Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I don't think she is, at least not in the mould of the Christian Conservative wing (are they a wing) of the GOP. She takes her faith way more seriously than those rednecks and I think there's a lot more of caring for the poor and needy in there. Less Tucker Carlson and more like a patriarchal 19th Century reformer.
Her views on certain things, gay rights, children only in wedlock, no sex before marriage might make people think she's just a British version of the kind of American fundamentalist we all love to laugh at but there's a lot more 'love thy neighbour' in there, I suspect.
Quite. How many machine-guns does she have in her basement?
And it also relates to the unfamiliarity of the FCS to your average media hack. I'm not sure it has been much highlighted since the Lord Mackay of Clashfern affair (in which much of it split off in anger at his treatment, one should note).
I'm reminded of a story I heard about an American Pastor who came to Skye and stayed with a Free Churcher. The talk turned to guns and the Pastor remarked that he had a few and that if anyone broke into their house then 'if it's us or them, it's going to be them.' The Free Churcher was shocked, needless to say she didn't think the Pastor's was a particularly Christian attitude.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I find that a bit bonkers. You are a member of a religion which (if you are gay and that religion is CoE) actively discriminates against you.
And instead of saying go fuck yourself, you try by all means possible, and so far with zero success, to change the religion.
So what have you been a member of and so enthusiastic about hitherto such that you want it to change completely to accommodate your own views. Makes no sense to me.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
TBF it could be that she was born into it? That is an improtant distinction - it is part of your childhood.
Sorry had to disappear last night due to family issues so couldn't stay to argue my point.
My view that social democracy having failed isn't driven by small state ideology (though I do prefer a small state low tax regime) but by pragmatism.
Which of the following statements do people disagree with.
1) There is a hard cap on the amount the state can raise as a percentage of GDP 2) Services cost money 3) What the state it should do which means being fully funded 4) To much of social democracies (certainly in this country) goes to those not in need rather than being targetted at lifting the bottom couple of quintiles (think propping up house prices)
Right now I just want politicians to come clean....
This is how much we can actually raise via tax This is what we currently do and how much it would cost to do well What things do you want to drop so what we do is fully funded?
Social democracy has failed in my view for the simple reason that we keep adding things for the state to do and we can't raise enough tax money to fund the things we already do. So instead we ending up borrowing more and more from future generations. At some point we get to everything we can raise in tax being required to service the debt payments at which point no one has any services at all.
In 2022 debt repayment was 87.2 billion tax revenue was 715 billions....thats already 12% of total tax revenues and its going to grow ever larger. It is time to look at what we can stop doing rather than add ever more burdens to the state
'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.
“The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.
“It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.
“For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'
and
'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.
However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.
Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”
Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.
Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'
Personally I would sup with either of them with a very long spoon.
Never heard of MCUK, which sounds a bit astroturfy. MCB themselves have quite a history of politics, despite being 'non-political'.
From here it looks like another shark-infested custard.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
Meaningless, given the diversity of evangelical churches and evangelical arms of wider churches. It's not even as if they are in the same denomination. She's a Scottish Presbyterian for heaven's sake.
Free Church of Scotland members have more in common with evangelical US Southern Baptists and Pentecostals than they do with most members of the Church of Scotland and Church of England and other mainline Protestant denominations (other than the minority of evangelicals in the Church of England and Church of Scotland)
But "more in common with" is never, ever, good enough in a logical arcument. You are trying to equate the two. it's not good enough for what you want. .
I'll give you one example. The FCS don't believe in facilitating the machine-gunnign of schoolchildren. Prsetty basic distinction there when it comes to ethics.
On opposition to homosexual marriage or homosexual unions and opposition to abortion as I said the FCS has more in common with US Southern Baptists and Pentecostals than it does with Anglicans and members of the mainline Church of Scotland
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
Surely this depends on whether you (and perhaps the group) see the areas of disagreement as fundamental to the group's identity and principles, or as a secondary area where you might be able to be persuasive precisely because you agree on fundamentals elsewhere? To take a political example, suppose I am a committed environmentalist who believes that nuclear power is a vital component of getting us down to a zero-carbon energy system. I'm likely better off joining the Green Party even though they disagree on nuclear power, because we're in alignment on the overall goal even though we have a disagreement on some of what that goal might or might not require. If enough like-minded other people are also in the Green Party we might even be able to shift the policy in our direction.
'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.
“The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.
“It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.
“For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'
and
'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.
However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.
Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”
Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.
Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'
Personally I would sup with either of them with a very long spoon.
Never heard of MCUK, which sounds a bit astroturfy. MCB themselves have quite a history of politics, despite being 'non-political'.
Maybe you didn't see the news yesterday? MCUK is not so much astroturf as a spot of green paint that is still wet. Seems to have been set up to give spurious go-faster stripes to an attack on Mr Yousaf in re SNP leadership.
In the last months, I have travelled the world - probably more than anyone on here - may be more than any other human being on earth - and I am tentatively reaching the opposite conclusion. Tentatively
The entire world is fucked by Covid. Totally fucked. Everyone is dazed and confused. Everyone. Tuk tuk drivers in Bangkok. Hookers in Armenia. Russian millionaires in Turkey. Turks, Americans slumped over oysters in New Orleans. Spanish people in Marbella. Lisbonites. Greek waiters. Montenegrin cab drivers. Albanian cab drivers. Colorado businessmen. Cambodian escorts. Everyone is suffering with PTSD. In different countries this is enacted in different ways, with different symptoms, but the overriding symptom, the universal lesion reads: fuck why did it have to happen?
In Britain the particular scar appears as regret over Brexit, because regretting Brexit gives us the illusion we have - or had - control over the awful awful shit that has happened. The 20 million dead around the world. That if we’d acted differently things would have turned out differently. This is not true. Covid was a global disaster and only the mad boffins are to blame.. Bregret is a delusion
In that light, I reckon we are getting closer to Peak Bregret. To maximum Rejoineriness. It will occur in the next 2-4 years
And then - then the UK will pick itself off the floor - finally - and get a wiggle on. And Brexit regret will slowly melt away, like snow in the Cairngorms, until the last sinters are left in the intellectual cold pools of Islington and Cambridge
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I find that a bit bonkers. You are a member of a religion which (if you are gay and that religion is CoE) actively discriminates against you.
And instead of saying go fuck yourself, you try by all means possible, and so far with zero success, to change the religion.
So what have you been a member of and so enthusiastic about hitherto such that you want it to change completely to accommodate your own views. Makes no sense to me.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
TBF it could be that she was born into it? That is an improtant distinction - it is part of your childhood.
Indeed. I had some respect for Forbes in being open and honest about her views, even while they likely sank her chances of winning the leadership.
But, assuming she approved her spokesperson's comments (and there has been no public statement otherwise, as far as I'm aware) then she's either thick (doesn't understand how bonkers that argument is) or a thoroughly nasty piece of work (intentionally playing the Christian victim while stirring up ideas that people of other faiths are treated preferentially).
But they are. We are very comfortable having a go at Christian beliefs where we don’t think that they are sufficiently progressive. We are much, much more cautious about challenging Muslim beliefs or Hindu beliefs because we are scared of being judged racist.
Whether it is helpful to her to point out this hypocrisy is another matter.
Really? You think Sadiq Kahn would have won the Labour nomination for Mayor of London (let alone the election) if he'd said that he would vote against gay marriage and thought having children out of wedlock was wrong? If so, I have Boris's garden bridge to sell you.
I can possibly believe that Sunak could have won a Tory members' election with similar views, but very much doubt he would have got the nomination of MPs.
