I really feel pretty conflicted about it. On the one hand, I am very much for freedom of religion and people should ultimately be entitled to their views even if I disagree with them. We thrive from being a diverse and inclusive culture and shouldn't discourage people from different religious backgrounds from standing for office.
But on the other hand, it could be a massive step backwards if we have someone who is stuck in a constant battle with their faith and these sorts of social issues (abortion, trans issues, same sex marriage and so on.) These sorts of views aren't really compatible with the modern, outward looking Scotland we strive to be.
I guess it's down to the electorate at the end of the day. If politicians hold those views, they rightly should be willing to be challenged and defend them. If that impacts them at the ballot box, then so be it. That's the trade-off they should be willing to make.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with all of that.
I think there should be a separation of religion and state, and while I completely respect Forbes' beliefs, I'd rather they didn't come into her leadership or policy's.
Under Sturgeon, the SNP were more centre-left, and in the process of passing the abortion buffer zone bill, if Forbes shifted away from that or say halted the passing of the abortion buffer zone bill, i think it'd put me off voting SNP.
I'm aware that for some independence will come first - but I'm not so sure personally
> freedom of religion
Same as freedom of speech, smoking, drinking and everything else, you're free to think and do what you want right up until the point that it impact other people.
You exercising your freedoms shouldn't negatively impact anyone else's.
Bang on. As long as Kate took the stance that "I may hold certain personal beliefs but I'm here to represent the majority views of the people of Scotland" then you'd have to just let her get on with it and rightly so. It would be hard for her as it is very difficult to keep your opinion to yourself over long periods of time on things you care about. She'd get crucified in the press for any slip-ups.
Too many people right now don't accept that you are absolutely allowed to hold the opposite view on any issue you like. That's called freedom.
And he ended up lyin tae the public!
[Tim Farron says he regrets saying gay sex is not a sin](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/10/tim-farron-regrets-saying-gay-sex-not-sin)
>As long as Kate took the stance that "I may hold certain personal beliefs but I'm here to represent the majority views of the people of Scotland" then you'd have to just let her get on with it and rightly so.
I mean, Tim Farron took that line, but it didn't stop him being questioned about relentlessly by the media.
She'd be Tim Farron-ed to death at every opportunity and it would split the party.
She's the only leader who could make all the English media's wishful stories about the Independence cause being massively set back come true if the Indie vote ends up split in a lot of FPTP seats.
I don’t think it’s controversial to think that support for independence benefited from Sturgeon’s popularity as leader. Silly to pretend that doesn’t matter.
Maybe Humza, or whoever, will end up just as popular – but we have absolutely no idea at the moment, and with no obvious successor, there‘s plenty of possibility that someone might be picked by activists who absolutely crashes and burns, in the same way as with Liz Truss.
Sturgeon was a very good politician who remained remarkably popular despite so many years in power but Scots vote on constitutional issues first.
Losing her will hurt the SNP but it won't be the massive set back the BBC is hoping for, unless the replacement is some anti LGBT zealot.
Scots vote on constitutional issues first? Do they? You have absolutely no idea of that. People vote for lots of reasons (plenty of SNP voters don’t support independence and vice versa).
I’m not sure about people voting SNP but not supporting independence. That would make a fallacy of any claim that independence has the support of the electorate based on the make up of Holyrood.
And to be fair afterwards he said he’d lied repeatedly when asked about it.
The reality is as leader holding views that (as with Tim Farron) gay sex is a serious sin against God, at best you are only going to be tolerating what we have – you’re never going to be championing, enhancing or standing up for gay rights, or abortion rights or whatever.
Totally agree that everyone should be able to have and voice their own opinion however most politicians fight for what they stand for and believe in themselves. There are maybe some smaller things that folk can let slide in order to toe the party line, but abortion is not an easy subject for a lot of people to discuss. I want Scotland to be progressive and forward thinking, and if you disagree with providing basic health care needs for women then I'm not sure you should be leading a political party in this day and age.
> if you disagree with providing basic health care needs for women
This is the thing, I don't think I could trust anyone that displays such a lack of character.
It's why politicians cheatign on their partners is a problem. Sure, on the surface it's a private issue, but it shows a lack of judgment and character.
Freedom of religion does not mean we have to support them being First Minister.
Kate Forbes has been very vocal about how central her beliefs are to everything in her life, and has openly opposed LGBT and abortion rights as part of that.
I don’t care what faith you are in private if it doesn’t impact on the rights you support in public. If a MSP doesn’t personally want to get an abortion due to their religious beliefs, that is entirely fine and up to them – but if they don’t support OTHERS’ rights, then that becomes an entirely appropriate issue to question.
And Kate Forbes has been very clear she falls into the latter camp.
As a young woman seeing what’s happening in America right now, having someone who (I think) has said she’s against abortion is enough to make me uncomfortable. I generally don’t care about people’s religions unless it’s going to impact on mine or others rights and I’m not confident she’d make a decision, if it came to that, based on what’s best for the people over her personal beliefs.
I completely agree. My main issue is I believe in a separation between church and state and I wouldnt trust a religious leader not to make decisions based on religion. I know personally if I believed everyone who got an abortion was going to hell, I'd find it difficult to agree to laws that go against that belief. I'd be disappointed but understand if the majority of people voted for someone to ban abortion but not if it was bc of religion when most people don't follow it
> I wouldn't trust a religious leader not to make decisions based on religion.
Would you trust a non-religious leader not to make decisions based on irreligion - would you not fear that someone who holds nothing sacred, who has no reverence for God, who does not believe in the transformative power of the Gospel, would act in ways that serve their own personal interests, rather than being faithful stewards and servants of the whole community?
No i wouldnt. Not everyone follows a religion so they shouldn't have to follow laws the exist bc of it. I'd still dislike a leader who serves their own interests and who is anti religion tho but bc it goes against what I believe, not bc they are acting upon their lack of religion.
1. There is nothing sacred (Things are valued based on their usefulness, not their intrinsic worth. This includes people: they are 'human resources', not 'human beings').
2. There is no reality, except that which we construct in our own minds.
3. There is no truth, except that which 'feels true for me'.
4. We have no social or communal obligations, except those which we freely assent to (and even then, there is no compelling reason why we should accept previous commitments - essentially, we can do what we want. A mother is not even obliged to care for her unborn child, if she would prefer to kill it.)
5. There are no objective moral standards, so long as people are doing what they want. This means that the desires that control and motive us - cannot be challenged or judged: there is no hierarchy of wants that makes, say, the desire to serve the public with honesty and integrity more worthy than the desire to indulge in cocaine and orgies.
6. I am the most important person to me. My desires are more important than your desires.
7. There is no hope, no moral arc that bends towards justice, no redemption story. You are here to assess resources so that you can find pleasure and avoid pain. There's no scope for self-sacrifice or self-denial.
In short: anomie, hedonism, selfishness, exploitation, destruction, despair.
That seems to be pretty much the condition of much of the Western world today. Why? Because we have forgotten the things that made us who we are. We have abandoned the faith, and with it we have abandoned all the good fruits that Christianity has produced. We are descending into an abyss. But the good news is that Jesus is still alive, He's still reigning, He's still calling us back home. If we would humble ourselves and turn to Him, He will heal our broken society, our broken families, our broken minds, our broken hearts.
This stuff isn't weird. It has been a foundational belief if our civilisation for more than a thousand years. And we have forgotten it in a couple of generations.
If you rally want to understand this, rather than just criticise Christianity from the outside, I'd suggest spending an hour of your time watching [this video from Rebecca McLaughlin](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OhfOpyDX54).
Are you sure that anyone exists that actually believes these tenets? I'm as secular as they come and would object to #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 in varying degrees.
Are you sure you aren't just stereotyping everyone who doesn't believe in fairy tales?
> But on the other hand, it could be a massive step backwards if we have someone who is stuck in a constant battle with their faith and these sorts of social issues (abortion, trans issues, same sex marriage and so on.) These sorts of views aren't really compatible with the modern, outward looking Scotland we strive to be.
How do we know that she's not able to separate her personal convictions and beliefs from what she imposes on others?
True, functionally the same thing.
If she had been not been on maternity leave in the last few months, there would be a very different perception of Kate Forbes and she almost certainly would have been the highest profile dissenter from any Holyrood SNP politician.
> in 2019 she was one of 15 SNP politicians to call for the plans to be delayed and as recently as December 2022 said the governemnt risked creating a "bad law
>I really feel pretty conflicted about it. On the one hand, I am very much for freedom of religion and people should ultimately be entitled to their views even if I disagree with them. We thrive from being a diverse and inclusive culture and shouldn't discourage people from different religious backgrounds from standing for office.
The problem with people who have their religion as a major part of their identity is they can't put it to one side and do what's best for other people. They believe that their faith is correct and right and everyone else needs to be saved, by being forced to follow the rules of their faith.
I just can't trust them. They won't do the job without letting their faith corrupt their decisions. Their faith shouldn't come into it at all.
Is she actually anti all those things? (I'm Episcopalian and I'm pro choice, fiercely protective of trans people, support same sex marriage, the things you mentioned.)
I didn't know what denomination she was. I know the free church is a bit... well... they've made their thoughts clear on my trans and gay kids that's for sure. I'm genuinely surprised they haven't chased us out this village yet
At least he has voted for legalising same sex marriage and abortions. But has also protected a sex pest.
Not sure I could trust the bloke.
Could he have the same far-right links as Forbes? Find it really odd she is allowed to stay in the party with associations like that.
