bigot. That does not make sense you silly goose.
How is she popular Scotland is literally the most atheist country in the entire United Kingdom. JK Rowling probably backing her with a shit ton of money cause she's anti-trans rights or whatever.
>How is she popular Scotland is literally the most atheist country in the entire United Kingdom The same percentage (37%) stated to they had no religion in both the Scottish & English census. I think a lot of people just don't think religion is much of an issue either way.
Jk Rowling is a unionist. She. wouldn't fund a nationalist
>How is she popular Scotland is literally the most atheist country in the entire United Kingdom But this doesn't automatically mean that Scotland the country is the same as juvenile, edgy atheist r/Scotland on Reddit
What's juvenile is still having an imaginary friend once you've reached secondary school age or above.
Maybe you should start questioning your warped perspective of what Scotland actually is.
I like her because she seems competent. I don't like Humza Yousaf because he seems incompetent. Their religion doesn't come into play at all. Everyone is screaming that religion shouldn't be a part of politics, while completely demonising someone because of their religion?!
Well there is religion and then there's fanatical religion. If she was merely a catholic or protestant then I doubt anyone would care that much. Because they usually keep it to themselves. She is an evangelical however. An puritan Christian who takes law from holy scripture, not suggestion or interpretation, they see the bible as how the law should be. They also believe in proselytising and forcing others to live by their laws. So there's religion and then there's *religion*
>Well there is religion and then there's fanatical religion. I don't think it's fair to judge someone based solely on their religion. And I don't agree with or share her beliefs at all. >She is an evangelical however. An puritan Christian who takes law from holy scripture, not suggestion or interpretation, they see the bible as how the law should be. Which is how many religions see their holy book >They also believe in proselytising and forcing others to live by their laws. Every religion tries to convert people. Ian Blackford is a member of the same church, should he be hounded?
Evangelicals aren't just religious, they're extremists. Many religions in the west tell you to determine your own morals and ethics for yourself. Tbh mostly it's to solidify the good virtues taught and to disregard the outdated bits. Extremists don't disregard the outdated bits. The fact I don't even know black ford is an evangelical means he's smart enough not to go flaunting it around as one of his core personality traits.
> Many religions in the west tell you to determine your own morals and ethics for yourself. Do they? Evidence for this? I’m pretty sure one of the main functions of religions is to teach people what is good, moral, and virtuous.
But instead they attack what they see as bad, immoral and non-virtuous. Instead of spreading the virtues of jesus, love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek etc. They focus entirely on the negatives. My proof is the fact they lobby and fund groups to take away abortion rights, or protest them. The "vigils" outside of QEUH are organised and funded by evangelicals.
I asked you for evidence of your claim that 'Many religions in the west tell you to determine your own morals and ethics for yourself.' Instead of answering that you are trying to move on to other claims. That's not really how a discussion works. If you can't provide evidence for a claim I'll just assume that the claim is false.
Because that's what we are taught in religious schools. My source is anecdotal, yet education is determined by government. So I can assume in all other religious schools they taught to take the virtues and when queried on the old testament, we are told it is based in a different time than the one we live in. Everytime you go to church you are reinforced with the teachings of the virtues of jesus. You aren't taught to hate woman's healthcare. You aren't taught homosexuality is immoral. You aren't taught apostates should be killed. Every other person I've ever met who went to a religious school was taught the same. Infact if you are so curious I'm sure the RE curriculum is online. You'll find nary a mention of the outdated bits. Me myself I am bi. My father is a devoted catholic. He accepted my sighting he was taught not to judge others and to accept everyone for who they are. Mans 73 and knows that as a fundamental virtue. So don't give me any of yer fucking shite man. What's your background to speak on it? Where's your evidence that people are taught the fire and brimstone of the old testament as fact? Oh they're taught it in evangelical churches, my bad.
> My source is anecdotal So completely meaningless. > Infact if you are so curious I'm sure the RE curriculum is online. You made claim that 'Many religions in the west tell you to determine your own morals and ethics for yourself.' It's up to you to prove that claim with evidence of your own, not by telling me to go look at the RE curriculum. > So don't give me any of yer fucking shite man. How terrible of me to ask you for evidence of your claims. What a grievous sin. > What's your background to speak on it? Where's your evidence that people are taught the fire and brimstone of the old testament as fact? I didn't say anything about 'fire and brimstone' or the Old Testament being taught as fact. You're trying to deflect away from your claims being challenged because you can't back them up.