The kernel of a point that you have is that Sunak, Kahn etc may be less likely to be put on the spot by the media about their religious views. But they're also more forthcoming in volunteering their liberal credentials (see also Yousaf), probably due to fear that they will be stereotyped as socially conservative due to their religion.
ETA: And anyway, it's not about abusing her beliefs (I disagree with her, but respect right to her beliefs). I just wouldn't want her making laws based on those beliefs in a
country that I lived in.
I think we are in agreement. The point is that we are more comfortable challenging the personal views of Christians, as we did with Tim Farron. Those of other religions generally don’t get asked these kind of questions.
As to governance I do not agree with her views either but I am more interested in what her views are on economic policy.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I find that a bit bonkers. You are a member of a religion which (if you are gay and that religion is CoE) actively discriminates against you.
And instead of saying go fuck yourself, you try by all means possible, and so far with zero success, to change the religion.
So what have you been a member of and so enthusiastic about hitherto such that you want it to change completely to accommodate your own views. Makes no sense to me.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
I can see the attraction of the CofE. The local church in our neighbourhood is very actively involved in the community and does a lot of good stuff. Even as an atheist I am frequently in the church as a result. I often find myself wishing I could believe in God, especially at Christmas time! Sadly I just can't do it, although I will happily sing Christmas carols all day long. Incidentally, I suppose this is one reason why Christianity gets more stick than other religions - the irreligious generally have a sense of Christianity as it is woven into our lives whether we are believers or not. The same isn't true about other religions, about which I for one know virtually nothing.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I find that a bit bonkers. You are a member of a religion which (if you are gay and that religion is CoE) actively discriminates against you.
And instead of saying go fuck yourself, you try by all means possible, and so far with zero success, to change the religion.
So what have you been a member of and so enthusiastic about hitherto such that you want it to change completely to accommodate your own views. Makes no sense to me.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
TBF it could be that she was born into it? That is an improtant distinction - it is part of your childhood.
Wasn't.
No wonder you struggle with your friend's approach; I can understand seking to change the church of one's childhood and family, but to come de novo to it when there are so many other options, not least the Society of Friends?
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I find that a bit bonkers. You are a member of a religion which (if you are gay and that religion is CoE) actively discriminates against you.
And instead of saying go fuck yourself, you try by all means possible, and so far with zero success, to change the religion.
So what have you been a member of and so enthusiastic about hitherto such that you want it to change completely to accommodate your own views. Makes no sense to me.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
But on the other hand, what is God, and what is faith, if their seeming commendments and precepts can be altered to fit modern lifestyles?
'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.
“The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.
“It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.
“For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'
and
'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.
However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.
Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”
Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.
Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'
Personally I would sup with either of them with a very long spoon.
Never heard of MCUK, which sounds a bit astroturfy. MCB themselves have quite a history of politics, despite being 'non-political'.
Maybe you didn't see the news yesterday? MCUK is not so much astroturf as a spot of green paint that is still wet. Seems to have been set up to give spurious go-faster stripes to an attack on Mr Yousaf in re SNP leadership.
They should have just republished him going splat on his scooter. Before he falls just says everything about him - angrily beasting the thing down the corridor at 90mph, his hapless aide having to run after him with the papers. Dangerous, unpleasant, self-important, foolish, counterproductive. The inevitable denouement is just the icing on the cake.
Apologies for earlier misspelling Khan's name, btw ('Kahn'). I must think he's German!
I also realised that I've been referring to 'Regan' as 'Ashten', not because she has the 'Boris' factor, but because I appear to not only be confused over her sex, but also which is her forename and surname.
"Sincerity in UK politics is too much to hope for."
Unfortunately true. That's why politicians and journalists usually compete at the bottom of any poll for honesty or sincerity. But voters aren't angels in this respect. Activists being worst of all. They see what they want to see.
Journalists see stories, facts irrelevant. Politicians see advantages, facts also irrelevant.
A classic example. The Big Bang Theory. Not the TV programme, the real thing. Fred Hoyle a committed atheist, coined the word as an insult, because it hinted at a creator. Georges Le Maitre, known as the father of the big bang. A Belgian priest.
An interesting example (if I understand it right).
I admire Hoyle -- from a genuinely Northern, working class background, he rose to become the top Professor in Astronomy in Cambridge.
He voted Labour in 1945, but he seemed to end up as a working-class Tory by the end. His book on politics The Decade of Decision is very eccentric.
A lot of the attacks on Hoyle's theories were driven by class hatred in the Cambridge of that time.
The animosity of those personal attacks led Hoyle into an error, so that when data arrived to disprove his theory, he refused to accept it.
A sad story.
He came out with some pretty awful stuff in other fields too. Claiming that Archaeopteryx was a fake ...
Yeah ... and that lost him a Nobel Prize.
His collaborator William Fowler got the Nobel Prize for Physics (stellar nucleosynthesis) and Fred did not share it.
Presumably because the Nobel Committee decided there was too much danger of Fred accusing people of forging the Archaeopteryx in his Nobel Lecture and creating a major public embarrassment.
I think the way Fred had been treated had by then destroyed him.
Indeed. I had some respect for Forbes in being open and honest about her views, even while they likely sank her chances of winning the leadership.
But, assuming she approved her spokesperson's comments (and there has been no public statement otherwise, as far as I'm aware) then she's either thick (doesn't understand how bonkers that argument is) or a thoroughly nasty piece of work (intentionally playing the Christian victim while stirring up ideas that people of other faiths are treated preferentially).
But they are. We are very comfortable having a go at Christian beliefs where we don’t think that they are sufficiently progressive. We are much, much more cautious about challenging Muslim beliefs or Hindu beliefs because we are scared of being judged racist.
Whether it is helpful to her to point out this hypocrisy is another matter.
Really? You think Sadiq Kahn would have won the Labour nomination for Mayor of London (let alone the election) if he'd said that he would vote against gay marriage and thought having children out of wedlock was wrong? If so, I have Boris's garden bridge to sell you.
I can possibly believe that Sunak could have won a Tory members' election with similar views, but very much doubt he would have got the nomination of MPs.
The kernel of a point that you have is that Sunak, Kahn etc may be less likely to be put on the spot by the media about their religious views. But they're also more forthcoming in volunteering their liberal credentials (see also Yousaf), probably due to fear that they will be stereotyped as socially conservative due to their religion.
ETA: And anyway, it's not about abusing her beliefs (I disagree with her, but respect right to her beliefs). I just wouldn't want her making laws based on those beliefs in a
country that I lived in.
I think we are in agreement. The point is that we are more comfortable challenging the personal views of Christians, as we did with Tim Farron. Those of other religions generally don’t get asked these kind of questions.
As to governance I do not agree with her views either but I am more interested in what her views are on economic policy.
Yes. Reading again I think I misread your point, so apologies for the snark in my first paragraph. I was attacking a point that you were not making.
Also - as you say - it's the complete package that's important. I voted for Farron['s party] in 2017, even though I disagreed with his religious views (that was made easier by his public statements that he was committed to voting liberally).
This is one of the most interesting mini-debates PB has had in…a long time.
I agree. I'm really surprised how the lack of positivity towards Rishi amongst the Tory party membership isn't cutting through as a good proxy for the country. This is the membership who selected the most successful Tory leader for decades. They're dismissed as a group, by the media-westminster complex who do not get them, but their last choice to face an election actually won, and won big.....
My opinion is to some extent irrelevant as I’m not a Tory voter.
However, the quality of commentary is very poor; it’s quite painful. Although Liz Truss was mad, she outlined something that was potentially quite exciting. I think the membership were faced with quite a difficult choice.
She really did “surprise on the upside” in the second debate at least (was there a third?). I said this at the time and stick by it.