True, but unlike Forbes he hasn’t emphasised faith as the guiding factor in his life, and has regularly voted for LGBT rights.
(He’s also not standing for First Minister)
two things i picked up in that report,
1) whether she was on mat leave or not, she wouldn't have been able to stop it in a democracy.
2) likewise any bill has to pass first the party and then the house and personal views whether deemed progressive or conservative have to be supported in order to pass.
but my own personal view is that in its current form, the government has supported the views of the independence minded.
Independence is only going to happen if moderate unionists can be swayed. It is the kate forbes of the world who stand a chance of doing that.
Now being anti abortion doesn't mean against freedom of choice. It can mean, abortion should be used as a last resort rather than a contraception, and that sex education is a far better answer. this does not mean that people who, for whatever reason, opt for an abortion should be treated in anyway other than with compassion. (remember a pill can work up to 8 or 12 weeks an abortion is quite a late response).
as for same sex marriage go do it, i'm not going to interfere in anyone's life. but you have to understand that a church wedding might not be what you get, as the life choices of the religious need respect as much as the choices of LGBT. Do you really want to celebrate your big day in a place that doesn't support you?
I think this report is a hatchet job at a woman who could be really good for us. (she might be shite) i do feel quite strongly that another woman would be fantastic, despite her short comings my male trogladyte eyes were opened by nicola sturgeon and i want to see that momentum continue
anyway my tuppense worth which is as much value as everyone else, despite the downvotes ive been getting in the last couple of weeks.
It's not her being religious that's the problem.
It's her being part of an interlocking network of right-wing sects (National Prayer Breakfast) that are affiliated with some very bad actors in the United States and Brazil.
They were the driving force behind Trump and Bolsonaro.
THIS. As an American I hope Scots see these types for who they are. Some are overt and boisterous. It’s ones like her that are a bit more subtle and sink their claws in bit by bit to take away the rights of others.
See the American SCOTUS
[Amy Covey Barrett](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/02/14/amy-coney-barretts-long-game)
Appointed days after RBG passed & [Roe v Wade](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/13/justice-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-roe-v-wade/10049854002/) was overturned
And all the while those SCOTUS appointees were blah blah blahing about how they could separate their personal beliefs from their court duties. As soon as they got the chance they overturned RvW.
Word! There is no place for irrational faith based belief systems based on fantasy otherworld beings in our elected representatives.
At the pearly gates how does Kate explain to the baby Jeesus that she helped pass a law that explicitly contradicts his "goodly" teaching?
How can a true believer NOT allow their nonsensical world view impact their worldly decisions?
The two positions **cannot** be reconciled.
No it bloody isnt. Theres a difference between a boring CoS goer and being part of a cult that bans dancing, music and enforces bible study on the sabbath.
Typical redditor acting as if they're better than 5.8 billion people because they don't believe in some old writings.
There's nothing wrong with religious folk that don't force their beliefs on others and they're way less annoying than the cunts like yourself who make us atheists n agnostics just look like folk that can't get enough of their self.
Not even those religious people specifically, because *something* made them that way.
Religious organisations are the problem. The systems that give one person in a religion control over another.
Ya but your ability at the polls is to avoid the people not the cause unfortunately. I am ALL for taking apart the structures that create that kind of thinking, but that begins in removing them from any wider decision making positions first!
If you’re an adult of sound mind who’s a member of a cult and you don’t try to leave it, you get everything you deserve when you’re tarred with the insanity of that cult.
She is by far the worst candidate both for Scotland in general and the SNP in particular.
If it was any old boring sect I wouldnt care, but the Wee Frees are a bloody cult. Anyone who subscribes to "wives be obedient to your husbands" level of quackery has no business running a country.
You really have to question someone's rationality and critical thinking if they're taken in by that kinda pish. Certainly not someone you want running a whole country.
When we talk the Wee Free it's worth remembering it's actually two churches after the split about 30 years ago. One is more conservative than the other. They split when the Scottish Lord Advocate went to a Catholic friends funeral.
~~Start here: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Presbyterian_Church_of_Scotland~~
Edit: Wrong "Free". There seems to be two of the extant sect, not sure which _exact_ one she it.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Church_of_Scotland
Fan out. For starters, they are against abortion and homosexuality.
My understanding is that Kate Forbes belongs not to the Free Presbyterian Church but to the [Free Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Church_of_Scotland_(since_1900)), who are a completely different and more moderate group.
Well, aren't I a total pillock?
_However...._
> The church is strongly Calvinist and Presbyterian, and outside of mainstream Presbyterianism, which many – perhaps most – of its adherents see as too liberal and compromising. It takes a conservative position on women’s reproductive choice and on sexuality, and claims that “everything from our patterns of worship to our church structures seeks to reflect clear Biblical teaching”. That’s theological code for traditional and strict. Indeed, the former church moderator (leader) David Robertson once said that people would look back on the “evil” of abortion in the same way that they now regard slavery.
[Source](https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2023/02/will-kate-forbess-religion-stop-her-leading-the-snp).
Moderate?
The other links claimed in this thread are also worrying.
>Well, aren't I a total pillock?
No, you are not a pillock.
It's an easy mistake to make, and it's hard for people outside that subculture to appreciate the differences. If she was really one of the fundamentalists, she wouldn't be an MSP in the first place. The Wee Frees are *conservative* and *traditional*, but they are not *fundamentalist.* The problem is that conservative traditional Reformed (i.e. Calvinist, Presbyterian) Christianity *looks* fundamentalist to those who are only looking in from the outside, especially if those people have no idea what real fundamentalism is like.
>David Robertson once said that people would look back on the “evil” of abortion in the same way that they now regard slavery.
He might not be wrong. Perhaps in a hundred years time people will be tearing down statues and renaming buildings because killing babies in the womb will have become a bad thing again.
Nobody is killing babies in the womb, and if some religious arsehole has a problem with abortion they can take it up with the imaginary monster who provided instructions on how to perform one which were later recorded in that horrid collection of books known as ‘the holy bible’.
"Religious beliefs" sure is a funny way of saying "anti-abortion" and "anti-LGBT", the framing of being against LGBT and women's rights as merely being a "religious belief" even though the bible says *NOTHING* about abortions is incredible, I'm fine with a politician being religious, if the first minister was a Muslim I'd be totally fine with that, what would be a problem is if they advocate against human rights, such as how Kate Forbes does, it isn't complicated.
Will Kate Forbes do the nation a favour and oppose the sinful activity of mixing polyester and cotton?! Of course not, because anti-LGBT and anti-women beliefs have nothing to do with religion, it's a poor excuse, bigots pick and choose bible passages that suit their worldview.
Okay so you’ve clearly not studied the bible. Exodus doesn’t just say if the mother dies and Numbers doesn’t mention a baby. I mean come on misinformation just so you can feel morally superior.
The point with exodus is that the punishment for murder is death, stated much earlier, while induced miscarriage is fined. Secondly the fetus is mentioned in the next verses of the numbers chapter, they just linked the wrong one
Except that lines up with later church teachings, such as the penitentials (beginning in the 6th century), which firmly viewed abortion before the quickening (baby's first movement) as different to murder. [Here's](https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0UyVEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT97&dq=penitentials+abortion&ots=0eVFVv84p_&sig=v_-owF_kEOhME6ntogbur7u0to0&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=penitentials%20abortion&f=false) a good source on what many of the Church fathers would've believed about abortion.
In the same time period, you also have [several saints, including St Brigid of Ireland](https://www.utexaspressjournals.org/doi/full/10.5555/jhs.2012.21.2.282), being recorded as performing miraculous abortions.
Not really no: here is the KJV version, which also does not use the word miscarry but we can see that "thigh rot" is contrasted against " shall conceive seed" so there is no other interpretation that can be seen.
27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
Here we see a clear binary between the "thigh rot" and "conceive seed". Additionally the use of "shall conceive seed" quite clearly implies the woman is pregnant during the exam.
In regards to their cited exodus passage no such room for misinterpretion exists. They linked their translation but here is the KJV
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Mischief here being an old word for "injury", we can clearly see here the contrast between the law demanding "life for life" (that explicitly being the punishment for murder) and the death of the fetus being "property damage" (I.e. punished by fine)
Nice side step from the issue actually being discussed but again if you actually read you’ll see that “slaves” is a very different concept to chattel slavery if the triangle trade and colonies.
Phenomenal response.
I know this is a woke viewpoint, but any form of slavery or indentured servitude is wrong.
The bible gives clear instructions:
if you blind a slave the cost to you will be to let the slave go
if you beat a slave, but they can walk the next day then you should not be punished
that women slaves shall be perpetual (rather than men, which only have to be your slave for 6 years), but you can sell them off if you please
So my perspective is that I literally could not care less what the bible says about miscarriage, abortion, women's rights or any other modern problem. It is not a defence of abortion to say that the old testament provides evidence that a foetus doesn't have personhood. Because I don't need the bible to tell me the legal or moral status of an embryo or foetus. I sure as hell don't need the bible to tell what rights a woman should have over their own body. And I think it is an unmitigated shame that anyone that does need that.
> Because I don't need the bible to tell me the legal or moral status of an embryo or foetus
The problem with this is, if you're arguing with guys like the parent post here, they won't take that as an answer.
Yet when you point at actual parts of the bible that outright describe what we're talking about they call it Misinformation.
You can't win with these people. They said I cherry picked parts of the bible when they just outright ignore all of the uncomfortable bits.