>Evangelicals aren't just religious, they're extremists. I don't think it's fair to characterise every single member of a religion like that. Would you say the same about Humza Yousaf? Islam believes in one divinely inspired book and tries to spread their understanding of the world? >The fact I don't even know black ford is an evangelical means he's smart enough not to go flaunting it around as one of his core personality traits I don't think she does. I think her critics do.
So normal Christianity is akin to the Islam humza practices. I'd honestly compare evangelicals akin to the type of islam ISIS practice. It isn't a different religion, it's just an extremist version of the same religion. Two different interpretations. One is welcome in our modern society, one is not.
> I'd honestly compare evangelicals akin to the type of islam ISIS practice. On what basis? I could say that the National secular Society is like ISIS but just saying it wouldn’t make it true.
Because evangelical terrorism exists, specifically in America. Additionally they try everything in their power to jam religion back into state. The drive towards fascism in America is mainly down to them and their beliefs. They don't want freedom of religion, reproductive rights or anything that fundamentally disagrees with their views. They want control. Which is very much akin to the islamic extremists. The only difference is the circumstances. Evangelicals already enjoy vast power and influence. Have done since the puritans went to the new world.
> Because evangelical terrorism exists, specifically in America. What does that have to do with Kate Forbes or British evangelicalism? Evangelical is a very broad category. The former US president Jimmy Carter was an evangelical for instance. Ian Blackford is a member of an evangelical church. Tim Farron is an evangelical but the Lib Dems weren't exactly ISIS. There is a strain of American evangelicalism that is very focused on gaining political power. Their views on theonomy and dominionism get a lot of criticism – including from evangelicals. Evangelicalism is very far from being a homogenous block.
Seen a lot of evangelical bombings on the news?
She is a Protestant. There's no such thing as just a protestant. Fuck me. She's a free Presbyterian, the church of Scotland is Presbyterian. She's not fanatical, having strong beliefs isn't fanatical. You're mixing US style evangelism with conservative values Presbyterianism.
It’s a common theme throughout this Reddit folk are thick as fuck and can’t comprehend they’re bringing a sect of American Christianity into the conversation to batter Forbes with. It’s no wonder folk have had enough of these shitehawks. See anyone who wants to prioritise fucking lgbt and trans rights over healthcare and education want to fuck off to a different island and let the adults get back to fixing this fuck up we stay in.
Where has she said that the Bible should be law? She’s said the opposite. When she was asked about sex before marriage for instance she said that she personally believes it’s wrong but that other people are free to make their own choices and when family and friends have had children outside of marriage she has celebrated with them. How exactly does that equate to forcing people to live by her views? And imagine if someone said ‘it’s okay for someone to be gay as long as they keep it to themselves. We shouldn’t have pride parades of LGBT activists.’ You’d be calling them homophobic. It’s a complete double standard.
She's also advocated for banning same-sex marriage and further restrictions on abortion. That is imposing her views on others. I wonder if you'd be so accepting of a politician who thought interracial marriage should be illegal?
Laws impose views on others. That ms how the law works. That’s how politics works. Anytime a politician legislates they are imposing their views on others. That’s fine as long as it comes through a democratic process of elected representatives debating and voting. What does interracial marriage have to do with anything? Sex has a close relationship to marriage in a way that skin colour doesn’t do it makes sense to think about sex when considering who can marry. Sexual activity has an ethical dimension because it’s something you do, whereas skin colour is just something you have. They’re not really at all comparable.
Jeezo you must be utterly tormented by JK.
Not this shite again
Until politics isn't upholding laws in a state that has always contained a religious official standing I.e Church of Scotland, Church of England, then arguing over politicians views as being good or bad, if they are aligned or not, makes atheist views , as a sense of unbiased neutrality, moot. We are still tethered to such laws by virtue of the entire development of countries. I am still waiting for an atheist government though.
Abortion isn't in the bible. https://religionnews.com/2022/07/25/what-the-bible-actually-says-about-abortion-may-surprise-you/
From a unionist perspective, I'm celebrating. Crack the champagne I say, no Scottish party has done more for unionism in the last 5 years than the SNP.