Truss being bounced into the energy support package is underplayed as a factor in her implosion of her premiership. Without it, the market reaction to her budget wouldn't have been so extreme and she might have been given chance to try implementing some of her supply-side reform programme.
Yes indeed. Bounced (a la Johnson) by going along with the decided opinion that a substantial package was needed which was, I think, against her instincts. She calculated wrongly that the risk to her early days as PM was not going large with an energy package when it turns out the risk was the opposite.
Excellent header though by Robert. The only thing I'd add is that Truss's thinking was accompanied by (punchy) growth expectations which she knew wouldn't be reflected in any forecasters' analyses. So she didn't bother. Part of the debacle was one of lack of patience and poor communication/persuasion.
Re the debate on religious belief and politics, it is worth pointing out that people have both the right to hold a belief AND to express it. The idea that belief systems are something that should only be held or expressed in private is wrong. This is a breach of both the Equality Act and the ECHR.
There is nothing to stop others equally commenting on those beliefs and voting for or against politicians depending on their views. Freedom of expression is for all. But it is fundamentally illiberal - as well as unlawful - to demand (as some seemed to be doing last night) that politicians keep their religious beliefs to themselves.
"Sincerity in UK politics is too much to hope for."
Unfortunately true. That's why politicians and journalists usually compete at the bottom of any poll for honesty or sincerity. But voters aren't angels in this respect. Activists being worst of all. They see what they want to see.
Journalists see stories, facts irrelevant. Politicians see advantages, facts also irrelevant.
A classic example. The Big Bang Theory. Not the TV programme, the real thing. Fred Hoyle a committed atheist, coined the word as an insult, because it hinted at a creator. Georges Le Maitre, known as the father of the big bang. A Belgian priest.
An interesting example (if I understand it right).
I admire Hoyle -- from a genuinely Northern, working class background, he rose to become the top Professor in Astronomy in Cambridge.
He voted Labour in 1945, but he seemed to end up as a working-class Tory by the end. His book on politics The Decade of Decision is very eccentric.
A lot of the attacks on Hoyle's theories were driven by class hatred in the Cambridge of that time.
The animosity of those personal attacks led Hoyle into an error, so that when data arrived to disprove his theory, he refused to accept it.
A sad story.
He came out with some pretty awful stuff in other fields too. Claiming that Archaeopteryx was a fake ...
Yeah ... and that lost him a Nobel Prize.
His collaborator William Fowler got the Nobel Prize for Physics (stellar nucleosynthesis) and Fred did not share it.
Presumably because the Nobel Committee decided there was too much danger of Fred accusing people of forging the Archaeopteryx in his Nobel Lecture and creating a major public embarrassment.
I think the way Fred had been treated had by then destroyed him.
I don't suppose the disease from space stuff helped either (there was pangenesis stuff too IIRC? but that is at least in principle possible, unlikely as it seems in general).
On topic, the headline is way to generous to the Truss-ster. She didn't trip over her own feet, that makes it sound accidental and unlucky. She leapt off the cliff like a lemming.
In the last months, I have travelled the world - probably more than anyone on here - may be more than any other human being on earth - and I am tentatively reaching the opposite conclusion. Tentatively
The entire world is fucked by Covid. Totally fucked. Everyone is dazed and confused. Everyone. Tuk tuk drivers in Bangkok. Hookers in Armenia. Russian millionaires in Turkey. Turks, Americans slumped over oysters in New Orleans. Spanish people in Marbella. Lisbonites. Greek waiters. Montenegrin cab drivers. Albanian cab drivers. Colorado businessmen. Cambodian escorts. Everyone is suffering with PTSD. In different countries this is enacted in different ways, with different symptoms, but the overriding symptom, the universal lesion reads: fuck why did it have to happen?
In Britain the particular scar appears as regret over Brexit, because regretting Brexit gives us the illusion we have - or had - control over the awful awful shit that has happened. The 20 million dead around the world. That if we’d acted differently things would have turned out differently. This is not true. Covid was a global disaster and only the mad boffins are to blame.. Bregret is a delusion
In that light, I reckon we are getting closer to Peak Bregret. To maximum Rejoineriness. It will occur in the next 2-4 years
And then - then the UK will pick itself off the floor - finally - and get a wiggle on. And Brexit regret will slowly melt away, like snow in the Cairngorms, until the last sinters are left in the intellectual cold pools of Islington and Cambridge
Spot on for the first bit. It's been hugely underestimated as an explanation for almost everything. Dead wrong on the second. Perhaps because you've spent so little time here. Almost no one outside of this board mentions Brexit. That the country is f***ed. All the time. No particular reason given. Just everything is falling apart. It's depression.
"Sincerity in UK politics is too much to hope for."
Unfortunately true. That's why politicians and journalists usually compete at the bottom of any poll for honesty or sincerity. But voters aren't angels in this respect. Activists being worst of all. They see what they want to see.
Journalists see stories, facts irrelevant. Politicians see advantages, facts also irrelevant.
A classic example. The Big Bang Theory. Not the TV programme, the real thing. Fred Hoyle a committed atheist, coined the word as an insult, because it hinted at a creator. Georges Le Maitre, known as the father of the big bang. A Belgian priest.
An interesting example (if I understand it right).
I admire Hoyle -- from a genuinely Northern, working class background, he rose to become the top Professor in Astronomy in Cambridge.
He voted Labour in 1945, but he seemed to end up as a working-class Tory by the end. His book on politics The Decade of Decision is very eccentric.
A lot of the attacks on Hoyle's theories were driven by class hatred in the Cambridge of that time.
The animosity of those personal attacks led Hoyle into an error, so that when data arrived to disprove his theory, he refused to accept it.
A sad story.
He came out with some pretty awful stuff in other fields too. Claiming that Archaeopteryx was a fake ...
Yeah ... and that lost him a Nobel Prize.
His collaborator William Fowler got the Nobel Prize for Physics (stellar nucleosynthesis) and Fred did not share it.
Presumably because the Nobel Committee decided there was too much danger of Fred accusing people of forging the Archaeopteryx in his Nobel Lecture and creating a major public embarrassment.
I think the way Fred had been treated had by then destroyed him.
I don't suppose the disease from space stuff helped either (there was pangenesis stuff too IIRC? but that is at least in principle possible, unlikely as it seems in general).
I agree -- doubtful data and lots of dodgy statistics. A sad end.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
Surely this depends on whether you (and perhaps the group) see the areas of disagreement as fundamental to the group's identity and principles, or as a secondary area where you might be able to be persuasive precisely because you agree on fundamentals elsewhere? To take a political example, suppose I am a committed environmentalist who believes that nuclear power is a vital component of getting us down to a zero-carbon energy system. I'm likely better off joining the Green Party even though they disagree on nuclear power, because we're in alignment on the overall goal even though we have a disagreement on some of what that goal might or might not require. If enough like-minded other people are also in the Green Party we might even be able to shift the policy in our direction.
Can you pick and choose with religion? Your analogy falls down because the belief system of a religion dictates every aspect of its views. From working on the sabbath to gay marriage to...to... It is one indivisible view informed by, I assume, the divine being.
Re the debate on religious belief and politics, it is worth pointing out that people have both the right to hold a belief AND to express it. The idea that belief systems are something that should only be held or expressed in private is wrong. This is a breach of both the Equality Act and the ECHR.
There is nothing to stop others equally commenting on those beliefs and voting for or against politicians depending on their views. Freedom of expression is for all. But it is fundamentally illiberal - as well as unlawful - to demand (as some seemed to be doing last night) that politicians keep their religious beliefs to themselves.