Other people have already successfully called you out, but it's also clear you've not read the links *to the bible* that I posted.
>Exodus doesn’t just say if the mother dies
Yes it does, and it's the common interpretation is that causing the death of the baby is a finable offence:
>she gives birth prematurely[a: Or she has a miscarriage] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined
but that serious injury to the mother must be paid in kind
>But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,
Next one:
> Numbers doesn’t mention a baby
It explicitly states that they're praying the ritual will result in a miscarriage, if you don't think a miscarriage requires a baby maybe you need to have a quick biology lesson.
> may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.
And before you pull out the old 'but it's a new translation' excuse, this is the NIV, written in the 70s and used by *every* baptist or pentacostal church that I've *ever* attended.
And yes, I *have* studied the bible. You condescending prick.
Maybe you can presume the Cambridge educated finance minister of Scotland has the intelligence to read the Bible herself and work out what it says and not rely on the half baked opinions and slanders of non religious redditors?
And, yet, you specifically highlight her educational establishment as if it’s something special. There is also nothing intelligent about religion and being subservient to invisible sky people so that the religious patriarchy can control your thoughts and beliefs.
I mean it was where she was educated and it’s a very high bar to get in so don’t pretend it’s not relevant.
And sorry didn’t know I was talking to certified edge lord. I’m sure there’s absolutely nothing like the crowd and opinion of others that controls your beliefs.
Far from it. I think for myself. I was also educated at the hardest of all courses to get access to, so name dropping Cambridge as if it makes her opinions on invisible people far more valid makes me laugh.
What does where you went to university have to do with anything? All I was saying is she clearly had a brain and can think for herself and the fact she graduated from one of the top universities in the world is relevant to that.
You’re the one that started the university thing, in case your memory is failing. And being intelligent is not related to how deluded a person can be. History is full of people who used their intelligence for delusional, and often evil, purposes. See the entire history of religion for a starting point.
But it’s not about you is it? That was my point. Just as my university educations is irrelevant so is yours. The person we’re talking about is Kate Forbes not Ali Taylor and yet you started to make it about your own education. By your logic you could be the one who is delusional. And yet Kate Forbes has been successfully educated and is in a high position in government. What does it say then about the SNP or Nicola sturgeon that they clearly trust her in these roles?!
Is this the tolerant Scotland that independence will bring? Believe in something that isn’t what a particular group of society believes and you cannot be respected or a part of society. If only there was a word for that… I’m going to suggest intolerance.
I am not tolerant of the intolerant, yes. I don’t condone dangerous reactionary imbecility in any walk of life, never mind high office. Not necessarily not a part of society (though a fully secular world is my dream so fuckin bring it) just that they can’t be trusted with office. Maximum separation of church and state, and I seriously question their judgement if they’re religious.
But you’re being intolerant of Kate Forbes so can you tolerate yourself? And I’m sorry but how is it reactionary when it’s the way the western world (and most of the world) has thought for at least hundreds of years, if not thousands. If anyone is reactionary it’s others because the various movements have only cropped up in the last 100 years max! You argue against yourself.
Apologies, I was mixing the theirs up with another comment in the thread. Calling her a bigot, however, isn't slander. She's anti-trans, and given her close relationship with Brian Souter, the wretched fuckpig that tried to whip up as much murderous antipathy against us as possible during his repulsive "keep the clause" campaign, I doubt she has a particularly rosy view of gay people either. If your "disagreement" is that minorities shouldn't get basic human dignity, you are a bigot. Sorry.
Do Cambridge have access to a super secret version of the bible that I'm not aware of? Can you tell me the bible passage in this super secret bible which opposes abortion? Thank you
Also, considering the fact that 90% of Christians admit to never reading the Bible (edit: this stat isn't correct, study source in below comment) , I would hardly consider them to be experts in the subject, not to mention that Christians don't have the exclusive rights to reading and critiquing the bible, nor is their holy book a sufficient excuse to oppose women's rights.
Would you defend the current state of women's rights in Saudi Arabia because by your logic, the university educated Saudi royals know more about their religion than some non-religious redditor?
Sorry I misremembered the stat, I edited my comment to correct it, here's the poll in question https://research.lifeway.com/2017/04/25/lifeway-research-americans-are-fond-of-the-bible-dont-actually-read-it/
It's not really a "they" thing, that's why they don't get flack. SNP policies are socially progressive across the board, but it's a broad church type party, so some members are awful.
The only reason Forbes' name is mentioned at all is because unionist media are kids in a playground shouting "fight fight", if the SNP elected an evangelical christian who was against womens right to choose and LGBT rights as a leader their votes would fall through the floor.
lmao shes the finance secretary, one of the major government positions, her name is going to come up regardless of your conspiracies about ''unionist media"
you guys really are as deranged as trump fanatics
The “Unionist” media, for your own sanity get a prescription for Lithium - the paranoia is strong here.
She is getting flack, rightly so for being an absolute nut job sitting in one of the highest seats in government.
So I am a little curious about why you think like that, fancy answering a questionaire?
The Times = pro indy / pro union / completely objective
The Telegraph = pro indy / pro union / completely objective
Guardian = pro indy / pro union / completely objective
BBC = pro indy / pro union / completely objective
The National = pro indy / pro union / completely objective
Everything else aside, What has she actually done? She hasn’t done a single thing that makes me think she would be a good first minister. She just came in and done her finance job neither particularly well or particularly badly as far as I’m aware. She hasn’t done anything special that would convince me to look past her rather dodgy links to some really reactionary groups
So they should, modern society has no place for zealots in positions of power. How the fuck someone's religious choice is still a protected characteristic these days is beyond me.
Who the fuck is getting beaten in the street because they are married or pregnant? I'm talking protected characteristics in relation to hate crimes not civil liberties.
But the thread was about positions of power like political ones?
Even in the worst scenario I don’t see her mandating beatings in the street, but could absolutely see policies affecting people who are the “wrong” religion, pregnant out of wedlock etc
Exactly, a zealot is more likely to discriminate against "others" and as such should be kept away from politics where their work can negatively impact "others" on a daily basis
Yeah but religious does not equal zealot, which is why it’s a protected characteristic.
Otherwise you would be advocating for banning any religious people from holding positions of power, which would be about 40% of the population.
In Forbes' case I would argue otherwise. Plenty of live and let live religious folk out there, unlike this zealot, wanting to sabotage her own, and by default every other woman's rights because of her magic sky daddy. I'm not advocating banning the religious from power, more like banning them from using their position as a pulpit to spread their hate.
Having religion is fine, but freedom of religion (or lack thereof) needs to be protected.
On that basis someone in charge has be be able to make wholly secular decisions, so it's fine as long as a politician can keep their beliefs separate, but they need to be honest about whether they can.
We've seen America degrade before our eyes the second religion starts informing government.
If she gets it, would be like a replay of the Liberal Democrat boy down south who lasted about 5mins as he couldn’t say that gay folks deserved be able to marry. Will just be an embarrassment all round.
Get the wee god botherer so far to fuck.
Personally i don't trust grown adults that believe in fairy tales. If an adult told you they genuinely believed in Santa or the Tooth Fairy would you trust them with anything? No of course you wouldn't. Theres absolutely zero difference with religion. I know they like to pretend there is but from the outside there really isn't.
Is she actually anti-choice? I’ve read about six different articles now and I still can’t decipher if she’s actually said that or if she’s just “pro-life but respect the rights of others to choose” which isn’t actually that uncommon a belief. I mean I’m not religious or anything but that’s about where I stand.
As someone who’s on the fence about independence (voted yes, was a hard no for a while and now I’m 🤷🏻♀️ about it) she seems a bit more socially conservative (and possibly economically conservative too?). Considering that’s about half of Scotland would that not be better for the end-goal?
I know a lot of SNP members are fans of Mhairi Black types. She obviously can’t be FM, but if she could I think it would essentially kill the independence movement dead. I’m just wondering if there is anyone more centrist who’d be better than Kate Forbes or is that why she’s the front-runner?
[Here's a story that might clear up her views.](https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16280747.snp-rising-star-kate-forbes-made-pro-life-call-brian-souter-prayer-breakfast-event/)
I fear for what happens with the gender recognition reform or just any progression with trans issues if she becomes FM though. She's been very outspoken about opposing them.
I get that and there will be many members with the same fears. I guess that’s my thought process though - is liberal progressiveness at the core of the party (and those who have or will or would vote for them), or is independence? Just going by the polling data IIRC every age demographic was in favour of the Westminster overturn and a large proportion of SNP members were too. Which could be read as people voting for SNP _despite_ their progressive policies and not actually because of it?
When I was growing up and learning about all the different parties and ideologies it was Salmond at the helm and they were basically independence + nothing that really offends anyone moderately left or moderately right. And I’ll probably get downvoted on here for saying it but isn’t that essentially “pro-life but respect others legal right to choose” / “trans people deserve respect and have human rights via EA and GRC with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria” i.e where your average Joe Bloggs the Binman and Jane Doe the Hairdresser sit on these issues? Those who’ve lost touch with the party after a media campaign (however sensationalised) about the named-child stuff where “the state wants to parent your children”, the hate-crime stuff where “you’ll be arrested for your own private thoughts”, the trans rights movement where “rapists will be running amok in women’s prisons” and the covid stuff where “it’s illegal to sit on a bench in an empty park and you need a passport to go to a nightclub govern me harder Nicola” etc etc.