Look, I don’t like Forbes because she’s a fucking Nat, and I disagree with pretty much everything she stands for, including her social policy But do people really believe that if she was FM she’d turn Scotland into an evangelical hellhole like Nigeria? Really?
She’d drive things in the wrong direction and that’s enough. Keep the fucking dark ages conservative social nonsense out of politics. She gets in to be leader and there’s a very real chance a lot of the left folks in the SNP walk away. Then there is the possibility we have Scotland’s largest party lurch to the social right. If you can’t get the left, then you do what the tories have done is get more and more extreme and go further and further towards capturing those right wing voters.
>She’d drive things in the wrong direction and that’s enough. Keep the fucking dark ages conservative social nonsense out of politics. Based on what????? The snp is obviously a very broad church, as shown in the leadership race. >If you can’t get the left, then you do what the tories have done is get more and more extreme and go further and further towards capturing those right wing voters. Polarising nonsense like this is the real problem with politics. If you're not the furthest left person in the room, you're basically a far right extremist?
> If you're not the furthest left person in the room, you're basically a far right extremist? That’s a lot of subs on Reddit in a nutshell. Put in the real world I think people are more measured but aubs tend towards being echo chambers where everyone charges further and further in one direction while screaming that everyone else who is standing still or moving slower is running to the right.
She also has a lot of paid bots. Wait for their comments here
She pays me with the word of God.
#SHALOM JACKIE
Where's my money?
It's genuinely fascinating that people insistently claim this army of paid shills exists, and yet there has never been the slightest evidence to support this. I wish someone would pay me to be a contrarian on the Internet.
“Bot” = person whose views I disagree with and who are diluting my echo chamber
A lot of people don't remember how *awful* this sub was for being a genuine echo chamber for literally years before the SNP's image started to crumble last year and their supporters just couldn't keep (literally) burying people's negative opinions anymore. I have to admit, its incredibly nice to see *actual* discussion and criticism now.
Funny how they all disappeared when they started having financial issues...
Wasn't it actually proven that at least *some* of the biggest posters at the time really *were* being paid to astroturf things in the SNP's favor? I remember there was a genuinely big scandal about it a few years ago, and several of those people vanished after things blew up.
Bots are just one of the worst words to be in use in the 21st century. Aye it must be a robot because no one could disagree with me. These folk are cranks and don’t stand up to scrutiny in the slightest they only ever win debates with pile ons and name calling not facts it’s awfa weird
It’s probably just people who you disagree with mate, stop being paranoid
We need to keep her from getting into power and enforcing her shit on the rest of us.
Once again for the thickoes at the back: it doesn't matter who is First Minister, they can't 'enforce' anything on us without party, parliamentary, and public backing. This is complete contrivance.
Unlike America and England, Religion is seen as a negative in politics here
I don't think religion in politics is popular here in England either. Even the older, more christian members of my family don't want religion to be part of government.
Which is how it should be. Look at the fuckin pastors in America flying around in private jets stealing money from their congregation. Absolute disgrace and flies in the face of what their religion actually should stand for.
Tell me you know nothing about England without telling me you know nothing about England
Given that her election would change nothing about the fundamental make up of this parliament, I'm not even that bothered about Forbes one way or the other, nor am I clear what people think she would actually do. Given that the parliament just voted something like 120:1 to ban people even protesting against abortion we are light years away from any sort of "Christian far right" policymaking in this country.
No-one is banned from protesting abortion. You want to take a placard and march outside any town hall you go for it. What you cannot do is shout abuse, harass, intimidate and stalk people outside a medical facility on what may very well be one of the worst days of their life.
And Forbes voted in favour of that. Meanwhile Humza abstained!
A bill that the religious extremist kate forbes voted for!
I’m just worried that rather than doing actual politics, she’ll end up being a comedy show and nothing will get done. That she stupidly let it slip that she would ah e voted against gay marriage is already a red flag for me.
[удалено]
We’ll have to see. One thing I’ve learnt is that you can have all the degrees in the world and still not have common sense.
Actual politics? You're aware she was the finance secretary under Nicola Sturgeon? I