Is anyone suggesting they do? They are merely saying that policies and political positions, such as those on gay marriage, do not get a free pass merely because those views derive from religious beliefs.
The issue for the SNP wannabee leader is that her views don't align with the majority of SNP voters and members, not her religion.
In the last months, I have travelled the world - probably more than anyone on here - may be more than any other human being on earth - and I am tentatively reaching the opposite conclusion. Tentatively
The entire world is fucked by Covid. Totally fucked. Everyone is dazed and confused. Everyone. Tuk tuk drivers in Bangkok. Hookers in Armenia. Russian millionaires in Turkey. Turks, Americans slumped over oysters in New Orleans. Spanish people in Marbella. Lisbonites. Greek waiters. Montenegrin cab drivers. Albanian cab drivers. Colorado businessmen. Cambodian escorts. Everyone is suffering with PTSD. In different countries this is enacted in different ways, with different symptoms, but the overriding symptom, the universal lesion reads: fuck why did it have to happen?
In Britain the particular scar appears as regret over Brexit, because regretting Brexit gives us the illusion we have - or had - control over the awful awful shit that has happened. The 20 million dead around the world. That if we’d acted differently things would have turned out differently. This is not true. Covid was a global disaster and only the mad boffins are to blame.. Bregret is a delusion
In that light, I reckon we are getting closer to Peak Bregret. To maximum Rejoineriness. It will occur in the next 2-4 years
And then - then the UK will pick itself off the floor - finally - and get a wiggle on. And Brexit regret will slowly melt away, like snow in the Cairngorms, until the last sinters are left in the intellectual cold pools of Islington and Cambridge
Spot on for the first bit. It's been hugely underestimated as an explanation for almost everything. Dead wrong on the second. Perhaps because you've spent so little time here. Almost no one outside of this board mentions Brexit. That the country is f***ed. All the time. No particular reason given. Just everything is falling apart. It's depression.
The problem with putting your faith at the centre of a campaign is that you get all sorts of horrible wee shites coming out of the woodwork on your side. There are other problems of course.
Indeed. I had some respect for Forbes in being open and honest about her views, even while they likely sank her chances of winning the leadership.
But, assuming she approved her spokesperson's comments (and there has been no public statement otherwise, as far as I'm aware) then she's either thick (doesn't understand how bonkers that argument is) or a thoroughly nasty piece of work (intentionally playing the Christian victim while stirring up ideas that people of other faiths are treated preferentially).
But they are. We are very comfortable having a go at Christian beliefs where we don’t think that they are sufficiently progressive. We are much, much more cautious about challenging Muslim beliefs or Hindu beliefs because we are scared of being judged racist.
Whether it is helpful to her to point out this hypocrisy is another matter.
Really? You think Sadiq Kahn would have won the Labour nomination for Mayor of London (let alone the election) if he'd said that he would vote against gay marriage and thought having children out of wedlock was wrong? If so, I have Boris's garden bridge to sell you.
I can possibly believe that Sunak could have won a Tory members' election with similar views, but very much doubt he would have got the nomination of MPs.
The kernel of a point that you have is that Sunak, Kahn etc may be less likely to be put on the spot by the media about their religious views. But they're also more forthcoming in volunteering their liberal credentials (see also Yousaf), probably due to fear that they will be stereotyped as socially conservative due to their religion.
ETA: And anyway, it's not about abusing her beliefs (I disagree with her, but respect right to her beliefs). I just wouldn't want her making laws based on those beliefs in a
country that I lived in.
I think we are in agreement. The point is that we are more comfortable challenging the personal views of Christians, as we did with Tim Farron. Those of other religions generally don’t get asked these kind of questions.
As to governance I do not agree with her views either but I am more interested in what her views are on economic policy.
Yes but. Tim Farron puts his faith front and centre. As does Kate Forbes. Sunak and Khan don't. If they were fundamentalists they wouldn't be anywhere near the positions they are in. Because they would be repeatedly asked those questions.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
Surely this depends on whether you (and perhaps the group) see the areas of disagreement as fundamental to the group's identity and principles, or as a secondary area where you might be able to be persuasive precisely because you agree on fundamentals elsewhere? To take a political example, suppose I am a committed environmentalist who believes that nuclear power is a vital component of getting us down to a zero-carbon energy system. I'm likely better off joining the Green Party even though they disagree on nuclear power, because we're in alignment on the overall goal even though we have a disagreement on some of what that goal might or might not require. If enough like-minded other people are also in the Green Party we might even be able to shift the policy in our direction.
Can you pick and choose with religion? Your analogy falls down because the belief system of a religion dictates every aspect of its views. From working on the sabbath to gay marriage to...to... It is one indivisible view informed by, I assume, the divine being.
If faith and God are useful constructs that help societies function and prevent or mediate violence within an in-group, then it would stand to reason that they can and should evolve along with human culture.
Deep down I think most believers understand that half the stuff in the old testament is now an anachronism. But this is the difference between fundamentalists and others. The literal truth of an ancient book versus a set of precepts that help social cohesion.
Re the debate on religious belief and politics, it is worth pointing out that people have both the right to hold a belief AND to express it. The idea that belief systems are something that should only be held or expressed in private is wrong. This is a breach of both the Equality Act and the ECHR.
There is nothing to stop others equally commenting on those beliefs and voting for or against politicians depending on their views. Freedom of expression is for all. But it is fundamentally illiberal - as well as unlawful - to demand (as some seemed to be doing last night) that politicians keep their religious beliefs to themselves.
Well it's not necessarily illiberal. The most famous and influential modern liberal philosopher, John Rawls, famously argued for overlapping consensus in the public square:
"Many political and legal philosophers, following John Rawls, have argued that religious voices in the public square need to frame their arguments in terms that are intelligible to the larger overlapping consensus of diverse communities and radically different religious convictions that participate in that conversation."
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I find that a bit bonkers. You are a member of a religion which (if you are gay and that religion is CoE) actively discriminates against you.
And instead of saying go fuck yourself, you try by all means possible, and so far with zero success, to change the religion.
So what have you been a member of and so enthusiastic about hitherto such that you want it to change completely to accommodate your own views. Makes no sense to me.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
For many people the moral strictures, dogma and theology of a religion are the least important parts. It's very common, and welcome I think, for members of religions to think for themselves to a greater or lesser extent on matters of morality. The important parts of the religion are the practice (as in prayer, meditation, singing, rituals, etc), the community, the religious experience, the acknowledgement of the religious experience and mystery of existence, the sense of joint purpose with others, provision of solace in the face of life's inevitable tragedies and so on.
It's a minority, in my experience who think the dogma and rules about what is sin are important, or even to be taken at all seriously in many cases. Sadly it tends to be that dogmatic minority who often run the organisations.
The problem with putting your faith at the centre of a campaign is that you get all sorts of horrible wee shites coming out of the woodwork on your side. There are other problems of course.
I did not know of Peter Kearney before, but that statement of his is truly vile.
Indeed. I had some respect for Forbes in being open and honest about her views, even while they likely sank her chances of winning the leadership.
But, assuming she approved her spokesperson's comments (and there has been no public statement otherwise, as far as I'm aware) then she's either thick (doesn't understand how bonkers that argument is) or a thoroughly nasty piece of work (intentionally playing the Christian victim while stirring up ideas that people of other faiths are treated preferentially).
But they are. We are very comfortable having a go at Christian beliefs where we don’t think that they are sufficiently progressive. We are much, much more cautious about challenging Muslim beliefs or Hindu beliefs because we are scared of being judged racist.
Whether it is helpful to her to point out this hypocrisy is another matter.