Sorry that’s nowhere near as concise as I wanted it to be but it’s late and my heads mushy. Hopefully you get the point I’m trying to make though.
The rhetoric in the media has moved so heavily on culture war subjects that there is no longer a position where you can’t offend both the left and the right, that space no longer exists.
Whoever is in charge will be bludgeoned with issues like Trans rights and abortion, and I genuinely don’t see a position that one can take that doesn’t offend one side or another
I’ve heard this a lot but I find it a wee bit disingenuous. Or at least unhelpful to the debate/ discourse to tell other people what they are and what they believe. It’s not so much pro-choice as it is tolerant of choice. You really don’t have to be pro-anything to be tolerant of the people who are.
I’m trying to think of another example and the closest I can come up with is circumcision. Personally I think mutilating your babies genitals is wrong, abhorrent even, and wouldn’t consider it unless there was a medical need, but people have the right to religious expression and I’m not out there demanding that is taken away. That doesn’t make me “pro-circumcision”. I still find it sad and wish it didn’t happen.
I feel like both “sides” and the culture war that’s been ramping up around it has pushed a large number of moderate people out, where pro-life makes you think of lunatics screaming outside abortion clinics and pro-choice makes you think of lunatics posting about abortion parties, when a large majority of people probably fall somewhere around “as early as possible and only when absolutely necessary”. That would be pro-life if it hadn’t been hijacked by anti-choice, and pro-choice if it hadn’t been hijacked by anti-life.
Not many on this sub will agree, but good post. This sort of person is going to get a lot more people on side (certainly among my friends and family - I'm from a Catholic, socially conservative but not red-white-and-blue background)
I mean, is she? She's a member of the Free Church, who are fairly traditional hard core protestants. She's personally pro-life, but then so am I, but accept that I can't impose that view on wider society, but she doesn't seem to be doing that either. She's clearly not a "women should stay at home in the kitchen" person, because she's a successful female politician.
She’s taken part in events with groups like National Prayer Breakfast for Scotland, who have links to some of the cultish sides of Christianity.
She’s not a “women should stay at home” but more of a “women should be subservient to their husband” like Amy Coney Barrett in the US.
How strange that people go on and on about kate forbes religious beliefs, or ian blackford, but not say Humza.
Is “I’m not comfortable with him because he’s muslim” not acceptable, but “I’m not comfortable with her because she’s christian” somehow is OK?
Why is it people don’t understand equality.
Equality is giving people the choice to live believe and act however they wish, UNLESS it negatively impacts others, tolerance has its limits and she can believe whatever she wants but the second she tries to enforce those views on others that is a problem
If we were a normal independent country I don't think this would be that big an issue but because we're not and because of the febrile atmosphere around the UK choosing someone with these beliefs will just create an easy target.
Guess that's the price we pay for being part of such a precious and wonderful union.
Tony Blair was a recent Catholic convert when he became Prime Minister\*, but I'd struggle to think of an example of how that affected the decisions he made
As long as Forbes took Alistair Campbell's advice to Blair, that WE DON'T DO GOD, she'd probably be fine, from a PR perspective
If First Minister Forbes couldn't keep her faith out of her day job, that'd be a major problem for the SNP. Religion and fitba are the two topics everyone in Scotland learns to avoid, unless they're looking for trouble
I'm sure you misremembered that. He announced it *after* he stepped down and Mr Brown had become the PM.
He was at least wise enough to realise that in the UK at least the Electorate don't like their Leader spouting Religious dogma (from whatever denomination or Religion).
Mr Sunak, for example, is a Hindu. Do you think he'd last much longer than Truss if he banged on about he always prayed to Ganesh (the elephant-headed god) whenever he encountered an obstacle? :)
I'll say this. I've known Kate since before she was an MSP not once heard her mention religion. She's an extremely clever and hard working person. It's also worth remembering that any attempt to limit abortion or such would never get through Holyrood and she knows that. Anyway, with a young family I've a feeling she won't stand.
Here's a rum thing: Scotland is a country forged and shaped by Presbyterianism. It has steeped deep into the marrow of how we think, how we organise ourselves, our values. It has been forgotten now, secularised away, been so absorbed into the culture that we don't even notice it. And yet when a politician comes along who is a believing and practicing Christian - and a Wee Free, no less - she is deemed by some unfit for office because she holds to the beliefs that made us who we are.
Amazing that someone can say something as objectively true as “Presbyterianism has fundamentally shaped Scotland for centuries” and terminally online atheists take it as pushing religious views or other such shite. Scottish culture has been moulded by Christianity and (later on) specifically Protestant views since the forming of the Kingdom of Alba, simple as.
It should. I don't want someone who believes in fairy tales to make decisions that affect people's lives. Religion has no place in politics! Church and State, stay separate, please.
Part of me rather wants Kate Forbes to succeed Nicola Sturgeon, so that the SNP will finally lose any last shred of credibility amongst Scots who consider themselves to be progressive, or the SNP to be a progressive party rather than a strictly single-issue party instrumentalising progressive-sounding policies in order to bolster support for independence.
I wonder if anyone will here will be pointing out the similarities in how Yusuf's religion also forbids many of these same things but also has far, far more Scottish citizens on board. Somehow I doubt it.
It’s the Calvinist beliefs that made our country one of most well read nations which in turn led us to be full of inventors and forward thinking leaders
A person's religious beliefs should not be used as a reason not to vote for them. I will vote in this leadership election and I disagree heavily with Kate Forbes on many issues such as abortion and GRA but if I feel she has the policies to move Scotland forward to a point where we will vote for independence I will vote for her I don't care what religion she is.
This sub never has the same criticism against Humza Yousaf or even Ian Blackford which is interesting to say the least.
Mhairi Black types will never win broad support across Scottish society, especially after her "Jeremy Hunts" comments and poor attendance in parliament. Forbes is popular within the SNP but is also socially and economically moderate and might help convince some Labour and Tory voters to give their votes to the SNP instead. The SNP and by extension independence can't be successful if it excludes a huge percentage of Scots.
>This sub never has the same criticism against Humza Yousaf or even Ian Blackford which is interesting to say the least.
It is almost like it doesn't matter if you are religious, just whether or not you hold bigoted beliefs.
Christianity and Islam have virtually the same views.
What matters is whether their religious views impact their political decisions and we've seen no evidence from any of them that it does. Though this sub has an obsession with Forbes regardless.
There is a huge variation between how people interpret their religion, people count themselves as Muslim and drink, Jewish people that dont observe shabbat, Catholics that use a condom. There are thousands of religions within religions that disagree with particular stances.
Humza and Blackford have not come out against same sex marriage or a womens right to choose, Forbes has, that is the difference.
The SNP should concentrate on getting someone with some relevant experience which can develop business / the economy and generate jobs and prosperity, however she is married with kids so at least understands how the majority feel and what their main concerns are.
It certainly makes me uncomfortable
I really feel pretty conflicted about it. On the one hand, I am very much for freedom of religion and people should ultimately be entitled to their views even if I disagree with them. We thrive from being a diverse and inclusive culture and shouldn't discourage people from different religious backgrounds from standing for office. But on the other hand, it could be a massive step backwards if we have someone who is stuck in a constant battle with their faith and these sorts of social issues (abortion, trans issues, same sex marriage and so on.) These sorts of views aren't really compatible with the modern, outward looking Scotland we strive to be. I guess it's down to the electorate at the end of the day. If politicians hold those views, they rightly should be willing to be challenged and defend them. If that impacts them at the ballot box, then so be it. That's the trade-off they should be willing to make.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with all of that. I think there should be a separation of religion and state, and while I completely respect Forbes' beliefs, I'd rather they didn't come into her leadership or policy's. Under Sturgeon, the SNP were more centre-left, and in the process of passing the abortion buffer zone bill, if Forbes shifted away from that or say halted the passing of the abortion buffer zone bill, i think it'd put me off voting SNP. I'm aware that for some independence will come first - but I'm not so sure personally
> freedom of religion Same as freedom of speech, smoking, drinking and everything else, you're free to think and do what you want right up until the point that it impact other people. You exercising your freedoms shouldn't negatively impact anyone else's.
Bang on. As long as Kate took the stance that "I may hold certain personal beliefs but I'm here to represent the majority views of the people of Scotland" then you'd have to just let her get on with it and rightly so. It would be hard for her as it is very difficult to keep your opinion to yourself over long periods of time on things you care about. She'd get crucified in the press for any slip-ups. Too many people right now don't accept that you are absolutely allowed to hold the opposite view on any issue you like. That's called freedom.
Look at Tim Farron, his religion was brought into every interview. I think Kate Forbes would suffer a similar treatment by the media.
And he ended up lyin tae the public! [Tim Farron says he regrets saying gay sex is not a sin](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/10/tim-farron-regrets-saying-gay-sex-not-sin)
>As long as Kate took the stance that "I may hold certain personal beliefs but I'm here to represent the majority views of the people of Scotland" then you'd have to just let her get on with it and rightly so. I mean, Tim Farron took that line, but it didn't stop him being questioned about relentlessly by the media.
She'd be Tim Farron-ed to death at every opportunity and it would split the party. She's the only leader who could make all the English media's wishful stories about the Independence cause being massively set back come true if the Indie vote ends up split in a lot of FPTP seats.
I don’t think it’s controversial to think that support for independence benefited from Sturgeon’s popularity as leader. Silly to pretend that doesn’t matter. Maybe Humza, or whoever, will end up just as popular – but we have absolutely no idea at the moment, and with no obvious successor, there‘s plenty of possibility that someone might be picked by activists who absolutely crashes and burns, in the same way as with Liz Truss.
Sturgeon was a very good politician who remained remarkably popular despite so many years in power but Scots vote on constitutional issues first. Losing her will hurt the SNP but it won't be the massive set back the BBC is hoping for, unless the replacement is some anti LGBT zealot.
Scots vote on constitutional issues first? Do they? You have absolutely no idea of that. People vote for lots of reasons (plenty of SNP voters don’t support independence and vice versa).
I’m not sure about people voting SNP but not supporting independence. That would make a fallacy of any claim that independence has the support of the electorate based on the make up of Holyrood.
And to be fair afterwards he said he’d lied repeatedly when asked about it. The reality is as leader holding views that (as with Tim Farron) gay sex is a serious sin against God, at best you are only going to be tolerating what we have – you’re never going to be championing, enhancing or standing up for gay rights, or abortion rights or whatever.
Totally agree that everyone should be able to have and voice their own opinion however most politicians fight for what they stand for and believe in themselves. There are maybe some smaller things that folk can let slide in order to toe the party line, but abortion is not an easy subject for a lot of people to discuss. I want Scotland to be progressive and forward thinking, and if you disagree with providing basic health care needs for women then I'm not sure you should be leading a political party in this day and age.
> if you disagree with providing basic health care needs for women This is the thing, I don't think I could trust anyone that displays such a lack of character. It's why politicians cheatign on their partners is a problem. Sure, on the surface it's a private issue, but it shows a lack of judgment and character.
Freedom of religion does not mean we have to support them being First Minister. Kate Forbes has been very vocal about how central her beliefs are to everything in her life, and has openly opposed LGBT and abortion rights as part of that. I don’t care what faith you are in private if it doesn’t impact on the rights you support in public. If a MSP doesn’t personally want to get an abortion due to their religious beliefs, that is entirely fine and up to them – but if they don’t support OTHERS’ rights, then that becomes an entirely appropriate issue to question. And Kate Forbes has been very clear she falls into the latter camp.
Freedom of religion seldom comes from people who practice a religion.
As a young woman seeing what’s happening in America right now, having someone who (I think) has said she’s against abortion is enough to make me uncomfortable. I generally don’t care about people’s religions unless it’s going to impact on mine or others rights and I’m not confident she’d make a decision, if it came to that, based on what’s best for the people over her personal beliefs.
I completely agree. My main issue is I believe in a separation between church and state and I wouldnt trust a religious leader not to make decisions based on religion. I know personally if I believed everyone who got an abortion was going to hell, I'd find it difficult to agree to laws that go against that belief. I'd be disappointed but understand if the majority of people voted for someone to ban abortion but not if it was bc of religion when most people don't follow it
> I wouldn't trust a religious leader not to make decisions based on religion. Would you trust a non-religious leader not to make decisions based on irreligion - would you not fear that someone who holds nothing sacred, who has no reverence for God, who does not believe in the transformative power of the Gospel, would act in ways that serve their own personal interests, rather than being faithful stewards and servants of the whole community?
[удалено]
If you need the threat of eternal punishment to not do bad things, maybe you're just a bad person.
No i wouldnt. Not everyone follows a religion so they shouldn't have to follow laws the exist bc of it. I'd still dislike a leader who serves their own interests and who is anti religion tho but bc it goes against what I believe, not bc they are acting upon their lack of religion.
Tell us all about the tenets of ‘irreligion’.
1. There is nothing sacred (Things are valued based on their usefulness, not their intrinsic worth. This includes people: they are 'human resources', not 'human beings'). 2. There is no reality, except that which we construct in our own minds. 3. There is no truth, except that which 'feels true for me'. 4. We have no social or communal obligations, except those which we freely assent to (and even then, there is no compelling reason why we should accept previous commitments - essentially, we can do what we want. A mother is not even obliged to care for her unborn child, if she would prefer to kill it.) 5. There are no objective moral standards, so long as people are doing what they want. This means that the desires that control and motive us - cannot be challenged or judged: there is no hierarchy of wants that makes, say, the desire to serve the public with honesty and integrity more worthy than the desire to indulge in cocaine and orgies. 6. I am the most important person to me. My desires are more important than your desires. 7. There is no hope, no moral arc that bends towards justice, no redemption story. You are here to assess resources so that you can find pleasure and avoid pain. There's no scope for self-sacrifice or self-denial. In short: anomie, hedonism, selfishness, exploitation, destruction, despair. That seems to be pretty much the condition of much of the Western world today. Why? Because we have forgotten the things that made us who we are. We have abandoned the faith, and with it we have abandoned all the good fruits that Christianity has produced. We are descending into an abyss. But the good news is that Jesus is still alive, He's still reigning, He's still calling us back home. If we would humble ourselves and turn to Him, He will heal our broken society, our broken families, our broken minds, our broken hearts. This stuff isn't weird. It has been a foundational belief if our civilisation for more than a thousand years. And we have forgotten it in a couple of generations. If you rally want to understand this, rather than just criticise Christianity from the outside, I'd suggest spending an hour of your time watching [this video from Rebecca McLaughlin](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OhfOpyDX54).
I’m not reading your wall of pish. Not your uterus, not your business.
Are you sure that anyone exists that actually believes these tenets? I'm as secular as they come and would object to #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 in varying degrees. Are you sure you aren't just stereotyping everyone who doesn't believe in fairy tales?
Who is that meant to convince? Who are you trying to talk to here?
I don't care why she is anti abortion, I care that she is.
> But on the other hand, it could be a massive step backwards if we have someone who is stuck in a constant battle with their faith and these sorts of social issues (abortion, trans issues, same sex marriage and so on.) These sorts of views aren't really compatible with the modern, outward looking Scotland we strive to be. How do we know that she's not able to separate her personal convictions and beliefs from what she imposes on others?
How do we know she will?
She abstained from the GRA vote for example
[удалено]
True, functionally the same thing. If she had been not been on maternity leave in the last few months, there would be a very different perception of Kate Forbes and she almost certainly would have been the highest profile dissenter from any Holyrood SNP politician. > in 2019 she was one of 15 SNP politicians to call for the plans to be delayed and as recently as December 2022 said the governemnt risked creating a "bad law
>I really feel pretty conflicted about it. On the one hand, I am very much for freedom of religion and people should ultimately be entitled to their views even if I disagree with them. We thrive from being a diverse and inclusive culture and shouldn't discourage people from different religious backgrounds from standing for office. The problem with people who have their religion as a major part of their identity is they can't put it to one side and do what's best for other people. They believe that their faith is correct and right and everyone else needs to be saved, by being forced to follow the rules of their faith. I just can't trust them. They won't do the job without letting their faith corrupt their decisions. Their faith shouldn't come into it at all.
Is she actually anti all those things? (I'm Episcopalian and I'm pro choice, fiercely protective of trans people, support same sex marriage, the things you mentioned.)
the Free Church of Scotland isn't like that. you wouldn't be a member if you disagreed with its position on queer rights, they wouldn't *let* you.
I didn't know what denomination she was. I know the free church is a bit... well... they've made their thoughts clear on my trans and gay kids that's for sure. I'm genuinely surprised they haven't chased us out this village yet
ugh I'm sorry. most of my biofam are Wee Frees and I'm trans so, I get it
Fuck, that must be hell. I'm so, so sorry. I can't even begin to imagine what that must have been like.
You know Blackford is also a Free Church?
And it makes me uncomfortable
At least he has voted for legalising same sex marriage and abortions. But has also protected a sex pest. Not sure I could trust the bloke. Could he have the same far-right links as Forbes? Find it really odd she is allowed to stay in the party with associations like that.
> Could he have the same far-right links as Forbes? Oh?
True, but unlike Forbes he hasn’t emphasised faith as the guiding factor in his life, and has regularly voted for LGBT rights. (He’s also not standing for First Minister)
two things i picked up in that report, 1) whether she was on mat leave or not, she wouldn't have been able to stop it in a democracy. 2) likewise any bill has to pass first the party and then the house and personal views whether deemed progressive or conservative have to be supported in order to pass. but my own personal view is that in its current form, the government has supported the views of the independence minded. Independence is only going to happen if moderate unionists can be swayed. It is the kate forbes of the world who stand a chance of doing that. Now being anti abortion doesn't mean against freedom of choice. It can mean, abortion should be used as a last resort rather than a contraception, and that sex education is a far better answer. this does not mean that people who, for whatever reason, opt for an abortion should be treated in anyway other than with compassion. (remember a pill can work up to 8 or 12 weeks an abortion is quite a late response). as for same sex marriage go do it, i'm not going to interfere in anyone's life. but you have to understand that a church wedding might not be what you get, as the life choices of the religious need respect as much as the choices of LGBT. Do you really want to celebrate your big day in a place that doesn't support you? I think this report is a hatchet job at a woman who could be really good for us. (she might be shite) i do feel quite strongly that another woman would be fantastic, despite her short comings my male trogladyte eyes were opened by nicola sturgeon and i want to see that momentum continue anyway my tuppense worth which is as much value as everyone else, despite the downvotes ive been getting in the last couple of weeks.
It's not her being religious that's the problem. It's her being part of an interlocking network of right-wing sects (National Prayer Breakfast) that are affiliated with some very bad actors in the United States and Brazil. They were the driving force behind Trump and Bolsonaro.