Really? You think Sadiq Kahn would have won the Labour nomination for Mayor of London (let alone the election) if he'd said that he would vote against gay marriage and thought having children out of wedlock was wrong? If so, I have Boris's garden bridge to sell you.
I can possibly believe that Sunak could have won a Tory members' election with similar views, but very much doubt he would have got the nomination of MPs.
The kernel of a point that you have is that Sunak, Kahn etc may be less likely to be put on the spot by the media about their religious views. But they're also more forthcoming in volunteering their liberal credentials (see also Yousaf), probably due to fear that they will be stereotyped as socially conservative due to their religion.
ETA: And anyway, it's not about abusing her beliefs (I disagree with her, but respect right to her beliefs). I just wouldn't want her making laws based on those beliefs in a
country that I lived in.
I think we are in agreement. The point is that we are more comfortable challenging the personal views of Christians, as we did with Tim Farron. Those of other religions generally don’t get asked these kind of questions.
As to governance I do not agree with her views either but I am more interested in what her views are on economic policy.
Yes but. Tim Farron puts his faith front and centre. As does Kate Forbes. Sunak and Khan don't. If they were fundamentalists they wouldn't be anywhere near the positions they are in. Because they would be repeatedly asked those questions.
Ultimately it's politics innit.
If you are a politician who professes deep faith of whatever sort, but only attach it to policy in the most motherhood and apple pie terms (for a Christian it might be "I believe in social justice and forgiveness like Jesus", for a Muslim it might be "Islam teaches us to look after the poor, and welcome strangers as guests") then everyone's happy. It's like a Labour leader saying their socialism means a fair deal for everyone and a strong NHS.
If you start quoting bits of your faith that amount to sticking the fingers up to large sections of the population (homosexuality is a sin, women should stay at home and look after the kids, you shoudn't drink alcohol or eat pork) then the public aren't going to vote for you. It's the equivalent of a Labour leader saying their socialism means abolishing private property or a Green telling everyone they need to give up their cars. Or May banging on about citizens of the world.
Farron never fully got this, and nor it seems has Forbes.
"Sincerity in UK politics is too much to hope for."
Unfortunately true. That's why politicians and journalists usually compete at the bottom of any poll for honesty or sincerity. But voters aren't angels in this respect. Activists being worst of all. They see what they want to see.
Journalists see stories, facts irrelevant. Politicians see advantages, facts also irrelevant.
A classic example. The Big Bang Theory. Not the TV programme, the real thing. Fred Hoyle a committed atheist, coined the word as an insult, because it hinted at a creator. Georges Le Maitre, known as the father of the big bang. A Belgian priest.
By coincidence, I'm working my way through the box set of The Big Bang Theory, the television programme. The second most remarkable thing (aside from the 1970s-style race and sex jokes in a 2010s series; mental health might be problematic too in the 2020s) is that each episode is just 20 minutes long, suggesting American television is 30 per cent adverts.
Yes, there’s loads of ads on American TV. The series “24”, supposedly set in real time hours, and with a clock on the screen for quite a bit of it - has epidodes that last 38-41 minutes. Regular American TV is indeed a third adverts.
The volume of ads on British commercial TV has increased over the decades. You can most obviously notice this when there's a repeat of an old show that used to be scheduled for 60 minutes, including ads, but now runs 5-10 minutes longer.
I remember that's what struck me watching Sky in the early 90s. There seemed to be an ad break every 10 minutes.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
Surely this depends on whether you (and perhaps the group) see the areas of disagreement as fundamental to the group's identity and principles, or as a secondary area where you might be able to be persuasive precisely because you agree on fundamentals elsewhere? To take a political example, suppose I am a committed environmentalist who believes that nuclear power is a vital component of getting us down to a zero-carbon energy system. I'm likely better off joining the Green Party even though they disagree on nuclear power, because we're in alignment on the overall goal even though we have a disagreement on some of what that goal might or might not require. If enough like-minded other people are also in the Green Party we might even be able to shift the policy in our direction.
Can you pick and choose with religion? Your analogy falls down because the belief system of a religion dictates every aspect of its views. From working on the sabbath to gay marriage to...to... It is one indivisible view informed by, I assume, the divine being.
Of course you can pick and choose. Have you never met a catholic who has sex outside marriage? or a hindu who eats a beefburger, or a muslim who drinks a beer?
you can even find liverpool fans who don't hate man utd, though it's much rarer.
The problem with putting your faith at the centre of a campaign is that you get all sorts of horrible wee shites coming out of the woodwork on your side. There are other problems of course.
I did not know of Peter Kearney before, but that statement of his is truly vile.
The logical conclusion to the theory posited is that all women should become lesbians. I wonder how the author feels about that suggestion.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
Surely this depends on whether you (and perhaps the group) see the areas of disagreement as fundamental to the group's identity and principles, or as a secondary area where you might be able to be persuasive precisely because you agree on fundamentals elsewhere? To take a political example, suppose I am a committed environmentalist who believes that nuclear power is a vital component of getting us down to a zero-carbon energy system. I'm likely better off joining the Green Party even though they disagree on nuclear power, because we're in alignment on the overall goal even though we have a disagreement on some of what that goal might or might not require. If enough like-minded other people are also in the Green Party we might even be able to shift the policy in our direction.
Can you pick and choose with religion? Your analogy falls down because the belief system of a religion dictates every aspect of its views. From working on the sabbath to gay marriage to...to... It is one indivisible view informed by, I assume, the divine being.
This view was widely held by Martian theoreticians but it failed to survive contact with earthlings in any group larger than one. They also had to revise their assumption that MPs of a particular party all held the opinions of that party, in that second case because they learned that the assumption held no meaning at all.
The problem with putting your faith at the centre of a campaign is that you get all sorts of horrible wee shites coming out of the woodwork on your side. There are other problems of course.
I did not know of Peter Kearney before, but that statement of his is truly vile.
The logical conclusion to the theory posited is that all women should become lesbians. I wonder how the author feels about that suggestion.
If reducing crime was as simple as tougher sentences and the cliches demanded by the popular press then the USA would be the safest place on earth. Instead it is one of the most violent.
Good article Robert and I suspect she never will. She will continue to portray herself as a victim of anything other than her own ineptitude.
Psychologically, that's human and understandable. After all, the alternative is that Truss and Kwarteng screwed up in a way that will be a terrible warning down the ages. Me? I get evasive when I overcook broccoli. At a human level, I can sympathise with them, just so long as they're never near the levers of power again.
That process- denialism to avoid acknowledging that we have made an utter mess of something huge- is just how we're wired. Other applications in politics are left as an exercise for the reader.
If reducing crime was as simple as tougher sentences and the cliches demanded by the popular press then the USA would be the safest place on earth. Instead it is one of the most violent.
Does that follow? Maybe if sentences in the States were less tough there would be even more violence.
I don’t recall asylum seekers being not interviewed face to face under Labour.
Now the Tories are doing it because they’ve gutted the immigration service to such a degree they can no longer cope. They’ve gutted the justice system to such a degree it can no longer cope. No solutions to that, just make an irrelevant pledge about boats and somebody else can sort it out.
Keir is following Blair’s playbook, but is rather wary of the man himself for the reasons you’d expect.
Blair on the other hand hasn’t much rated Keir’s retail politics abilities and possibly felt a bit of lese majesty that his every word was not being hung onto.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
Indeed. I had some respect for Forbes in being open and honest about her views, even while they likely sank her chances of winning the leadership.
But, assuming she approved her spokesperson's comments (and there has been no public statement otherwise, as far as I'm aware) then she's either thick (doesn't understand how bonkers that argument is) or a thoroughly nasty piece of work (intentionally playing the Christian victim while stirring up ideas that people of other faiths are treated preferentially).