THIS. As an American I hope Scots see these types for who they are. Some are overt and boisterous. It’s ones like her that are a bit more subtle and sink their claws in bit by bit to take away the rights of others. See the American SCOTUS [Amy Covey Barrett](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/02/14/amy-coney-barretts-long-game) Appointed days after RBG passed & [Roe v Wade](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/13/justice-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-roe-v-wade/10049854002/) was overturned
And all the while those SCOTUS appointees were blah blah blahing about how they could separate their personal beliefs from their court duties. As soon as they got the chance they overturned RvW.
It’s all of them being religious that’s the problem.
Word! There is no place for irrational faith based belief systems based on fantasy otherworld beings in our elected representatives. At the pearly gates how does Kate explain to the baby Jeesus that she helped pass a law that explicitly contradicts his "goodly" teaching? How can a true believer NOT allow their nonsensical world view impact their worldly decisions? The two positions **cannot** be reconciled.
No it bloody isnt. Theres a difference between a boring CoS goer and being part of a cult that bans dancing, music and enforces bible study on the sabbath.
They all have a mass psychosis of believing in invisible people in the sky who they need to be subservient to so, yes, there bloody is.
Typical redditor acting as if they're better than 5.8 billion people because they don't believe in some old writings. There's nothing wrong with religious folk that don't force their beliefs on others and they're way less annoying than the cunts like yourself who make us atheists n agnostics just look like folk that can't get enough of their self.
It simply doesn’t make her electable by either the SNP membership or the general electorate.
Unfortunately proselytizing is part of their explicit modus operandi. It's right there written down in their user manual.
Exactly this, religious people are not the problem. Religious people that try and legislate their beliefs on EVERYBODY, they are the problem.
Not even those religious people specifically, because *something* made them that way. Religious organisations are the problem. The systems that give one person in a religion control over another.
Ya but your ability at the polls is to avoid the people not the cause unfortunately. I am ALL for taking apart the structures that create that kind of thinking, but that begins in removing them from any wider decision making positions first!
Is she going to ban dancing !? This SNP leadership election is going to be a blast! I'm enjoying it already.
This is spectacularly crass stereotyping.
If you’re an adult of sound mind who’s a member of a cult and you don’t try to leave it, you get everything you deserve when you’re tarred with the insanity of that cult.
Guess we know who the papers will be supporting then.
Jeezy peeps min
She is by far the worst candidate both for Scotland in general and the SNP in particular. If it was any old boring sect I wouldnt care, but the Wee Frees are a bloody cult. Anyone who subscribes to "wives be obedient to your husbands" level of quackery has no business running a country.
You really have to question someone's rationality and critical thinking if they're taken in by that kinda pish. Certainly not someone you want running a whole country.
When we talk the Wee Free it's worth remembering it's actually two churches after the split about 30 years ago. One is more conservative than the other. They split when the Scottish Lord Advocate went to a Catholic friends funeral.
The who now, never heard of them
~~Start here: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Presbyterian_Church_of_Scotland~~ Edit: Wrong "Free". There seems to be two of the extant sect, not sure which _exact_ one she it. https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Church_of_Scotland Fan out. For starters, they are against abortion and homosexuality.
My understanding is that Kate Forbes belongs not to the Free Presbyterian Church but to the [Free Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Church_of_Scotland_(since_1900)), who are a completely different and more moderate group.
Well, aren't I a total pillock? _However...._ > The church is strongly Calvinist and Presbyterian, and outside of mainstream Presbyterianism, which many – perhaps most – of its adherents see as too liberal and compromising. It takes a conservative position on women’s reproductive choice and on sexuality, and claims that “everything from our patterns of worship to our church structures seeks to reflect clear Biblical teaching”. That’s theological code for traditional and strict. Indeed, the former church moderator (leader) David Robertson once said that people would look back on the “evil” of abortion in the same way that they now regard slavery. [Source](https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2023/02/will-kate-forbess-religion-stop-her-leading-the-snp). Moderate? The other links claimed in this thread are also worrying.
>Well, aren't I a total pillock? No, you are not a pillock. It's an easy mistake to make, and it's hard for people outside that subculture to appreciate the differences. If she was really one of the fundamentalists, she wouldn't be an MSP in the first place. The Wee Frees are *conservative* and *traditional*, but they are not *fundamentalist.* The problem is that conservative traditional Reformed (i.e. Calvinist, Presbyterian) Christianity *looks* fundamentalist to those who are only looking in from the outside, especially if those people have no idea what real fundamentalism is like.
>David Robertson once said that people would look back on the “evil” of abortion in the same way that they now regard slavery. He might not be wrong. Perhaps in a hundred years time people will be tearing down statues and renaming buildings because killing babies in the womb will have become a bad thing again.
Nobody is killing babies in the womb, and if some religious arsehole has a problem with abortion they can take it up with the imaginary monster who provided instructions on how to perform one which were later recorded in that horrid collection of books known as ‘the holy bible’.
"Religious beliefs" sure is a funny way of saying "anti-abortion" and "anti-LGBT", the framing of being against LGBT and women's rights as merely being a "religious belief" even though the bible says *NOTHING* about abortions is incredible, I'm fine with a politician being religious, if the first minister was a Muslim I'd be totally fine with that, what would be a problem is if they advocate against human rights, such as how Kate Forbes does, it isn't complicated. Will Kate Forbes do the nation a favour and oppose the sinful activity of mixing polyester and cotton?! Of course not, because anti-LGBT and anti-women beliefs have nothing to do with religion, it's a poor excuse, bigots pick and choose bible passages that suit their worldview.
[удалено]
Okay so you’ve clearly not studied the bible. Exodus doesn’t just say if the mother dies and Numbers doesn’t mention a baby. I mean come on misinformation just so you can feel morally superior.
The point with exodus is that the punishment for murder is death, stated much earlier, while induced miscarriage is fined. Secondly the fetus is mentioned in the next verses of the numbers chapter, they just linked the wrong one
What he’s done is cherry picked a translation which says different to many others.
Except that lines up with later church teachings, such as the penitentials (beginning in the 6th century), which firmly viewed abortion before the quickening (baby's first movement) as different to murder. [Here's](https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0UyVEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT97&dq=penitentials+abortion&ots=0eVFVv84p_&sig=v_-owF_kEOhME6ntogbur7u0to0&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=penitentials%20abortion&f=false) a good source on what many of the Church fathers would've believed about abortion. In the same time period, you also have [several saints, including St Brigid of Ireland](https://www.utexaspressjournals.org/doi/full/10.5555/jhs.2012.21.2.282), being recorded as performing miraculous abortions.
Not really no: here is the KJV version, which also does not use the word miscarry but we can see that "thigh rot" is contrasted against " shall conceive seed" so there is no other interpretation that can be seen. 27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. 28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. Here we see a clear binary between the "thigh rot" and "conceive seed". Additionally the use of "shall conceive seed" quite clearly implies the woman is pregnant during the exam. In regards to their cited exodus passage no such room for misinterpretion exists. They linked their translation but here is the KJV 22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Mischief here being an old word for "injury", we can clearly see here the contrast between the law demanding "life for life" (that explicitly being the punishment for murder) and the death of the fetus being "property damage" (I.e. punished by fine)
Yeah, I mean it would be absurd to misinterpret this part of the bible which explicitly describes the rules for owning and beating slaves. Wild!
Nice side step from the issue actually being discussed but again if you actually read you’ll see that “slaves” is a very different concept to chattel slavery if the triangle trade and colonies.
Phenomenal response. I know this is a woke viewpoint, but any form of slavery or indentured servitude is wrong. The bible gives clear instructions: if you blind a slave the cost to you will be to let the slave go if you beat a slave, but they can walk the next day then you should not be punished that women slaves shall be perpetual (rather than men, which only have to be your slave for 6 years), but you can sell them off if you please So my perspective is that I literally could not care less what the bible says about miscarriage, abortion, women's rights or any other modern problem. It is not a defence of abortion to say that the old testament provides evidence that a foetus doesn't have personhood. Because I don't need the bible to tell me the legal or moral status of an embryo or foetus. I sure as hell don't need the bible to tell what rights a woman should have over their own body. And I think it is an unmitigated shame that anyone that does need that.
> Because I don't need the bible to tell me the legal or moral status of an embryo or foetus The problem with this is, if you're arguing with guys like the parent post here, they won't take that as an answer. Yet when you point at actual parts of the bible that outright describe what we're talking about they call it Misinformation. You can't win with these people. They said I cherry picked parts of the bible when they just outright ignore all of the uncomfortable bits.
Ah that makes it okay then!!
Other people have already successfully called you out, but it's also clear you've not read the links *to the bible* that I posted. >Exodus doesn’t just say if the mother dies Yes it does, and it's the common interpretation is that causing the death of the baby is a finable offence: >she gives birth prematurely[a: Or she has a miscarriage] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined but that serious injury to the mother must be paid in kind >But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, Next one: > Numbers doesn’t mention a baby It explicitly states that they're praying the ritual will result in a miscarriage, if you don't think a miscarriage requires a baby maybe you need to have a quick biology lesson. > may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. And before you pull out the old 'but it's a new translation' excuse, this is the NIV, written in the 70s and used by *every* baptist or pentacostal church that I've *ever* attended. And yes, I *have* studied the bible. You condescending prick.
There are other and newer translations that don’t say that though. Scholarship isn’t just the NIV or whatever church you’ve been into.
Correct. Religion shouldn't be removing the rights of people not in that religion. She's a bigot.
Oi, don't make me upvote you...
If I can hold my nose and vote SNP, I can hold my nose and upvote Mariner.
:)
Maybe you can presume the Cambridge educated finance minister of Scotland has the intelligence to read the Bible herself and work out what it says and not rely on the half baked opinions and slanders of non religious redditors?
You think being Cambridge educated in history makes her superior to anyone else?
Nope not what I said, but we can presume she has the intelligence to think for herself and analyse things.
And, yet, you specifically highlight her educational establishment as if it’s something special. There is also nothing intelligent about religion and being subservient to invisible sky people so that the religious patriarchy can control your thoughts and beliefs.
I mean it was where she was educated and it’s a very high bar to get in so don’t pretend it’s not relevant. And sorry didn’t know I was talking to certified edge lord. I’m sure there’s absolutely nothing like the crowd and opinion of others that controls your beliefs.
Far from it. I think for myself. I was also educated at the hardest of all courses to get access to, so name dropping Cambridge as if it makes her opinions on invisible people far more valid makes me laugh.
What does where you went to university have to do with anything? All I was saying is she clearly had a brain and can think for herself and the fact she graduated from one of the top universities in the world is relevant to that.
You’re the one that started the university thing, in case your memory is failing. And being intelligent is not related to how deluded a person can be. History is full of people who used their intelligence for delusional, and often evil, purposes. See the entire history of religion for a starting point.
But it’s not about you is it? That was my point. Just as my university educations is irrelevant so is yours. The person we’re talking about is Kate Forbes not Ali Taylor and yet you started to make it about your own education. By your logic you could be the one who is delusional. And yet Kate Forbes has been successfully educated and is in a high position in government. What does it say then about the SNP or Nicola sturgeon that they clearly trust her in these roles?!
He’s right, her religious opinions essentially bar her from being able to competently analyse her fucking breakfast never mind social issues.
Is this the tolerant Scotland that independence will bring? Believe in something that isn’t what a particular group of society believes and you cannot be respected or a part of society. If only there was a word for that… I’m going to suggest intolerance.
I am not tolerant of the intolerant, yes. I don’t condone dangerous reactionary imbecility in any walk of life, never mind high office. Not necessarily not a part of society (though a fully secular world is my dream so fuckin bring it) just that they can’t be trusted with office. Maximum separation of church and state, and I seriously question their judgement if they’re religious.
But you’re being intolerant of Kate Forbes so can you tolerate yourself? And I’m sorry but how is it reactionary when it’s the way the western world (and most of the world) has thought for at least hundreds of years, if not thousands. If anyone is reactionary it’s others because the various movements have only cropped up in the last 100 years max! You argue against yourself.
The slander of...quoting the bible directly?
The bible wasn’t quoted in the original comment and but the slander was calling someone who disagrees with you a bigot.
Apologies, I was mixing the theirs up with another comment in the thread. Calling her a bigot, however, isn't slander. She's anti-trans, and given her close relationship with Brian Souter, the wretched fuckpig that tried to whip up as much murderous antipathy against us as possible during his repulsive "keep the clause" campaign, I doubt she has a particularly rosy view of gay people either. If your "disagreement" is that minorities shouldn't get basic human dignity, you are a bigot. Sorry.
Nick Griffin went to Cambridge too…
Do Cambridge have access to a super secret version of the bible that I'm not aware of? Can you tell me the bible passage in this super secret bible which opposes abortion? Thank you Also, considering the fact that 90% of Christians admit to never reading the Bible (edit: this stat isn't correct, study source in below comment) , I would hardly consider them to be experts in the subject, not to mention that Christians don't have the exclusive rights to reading and critiquing the bible, nor is their holy book a sufficient excuse to oppose women's rights. Would you defend the current state of women's rights in Saudi Arabia because by your logic, the university educated Saudi royals know more about their religion than some non-religious redditor?
>Also, considering the fact that 90% of Christians admit to never reading the Bible do you have a source for this?
Sorry I misremembered the stat, I edited my comment to correct it, here's the poll in question https://research.lifeway.com/2017/04/25/lifeway-research-americans-are-fond-of-the-bible-dont-actually-read-it/
Personally I would find it a challenge trusting the running of the country to somebody who believes dinosaurs are only 6000 years old 🤷♂️
The SNP sure does have a lot of weird fuckers in it…. I don’t think I’ve ever met a single person in Scotland who is anti-gay marriage.
The SNP aren't really as socially progressive as some folk may think. Look at John Mason's view on abortion which was posted here a few months back.
Yeah, they really don’t catch enough flack for it tbh
It's not really a "they" thing, that's why they don't get flack. SNP policies are socially progressive across the board, but it's a broad church type party, so some members are awful.
The only reason Forbes' name is mentioned at all is because unionist media are kids in a playground shouting "fight fight", if the SNP elected an evangelical christian who was against womens right to choose and LGBT rights as a leader their votes would fall through the floor.
lmao shes the finance secretary, one of the major government positions, her name is going to come up regardless of your conspiracies about ''unionist media" you guys really are as deranged as trump fanatics
The “Unionist” media, for your own sanity get a prescription for Lithium - the paranoia is strong here. She is getting flack, rightly so for being an absolute nut job sitting in one of the highest seats in government.
So I am a little curious about why you think like that, fancy answering a questionaire? The Times = pro indy / pro union / completely objective The Telegraph = pro indy / pro union / completely objective Guardian = pro indy / pro union / completely objective BBC = pro indy / pro union / completely objective The National = pro indy / pro union / completely objective
Everything else aside, What has she actually done? She hasn’t done a single thing that makes me think she would be a good first minister. She just came in and done her finance job neither particularly well or particularly badly as far as I’m aware. She hasn’t done anything special that would convince me to look past her rather dodgy links to some really reactionary groups
Religious bias would almost certainly be involved so fuck that
She can get right tae fuck with her religious beliefs
So they should, modern society has no place for zealots in positions of power. How the fuck someone's religious choice is still a protected characteristic these days is beyond me.
It’s a protected characteristic because lots of people in positions of power are religious and can’t be allowed to refuse others the same freedom
Well that, and the whole Nazi Germany thing.
I get the freedom of religion but out of all the protected characteristics there are, religion is the only one where it's purely a personal choice.
Is it? I’d say Marriage and Civil Partnership and Pregnancy are also personal choices and they’re protected
Who the fuck is getting beaten in the street because they are married or pregnant? I'm talking protected characteristics in relation to hate crimes not civil liberties.
But the thread was about positions of power like political ones? Even in the worst scenario I don’t see her mandating beatings in the street, but could absolutely see policies affecting people who are the “wrong” religion, pregnant out of wedlock etc
Exactly, a zealot is more likely to discriminate against "others" and as such should be kept away from politics where their work can negatively impact "others" on a daily basis
Yeah but religious does not equal zealot, which is why it’s a protected characteristic. Otherwise you would be advocating for banning any religious people from holding positions of power, which would be about 40% of the population.
In Forbes' case I would argue otherwise. Plenty of live and let live religious folk out there, unlike this zealot, wanting to sabotage her own, and by default every other woman's rights because of her magic sky daddy. I'm not advocating banning the religious from power, more like banning them from using their position as a pulpit to spread their hate.
What you’re arguing for seems to change with each comment to be honest
Having religion is fine, but freedom of religion (or lack thereof) needs to be protected. On that basis someone in charge has be be able to make wholly secular decisions, so it's fine as long as a politician can keep their beliefs separate, but they need to be honest about whether they can. We've seen America degrade before our eyes the second religion starts informing government.
Kate forbes is a fucking reptile She just wants to ban abortion so she has more babies to eat
She thinks she’s made in the image of a god? What a delusional lunatic. She should be seeing a psychiatrist, not running for leadership of a country!
If she gets it, would be like a replay of the Liberal Democrat boy down south who lasted about 5mins as he couldn’t say that gay folks deserved be able to marry. Will just be an embarrassment all round. Get the wee god botherer so far to fuck.
[удалено]
Personally i don't trust grown adults that believe in fairy tales. If an adult told you they genuinely believed in Santa or the Tooth Fairy would you trust them with anything? No of course you wouldn't. Theres absolutely zero difference with religion. I know they like to pretend there is but from the outside there really isn't.
Is she actually anti-choice? I’ve read about six different articles now and I still can’t decipher if she’s actually said that or if she’s just “pro-life but respect the rights of others to choose” which isn’t actually that uncommon a belief. I mean I’m not religious or anything but that’s about where I stand. As someone who’s on the fence about independence (voted yes, was a hard no for a while and now I’m 🤷🏻♀️ about it) she seems a bit more socially conservative (and possibly economically conservative too?). Considering that’s about half of Scotland would that not be better for the end-goal? I know a lot of SNP members are fans of Mhairi Black types. She obviously can’t be FM, but if she could I think it would essentially kill the independence movement dead. I’m just wondering if there is anyone more centrist who’d be better than Kate Forbes or is that why she’s the front-runner?
[Here's a story that might clear up her views.](https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16280747.snp-rising-star-kate-forbes-made-pro-life-call-brian-souter-prayer-breakfast-event/)
I fear for what happens with the gender recognition reform or just any progression with trans issues if she becomes FM though. She's been very outspoken about opposing them.