They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people.
I've not been following the debates line by line, but I have not seen that type of imposition proposed.
AFAICS her position is more akin to Rees-Mogg's position as an orthodox Roman Catholic - holding personal views reflecting his interpretation of his faith on eg abortion, but following the Govt policy line.
Keir is following Blair’s playbook, but is rather wary of the man himself for the reasons you’d expect.
Blair on the other hand hasn’t much rated Keir’s retail politics abilities and possibly felt a bit of lese majesty that his every word was not being listened to.
Good article Robert and I suspect she never will. She will continue to portray herself as a victim of anything other than her own ineptitude.
Psychologically, that's human and understandable. After all, the alternative is that Truss and Kwarteng screwed up in a way that will be a terrible warning down the ages. Me? I get evasive when I overcook broccoli. At a human level, I can sympathise with them, just so long as they're never near the levers of power again.
That process- denialism to avoid acknowledging that we have made an utter mess of something huge- is just how we're wired. Other applications in politics are left as an exercise for the reader.
You’re just posting Tory spam now? We need a new rule on PB against this.
Ah I see spam you agree with like the anti brexit spam of some posters - all good Spam you don't like - we must have a rule
I don’t know, it feels like if you just post some rebuttal shitpost you’re crossing a line. Carlotta didn’t even bother posting something cryptically ironic to excuse it.
If reducing crime was as simple as tougher sentences and the cliches demanded by the popular press then the USA would be the safest place on earth. Instead it is one of the most violent.
Does that follow? Maybe if sentences in the States were less tough there would be even more violence.
Ok, it doesn't statistically follow from a single example, but the western democracies with the lowest levels of crime tend to focus on social cohesion, rehabilitiation, at least as much as sentencing. The obvious answer is to give people a stake in society and avoid having a large underclass that do not share in the benefits of society, not to just jail more people for longer.
You’re just posting Tory spam now? We need a new rule on PB against this.
It’s a response - people can judge how effective or not it is - or don’t you want to know “what the enemy is doing”?
I suspect “Same. Old. Labour.” has been focus grouped to death so clearly they think it’s good.
Since Labour last won an election nearly two decades ago I’m doubtful many voters know what it means - strikes me as “preaching to the choir”. That may be part of a “shore up the core vote” strategy but it doesn’t strike me as it will persuade the uncommitted.
So what they are saying is people most likely to have some experience of crime in their locality have decided not to vote for the conservatives?
Indeed, some correlation/causation confusion (or dishonesty) there. In other news, regions with the largest number of firefighters have the most fires.
Good article Robert and I suspect she never will. She will continue to portray herself as a victim of anything other than her own ineptitude.
Psychologically, that's human and understandable. After all, the alternative is that Truss and Kwarteng screwed up in a way that will be a terrible warning down the ages. Me? I get evasive when I overcook broccoli. At a human level, I can sympathise with them, just so long as they're never near the levers of power again.
That process- denialism to avoid acknowledging that we have made an utter mess of something huge- is just how we're wired. Other applications in politics are left as an exercise for the reader.
You cook broccoli?
I had broccoli every day when my children were growing up. It was one of the few veg they would eat. I never ever want to see it again and I love vegetables.
If reducing crime was as simple as tougher sentences and the cliches demanded by the popular press then the USA would be the safest place on earth. Instead it is one of the most violent.
Does that follow? Maybe if sentences in the States were less tough there would be even more violence.
It is said that 90% of crime is done by about 10% of people, locking that 10% away is going to reduce crime for the period of their incarceration. Sadly it is often too late to rehabilitate that 10% as they have got so used to the life.
However the thing that I believe would drop crime the most is increasing the detection rate as studies have shown that the fear of being caught is the biggest deterrent. Instead we have the situation here where many crimes have been all but decriminalised because the police don't even bother to investigate and are merely there to give you a crime number for your insurance claims.
You’re just posting Tory spam now? We need a new rule on PB against this.
Ah I see spam you agree with like the anti brexit spam of some posters - all good Spam you don't like - we must have a rule
I don’t know, it feels like if you just post some rebuttal shitpost you’re crossing a line. Carlotta didn’t even bother posting something cryptically ironic to excuse it.
Do you have an opinion on the attack or do you limit yourself to complaining about other posters?
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I find that a bit bonkers. You are a member of a religion which (if you are gay and that religion is CoE) actively discriminates against you.
And instead of saying go fuck yourself, you try by all means possible, and so far with zero success, to change the religion.
So what have you been a member of and so enthusiastic about hitherto such that you want it to change completely to accommodate your own views. Makes no sense to me.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
For many people the moral strictures, dogma and theology of a religion are the least important parts. It's very common, and welcome I think, for members of religions to think for themselves to a greater or lesser extent on matters of morality. The important parts of the religion are the practice (as in prayer, meditation, singing, rituals, etc), the community, the religious experience, the acknowledgement of the religious experience and mystery of existence, the sense of joint purpose with others, provision of solace in the face of life's inevitable tragedies and so on.
It's a minority, in my experience who think the dogma and rules about what is sin are important, or even to be taken at all seriously in many cases. Sadly it tends to be that dogmatic minority who often run the organisations.
Super bizarre. Religion is a belief system. It dictates that morality and determines whether something (gay marriage, sex outside wedlock, what have you) is morally and therefore religiously "good" or "bad".
It is surely not something that you can mix and match or amend according to taste. It is the same higher power that said thou shalt not kill as said gay marriage is wrong.
As for your "prayer, meditation, singing, rituals" you get all of that at The Emirates Stadium on a Saturday afternoon.
You say things change. Why do they change? Who says they should. As far as the CoE is concerned, the custodians of the faith eg the ABoC says they most certainly don't and shouldn't change.
Stop trying to be so modern about a ritualist, supernatural, belief system (one of many).
You’re just posting Tory spam now? We need a new rule on PB against this.
Ah I see spam you agree with like the anti brexit spam of some posters - all good Spam you don't like - we must have a rule
I don’t know, it feels like if you just post some rebuttal shitpost you’re crossing a line. Carlotta didn’t even bother posting something cryptically ironic to excuse it.
Leave Carlotta alone.
If Scott can spam this site with FBPE tweets, and the Labour herd are permitted to constantly dribble about how the Tories are DOOMED and how they worship the ground Starmer works on, then she is perfectly entitled to post a Conservative viewpoint for counterbalance.
If you feel threatened by that then, quite aside from what that brittleness tells us all, you might feel better going and joining a blog that's nothing more than a partisan echo-chamber.
You’re just posting Tory spam now? We need a new rule on PB against this.
Ah I see spam you agree with like the anti brexit spam of some posters - all good Spam you don't like - we must have a rule
I don’t know, it feels like if you just post some rebuttal shitpost you’re crossing a line. Carlotta didn’t even bother posting something cryptically ironic to excuse it.
Do you have an opinion on the attack or do you limit yourself to complaining about other posters?
It’s a load of nonsense is what it is.
Your Government is so utterly useless they cannot support their own policies. They’re now not giving interviews to asylum seekers because they haven’t got enough staff. Because you cut them all.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I find that a bit bonkers. You are a member of a religion which (if you are gay and that religion is CoE) actively discriminates against you.
And instead of saying go fuck yourself, you try by all means possible, and so far with zero success, to change the religion.
So what have you been a member of and so enthusiastic about hitherto such that you want it to change completely to accommodate your own views. Makes no sense to me.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
For many people the moral strictures, dogma and theology of a religion are the least important parts. It's very common, and welcome I think, for members of religions to think for themselves to a greater or lesser extent on matters of morality. The important parts of the religion are the practice (as in prayer, meditation, singing, rituals, etc), the community, the religious experience, the acknowledgement of the religious experience and mystery of existence, the sense of joint purpose with others, provision of solace in the face of life's inevitable tragedies and so on.