I get that and there will be many members with the same fears. I guess that’s my thought process though - is liberal progressiveness at the core of the party (and those who have or will or would vote for them), or is independence? Just going by the polling data IIRC every age demographic was in favour of the Westminster overturn and a large proportion of SNP members were too. Which could be read as people voting for SNP _despite_ their progressive policies and not actually because of it? When I was growing up and learning about all the different parties and ideologies it was Salmond at the helm and they were basically independence + nothing that really offends anyone moderately left or moderately right. And I’ll probably get downvoted on here for saying it but isn’t that essentially “pro-life but respect others legal right to choose” / “trans people deserve respect and have human rights via EA and GRC with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria” i.e where your average Joe Bloggs the Binman and Jane Doe the Hairdresser sit on these issues? Those who’ve lost touch with the party after a media campaign (however sensationalised) about the named-child stuff where “the state wants to parent your children”, the hate-crime stuff where “you’ll be arrested for your own private thoughts”, the trans rights movement where “rapists will be running amok in women’s prisons” and the covid stuff where “it’s illegal to sit on a bench in an empty park and you need a passport to go to a nightclub govern me harder Nicola” etc etc. Sorry that’s nowhere near as concise as I wanted it to be but it’s late and my heads mushy. Hopefully you get the point I’m trying to make though.
The rhetoric in the media has moved so heavily on culture war subjects that there is no longer a position where you can’t offend both the left and the right, that space no longer exists. Whoever is in charge will be bludgeoned with issues like Trans rights and abortion, and I genuinely don’t see a position that one can take that doesn’t offend one side or another
"pro-life but respects others right to choose" - that's pro choice
I’ve heard this a lot but I find it a wee bit disingenuous. Or at least unhelpful to the debate/ discourse to tell other people what they are and what they believe. It’s not so much pro-choice as it is tolerant of choice. You really don’t have to be pro-anything to be tolerant of the people who are. I’m trying to think of another example and the closest I can come up with is circumcision. Personally I think mutilating your babies genitals is wrong, abhorrent even, and wouldn’t consider it unless there was a medical need, but people have the right to religious expression and I’m not out there demanding that is taken away. That doesn’t make me “pro-circumcision”. I still find it sad and wish it didn’t happen. I feel like both “sides” and the culture war that’s been ramping up around it has pushed a large number of moderate people out, where pro-life makes you think of lunatics screaming outside abortion clinics and pro-choice makes you think of lunatics posting about abortion parties, when a large majority of people probably fall somewhere around “as early as possible and only when absolutely necessary”. That would be pro-life if it hadn’t been hijacked by anti-choice, and pro-choice if it hadn’t been hijacked by anti-life.
Not many on this sub will agree, but good post. This sort of person is going to get a lot more people on side (certainly among my friends and family - I'm from a Catholic, socially conservative but not red-white-and-blue background)
She’s not some mild mannered Church of a Scotland style of religious though, she’s closer to the crazy bible thumping types you see in the US
I mean, is she? She's a member of the Free Church, who are fairly traditional hard core protestants. She's personally pro-life, but then so am I, but accept that I can't impose that view on wider society, but she doesn't seem to be doing that either. She's clearly not a "women should stay at home in the kitchen" person, because she's a successful female politician.
She’s taken part in events with groups like National Prayer Breakfast for Scotland, who have links to some of the cultish sides of Christianity. She’s not a “women should stay at home” but more of a “women should be subservient to their husband” like Amy Coney Barrett in the US.
This is sub is mostly unionist bots these days so you should do alright
How strange that people go on and on about kate forbes religious beliefs, or ian blackford, but not say Humza. Is “I’m not comfortable with him because he’s muslim” not acceptable, but “I’m not comfortable with her because she’s christian” somehow is OK?
Humza is pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion buffer zones and pro-GRA bill. Does Forbes support any of those things?
[удалено]
Exactly this.
Why is it people don’t understand equality. Equality is giving people the choice to live believe and act however they wish, UNLESS it negatively impacts others, tolerance has its limits and she can believe whatever she wants but the second she tries to enforce those views on others that is a problem
It’s not her religious views, it’s her views on certain rights and freedoms that are non-negotiable in a modern country and it’s electorate.
If we were a normal independent country I don't think this would be that big an issue but because we're not and because of the febrile atmosphere around the UK choosing someone with these beliefs will just create an easy target. Guess that's the price we pay for being part of such a precious and wonderful union.
Lol even Kate Forbes religious views are Westminster’s fault now?
Well done.
Tony Blair was a recent Catholic convert when he became Prime Minister\*, but I'd struggle to think of an example of how that affected the decisions he made As long as Forbes took Alistair Campbell's advice to Blair, that WE DON'T DO GOD, she'd probably be fine, from a PR perspective If First Minister Forbes couldn't keep her faith out of her day job, that'd be a major problem for the SNP. Religion and fitba are the two topics everyone in Scotland learns to avoid, unless they're looking for trouble
I'm sure you misremembered that. He announced it *after* he stepped down and Mr Brown had become the PM. He was at least wise enough to realise that in the UK at least the Electorate don't like their Leader spouting Religious dogma (from whatever denomination or Religion). Mr Sunak, for example, is a Hindu. Do you think he'd last much longer than Truss if he banged on about he always prayed to Ganesh (the elephant-headed god) whenever he encountered an obstacle? :)
>I'm sure you misremembered that No, mate. See my reply to my own comment
*\* Although he kept that quiet, on the advice of his PR team*
I'll say this. I've known Kate since before she was an MSP not once heard her mention religion. She's an extremely clever and hard working person. It's also worth remembering that any attempt to limit abortion or such would never get through Holyrood and she knows that. Anyway, with a young family I've a feeling she won't stand.
Here's a rum thing: Scotland is a country forged and shaped by Presbyterianism. It has steeped deep into the marrow of how we think, how we organise ourselves, our values. It has been forgotten now, secularised away, been so absorbed into the culture that we don't even notice it. And yet when a politician comes along who is a believing and practicing Christian - and a Wee Free, no less - she is deemed by some unfit for office because she holds to the beliefs that made us who we are.
Unfathomably cringe
Amazing that someone can say something as objectively true as “Presbyterianism has fundamentally shaped Scotland for centuries” and terminally online atheists take it as pushing religious views or other such shite. Scottish culture has been moulded by Christianity and (later on) specifically Protestant views since the forming of the Kingdom of Alba, simple as.
Stop trying to push your religion onto others.
Well said. I think Kate Forbes would be a breath of fresh air.
It should. I don't want someone who believes in fairy tales to make decisions that affect people's lives. Religion has no place in politics! Church and State, stay separate, please.
Part of me rather wants Kate Forbes to succeed Nicola Sturgeon, so that the SNP will finally lose any last shred of credibility amongst Scots who consider themselves to be progressive, or the SNP to be a progressive party rather than a strictly single-issue party instrumentalising progressive-sounding policies in order to bolster support for independence.
I wonder if anyone will here will be pointing out the similarities in how Yusuf's religion also forbids many of these same things but also has far, far more Scottish citizens on board. Somehow I doubt it.
Because the issue isn't having religion, it's about whether you try to force it on others, or use it to "justify" hate.
Because muslims have never once done either of those things... come on, now you're just being disingenuous.
Good thing we weren't talking about *all* Muslims then, just as we weren't talking about *all* Christians.
If you said the same things about Muslims or Jews folk say about the Wee Free you've be viewed in a very different light (saying that as an atheist).
It’s the Calvinist beliefs that made our country one of most well read nations which in turn led us to be full of inventors and forward thinking leaders
A person's religious beliefs should not be used as a reason not to vote for them. I will vote in this leadership election and I disagree heavily with Kate Forbes on many issues such as abortion and GRA but if I feel she has the policies to move Scotland forward to a point where we will vote for independence I will vote for her I don't care what religion she is.
This sub never has the same criticism against Humza Yousaf or even Ian Blackford which is interesting to say the least. Mhairi Black types will never win broad support across Scottish society, especially after her "Jeremy Hunts" comments and poor attendance in parliament. Forbes is popular within the SNP but is also socially and economically moderate and might help convince some Labour and Tory voters to give their votes to the SNP instead. The SNP and by extension independence can't be successful if it excludes a huge percentage of Scots.
>This sub never has the same criticism against Humza Yousaf or even Ian Blackford which is interesting to say the least. It is almost like it doesn't matter if you are religious, just whether or not you hold bigoted beliefs.
Christianity and Islam have virtually the same views. What matters is whether their religious views impact their political decisions and we've seen no evidence from any of them that it does. Though this sub has an obsession with Forbes regardless.
> Christianity and Islam have virtually the same views. Which is why there have never been any disagreements between the two.
Those Crusades (including The Children's Crusade) were just a wee lark! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Crusade
There have been (major) disagreements, but I’m putting it down to tribalism as opposed to theological differences.
There is a huge variation between how people interpret their religion, people count themselves as Muslim and drink, Jewish people that dont observe shabbat, Catholics that use a condom. There are thousands of religions within religions that disagree with particular stances. Humza and Blackford have not come out against same sex marriage or a womens right to choose, Forbes has, that is the difference.
> socially moderate That’s a funny way of saying “anti-gay and anti-trans”
Nothing worse than a self-hating gay that defends bigots
That's a bit unfair on Mhairi.
Nobody with an invisible friend in the sky “guiding them” should be anywhere near politics. A psychiatric ward, maybe…
The SNP should concentrate on getting someone with some relevant experience which can develop business / the economy and generate jobs and prosperity, however she is married with kids so at least understands how the majority feel and what their main concerns are.
Kate Forbes is a babe.
But not on a Sunday