It's a minority, in my experience who think the dogma and rules about what is sin are important, or even to be taken at all seriously in many cases. Sadly it tends to be that dogmatic minority who often run the organisations.
Super bizarre. Religion is a belief system. It dictates that morality and determines whether something (gay marriage, sex outside wedlock, what have you) is morally and therefore religiously "good" or "bad".
It is surely not something that you can mix and match or amend according to taste. It is the same higher power that said thou shalt not kill as said gay marriage is wrong.
As for your "prayer, meditation, singing, rituals" you get all of that at The Emirates Stadium on a Saturday afternoon.
You say things change. Why do they change? Who says they should. As far as the CoE is concerned, the custodians of the faith eg the ABoC says they most certainly don't and shouldn't change.
Stop trying to be so modern about a ritualist, supernatural, belief system (one of many).
Religions change because they want your attention and your money. So they adapt or die.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
Surely this depends on whether you (and perhaps the group) see the areas of disagreement as fundamental to the group's identity and principles, or as a secondary area where you might be able to be persuasive precisely because you agree on fundamentals elsewhere? To take a political example, suppose I am a committed environmentalist who believes that nuclear power is a vital component of getting us down to a zero-carbon energy system. I'm likely better off joining the Green Party even though they disagree on nuclear power, because we're in alignment on the overall goal even though we have a disagreement on some of what that goal might or might not require. If enough like-minded other people are also in the Green Party we might even be able to shift the policy in our direction.
Can you pick and choose with religion? Your analogy falls down because the belief system of a religion dictates every aspect of its views. From working on the sabbath to gay marriage to...to... It is one indivisible view informed by, I assume, the divine being.
Of course you can pick and choose. Have you never met a catholic who has sex outside marriage? or a hindu who eats a beefburger, or a muslim who drinks a beer?
you can even find liverpool fans who don't hate man utd, though it's much rarer.
Again wrong. Or at least bizarre. They are doing those things in contravention of the religion they profess to follow. They are sinning, to use the vernacular.
Someone voluntarily sins against the precepts of the religion they say they believe in and follow.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
Indeed. I had some respect for Forbes in being open and honest about her views, even while they likely sank her chances of winning the leadership.
But, assuming she approved her spokesperson's comments (and there has been no public statement otherwise, as far as I'm aware) then she's either thick (doesn't understand how bonkers that argument is) or a thoroughly nasty piece of work (intentionally playing the Christian victim while stirring up ideas that people of other faiths are treated preferentially).
They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people.
I've not been following the debates line by line, but I have not seen that type of imposition proposed.
AFAICS her position is more akin to Rees-Mogg's position as an orthodox Roman Catholic - holding personal views reflecting his interpretation of his faith on eg abortion, but following the Govt policy line.
She said she would have voted against equal marriage as her personal religious belief is that only a man and a woman can be married. That is what led to her being heavily criticised.
Good article Robert and I suspect she never will. She will continue to portray herself as a victim of anything other than her own ineptitude.
Psychologically, that's human and understandable. After all, the alternative is that Truss and Kwarteng screwed up in a way that will be a terrible warning down the ages. Me? I get evasive when I overcook broccoli. At a human level, I can sympathise with them, just so long as they're never near the levers of power again.
That process- denialism to avoid acknowledging that we have made an utter mess of something huge- is just how we're wired. Other applications in politics are left as an exercise for the reader.
When I overcook Brocolli I tell my wife I did it as it was in the recipe !!!!
In my job if I make a mistake I own it. My colleagues do as well. There is something about politics where politicians can never concede they are at fault even when it is blindingly obvious they are.
I think after the next general election they will be at least a decade away from the levers of power.
You’re just posting Tory spam now? We need a new rule on PB against this.
It’s a response - people can judge how effective or not it is - or don’t you want to know “what the enemy is doing”?
I suspect “Same. Old. Labour.” has been focus grouped to death so clearly they think it’s good.
Since Labour last won an election nearly two decades ago I’m doubtful many voters know what it means - strikes me as “preaching to the choir”. That may be part of a “shore up the core vote” strategy but it doesn’t strike me as it will persuade the uncommitted.
Personally I think the post is laughably mendacious.
As for the phrase “Same. Old. Labour”, I’m amused by the full stops. Does over-punctuating it make it more meme-y?
The Tories have been in power for 13 years. They’ve had more than enough time to sort these issues out.
For anyone who likes 'More or Less' there was a classic on re-offending rates in the last episode. Raab has been boasting about the reduction in the rate and he is correct. However it appears to be due to the failure to prosecute rather than the steering of criminals away from crime. It is amazing what you can do with stats. Hyufd be aware.
Comments
My view that social democracy having failed isn't driven by small state ideology (though I do prefer a small state low tax regime) but by pragmatism.
Which of the following statements do people disagree with.
1) There is a hard cap on the amount the state can raise as a percentage of GDP
2) Services cost money
3) What the state it should do which means being fully funded
4) To much of social democracies (certainly in this country) goes to those not in need rather than being targetted at lifting the bottom couple of quintiles (think propping up house prices)
Right now I just want politicians to come clean....
This is how much we can actually raise via tax
This is what we currently do and how much it would cost to do well
What things do you want to drop so what we do is fully funded?
Social democracy has failed in my view for the simple reason that we keep adding things for the state to do and we can't raise enough tax money to fund the things we already do. So instead we ending up borrowing more and more from future generations. At some point we get to everything we can raise in tax being required to service the debt payments at which point no one has any services at all.
In 2022 debt repayment was 87.2 billion tax revenue was 715 billions....thats already 12% of total tax revenues and its going to grow ever larger. It is time to look at what we can stop doing rather than add ever more burdens to the state
Never heard of MCUK, which sounds a bit astroturfy. MCB themselves have quite a history of politics, despite being 'non-political'.
From here it looks like another shark-infested custard.
FCS has more in common with US Southern Baptists and Pentecostals than it does with Anglicans and members of the mainline Church of Scotland
In the last months, I have travelled the world - probably more than anyone on here - may be more than any other human being on earth - and I am tentatively reaching the opposite conclusion. Tentatively
The entire world is fucked by Covid. Totally fucked. Everyone is dazed and confused. Everyone. Tuk tuk drivers in Bangkok. Hookers in Armenia. Russian millionaires in Turkey. Turks, Americans slumped over oysters in New Orleans. Spanish people in Marbella. Lisbonites. Greek waiters. Montenegrin cab drivers. Albanian cab drivers. Colorado businessmen. Cambodian escorts. Everyone is suffering with PTSD. In different countries this is enacted in different ways, with different symptoms, but the overriding symptom, the universal lesion reads: fuck why did it have to happen?
In Britain the particular scar appears as regret over Brexit, because regretting Brexit gives us the illusion we have - or had - control over the awful awful shit that has happened. The 20 million dead around the world. That if we’d acted differently things would have turned out differently. This is not true. Covid was a global disaster and only the mad boffins are to blame.. Bregret is a delusion
In that light, I reckon we are getting closer to Peak Bregret. To maximum Rejoineriness. It will occur in the next 2-4 years
And then - then the UK will pick itself off the floor - finally - and get a wiggle on. And Brexit regret will slowly melt away, like snow in the Cairngorms, until the last sinters are left in the intellectual cold pools of Islington and Cambridge
Those of other religions generally don’t get asked these kind of questions.
As to governance I do not agree with her views either but I am more interested in what her views are on economic policy.
Incidentally, I suppose this is one reason why Christianity gets more stick than other religions - the irreligious generally have a sense of Christianity as it is woven into our lives whether we are believers or not. The same isn't true about other religions, about which I for one know virtually nothing.
A true soccer commentary legend.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/fifa-world-cup/john-motson-the-voice-of-bbc-football-commentary-dies-aged-77/ar-AA17POym?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=b22cfdc341aa4625aa95bc26018d5c71
His collaborator William Fowler got the Nobel Prize for Physics (stellar nucleosynthesis) and Fred did not share it.
Presumably because the Nobel Committee decided there was too much danger of Fred accusing people of forging the Archaeopteryx in his Nobel Lecture and creating a major public embarrassment.
I think the way Fred had been treated had by then destroyed him.
Also - as you say - it's the complete package that's important. I voted for Farron['s party] in 2017, even though I disagreed with his religious views (that was made easier by his public statements that he was committed to voting liberally).
Excellent header though by Robert. The only thing I'd add is that Truss's thinking was accompanied by (punchy) growth expectations which she knew wouldn't be reflected in any forecasters' analyses. So she didn't bother. Part of the debacle was one of lack of patience and poor communication/persuasion.
The Leondamus curve is an exponential.
There is nothing to stop others equally commenting on those beliefs and voting for or against politicians depending on their views. Freedom of expression is for all. But it is fundamentally illiberal - as well as unlawful - to demand (as some seemed to be doing last night) that politicians keep their religious beliefs to themselves.
Dead wrong on the second. Perhaps because you've spent so little time here.
Almost no one outside of this board mentions Brexit.
That the country is f***ed. All the time. No particular reason given. Just everything is falling apart.
It's depression.
The issue for the SNP wannabee leader is that her views don't align with the majority of SNP voters and members, not her religion.
Tim Farron puts his faith front and centre. As does Kate Forbes.
Sunak and Khan don't.
If they were fundamentalists they wouldn't be anywhere near the positions they are in.
Because they would be repeatedly asked those questions.
Deep down I think most believers understand that half the stuff in the old testament is now an anachronism. But this is the difference between fundamentalists and others. The literal truth of an ancient book versus a set of precepts that help social cohesion.
"Many political and legal philosophers, following John Rawls, have argued that religious voices in the public square need to frame their arguments in terms that are intelligible to the larger overlapping consensus of diverse communities and radically different religious convictions that participate in that conversation."
https://lawandreligionforum.org/2013/10/28/prophets-in-the-public-square-part-iii/
Good article Robert and I suspect she never will. She will continue to portray herself as a victim of anything other than her own ineptitude.
It's a minority, in my experience who think the dogma and rules about what is sin are important, or even to be taken at all seriously in many cases. Sadly it tends to be that dogmatic minority who often run the organisations.
If you are a politician who professes deep faith of whatever sort, but only attach it to policy in the most motherhood and apple pie terms (for a Christian it might be "I believe in social justice and forgiveness like Jesus", for a Muslim it might be "Islam teaches us to look after the poor, and welcome strangers as guests") then everyone's happy. It's like a Labour leader saying their socialism means a fair deal for everyone and a strong NHS.
If you start quoting bits of your faith that amount to sticking the fingers up to large sections of the population (homosexuality is a sin, women should stay at home and look after the kids, you shoudn't drink alcohol or eat pork) then the public aren't going to vote for you. It's the equivalent of a Labour leader saying their socialism means abolishing private property or a Green telling everyone they need to give up their cars. Or May banging on about citizens of the world.
Farron never fully got this, and nor it seems has Forbes.
·
58m
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 45% (-1)
CON: 28% (-1)
LDEM: 9% (-)
GRN: 7% (+2)
REF: 5% (+1)
via
@KantarPublic
, 16 - 20 Feb
you can even find liverpool fans who don't hate man utd, though it's much rarer.
(which is not a bad thing)
Baxtered, this poll gives a Labour overall majority of 198
Meanwhile Blair and Hague's initiative yesterday was interesting, and deserves more coverage and analysis.
That'll send some people frothing.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/26/old-faces-of-new-labour-in-keir-starmers-inner-circle
Tough on crime?
Let's see what the evidence says:
https://twitter.com/cchqpress/status/1628710377121783808
We need a new rule on PB against this.
That process- denialism to avoid acknowledging that we have made an utter mess of something huge- is just how we're wired. Other applications in politics are left as an exercise for the reader.
Spam you don't like - we must have a rule
The Tories have been in power for 13 years. They’ve had more than enough time to sort these issues out.
Now the Tories are doing it because they’ve gutted the immigration service to such a degree they can no longer cope. They’ve gutted the justice system to such a degree it can no longer cope. No solutions to that, just make an irrelevant pledge about boats and somebody else can sort it out.
The Tories. Weak. Weak. Weak.
Blair on the other hand hasn’t much rated Keir’s retail politics abilities and possibly felt a bit of lese majesty that his every word was not being hung onto.
They may have got closer in the last six months.
They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people.
I've not been following the debates line by line, but I have not seen that type of imposition proposed.
AFAICS her position is more akin to Rees-Mogg's position as an orthodox Roman Catholic - holding personal views reflecting his interpretation of his faith on eg abortion, but following the Govt policy line.
Do they teach them anything in schools these days?
What they see is thirteen years of non action and failure.
It is so obviously time for a change. The Tories need to go away now and decide what they are for.
Its a Politics forum and what you posted is about Politics mate
I suspect “Same. Old. Labour.” has been focus grouped to death so clearly they think it’s good.
Since Labour last won an election nearly two decades ago I’m doubtful many voters know what it means - strikes me as “preaching to the choir”. That may be part of a “shore up the core vote” strategy but it doesn’t strike me as it will persuade the uncommitted.
However the thing that I believe would drop crime the most is increasing the detection rate as studies have shown that the fear of being caught is the biggest deterrent. Instead we have the situation here where many crimes have been all but decriminalised because the police don't even bother to investigate and are merely there to give you a crime number for your insurance claims.
Keir Starmer: 34% (+1 from 8-9 Feb)
Rishi Sunak: 21% (-4)
Not sure: 38% (=)
Weak weak weak
It is surely not something that you can mix and match or amend according to taste. It is the same higher power that said thou shalt not kill as said gay marriage is wrong.
As for your "prayer, meditation, singing, rituals" you get all of that at The Emirates Stadium on a Saturday afternoon.
You say things change. Why do they change? Who says they should. As far as the CoE is concerned, the custodians of the faith eg the ABoC says they most certainly don't and shouldn't change.
Stop trying to be so modern about a ritualist, supernatural, belief system (one of many).
If Scott can spam this site with FBPE tweets, and the Labour herd are permitted to constantly dribble about how the Tories are DOOMED and how they worship the ground Starmer works on, then she is perfectly entitled to post a Conservative viewpoint for counterbalance.
If you feel threatened by that then, quite aside from what that brittleness tells us all, you might feel better going and joining a blog that's nothing more than a partisan echo-chamber.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bW4vEo1F4E
Your Government is so utterly useless they cannot support their own policies. They’re now not giving interviews to asylum seekers because they haven’t got enough staff. Because you cut them all.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1628701258868576256?s=20
Someone voluntarily sins against the precepts of the religion they say they believe in and follow.
What a head fuck.
In my job if I make a mistake I own it. My colleagues do as well. There is something about politics where politicians can never concede they are at fault even when it is blindingly obvious they are.
I think after the next general election they will be at least a decade away from the levers of power.
As for the phrase “Same. Old. Labour”, I’m amused by the full stops. Does over-punctuating it make it more meme-y?
Same Old Shite, from the Tories it seems.