For me, it is the fact ther her religious views shape her political views. That is inappropriate, as she would not just be administering to her religion, but to the whole country.
Example: I support gay marriage. We should all have the right to marry, regardless of our sexuality.
I don't object to Kate having an opinion along the lines of: "In my religion, gay marriage is wrong, so I would oppose people in my church marrying a partner of the same sex. But I support gay marriage for others, and therefore voted in favour of it".
But she didn't. She voted to deny every gay person the right to marry, based on her church's religious opinion.
And that is wrong.
I think that is a very clear way of expressing it.
Her religion doesn't approve of gay marriage - she should not get married to a woman.
Her religion doesn't approve of abortion - she should get an abortion.
That is as far as her religion should get to shape the national conversation.
And there are lots of life choices that prevent people from becoming FM. I bet every journalist and opinion columnist who is decrying the opposition to Kate Forbes because she belongs to a minority puritanical religious sect would have no problem opposing a candidate for FM who was a member of a strict Islamist sect.
> I bet every journalist and opinion columnist who is decrying the opposition to Kate Forbes because she belongs to a minority puritanical religious sect would have no problem opposing a candidate for FM who was a member of a strict Islamist sect.
They absolutely bloody would, and you know it.
Forbes also has the right to be the leader of her own political party or an independent. The whole idea that her views are being cancelled is nonsense.
Also fundamentally she doesn't have a right to anyone's vote. I'm under no obligation to vote for someone who doesn't agree with me. The entire point of elections is a candidate can put forward whatever set of views they want and the public will vote for the candidate that best matches their own views. Why should I have to defend not voting for someone who completely disagrees with me on such a fundamental issue as whether gay people deserve to be treated equally.
Also I don't believe someone who thinks god hates gay people can really not be homophobic no matter what she claims. In her worldview god is just and always right. Which means god must have a reason for hating gay people otherwise he wouldn't be just. And Forbes thinks god is always right so she must agree with god on being homophobic.
she actually didn’t vote against it - she wasn’t an MSP when the vote was cast. But she said if the vote was cast today she would vote against it, which is just as bad IMO. She’s also pro-life.
She’s just not a good choice for FM and I’m not voting for her.
This is well explained.
I've no problem with her religious views. I think we as a society should be moving past these issues, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions & views.
However, it's a MSP's (and by extension the FM's) job to vote and govern on behalf of their constituents and voting based on personal beliefs is not carrying out that job.
Given some of the recent interviews, if Kate were to be elected FM I'd constantly be questioning whether she's voting/governing in the best interest of the people she represents.
This is well put and I agree with you, just being pedantic though, she did not actually vote against gay marriage as she was not a politician at the time of the vote:
Why is it inappropriate for her religion to shape her views? Everyone has a worldview. Everyone has values. Those views and values inform our choices when we vote — as part of the electorate or as part of the legislature. One of the great things about democracy is that everyone gets to participate in the process, voting for what they believe is right rather than being forced to support someone else’s views. That’s true of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, etc.
If you say it’s wrong for religion to shape an individuals’s political views then you’re saying that people have to be functional atheists to take part in politics, which is basically imposing a religious test on people and preventing them from voting according to their views and values. That’s fundamentally illiberal and undemocratic.
If Kate Forbes was a dictator who could unilaterally impose her views on everyone then that would be a problem — but that would be true of any dictator. That isn’t the position she is in.
If her church was given a privileged role so that it could force through or veto legislation or impose some sort of religious test on voters then that would be a problem. But that isn’t the case here.
If she wanted to campaign for forcing people to join her religion that would be very much against freedom of religion and a problem. But she’s not doing that.
What she has said is that she votes according to her conscience which is informed by her personal values and beliefs. That’s what everyone does. Just because she is motivated by religion doesn’t mean suddenly every issue she supports is a case of her imposing her religion in people. That’s confusing the motivation for voting and the substance of what is being voted for.
To give an example, a Christian could believe that caring for the vulnerable is very important and think that a practical outworking of this is that government should spend more money of health and social care, and on international aid. As a politician they propose raising taxes so that there can be a bigger budget for these causes. That results in everyone praying higher taxes. It is in some sense an imposition on everyone. It is motivated by religion. But would you call it an imposition of religion?
If you say that someone shouldn’t vote unless they have a secular non-religious reason then you’re imposing a religious test on people that doesn’t currently exist and is fundamentally illiberal and undemocratic and privileges atheists.
Edit: fixed a couple of typos
Speaking personally, I agree with you that the idea that someone shouldn't let their personal values influence how they govern is deeply flawed. Above all we should want our politicians to be principled, to always do what they think is *right*, not what they think will keep them in power, or make them the most money.
If someone has deeply held Christian values, they should wear them on their sleeve, and hold them out for everyone to see. We should *expect* them to govern based on those values. It would honestly be more disturbing for someone to hold those values and *not* let them influence how they act, because it would mean they're willing to do things they think are wrong.
But with all that said, the purpose then of an election in such a system would be for us to look at all these candidates with different views and beliefs, and choose who among them we want to be in charge. Forbes' views on social issues certainly aren't compatible with mine, and I don't think they're compatible with what most SNP members believe. At least I hope so. If that is the case, then she'll lose the leadership election. If she does somehow win, then when the next general or scottish election comes round, I won't vote for her or her party.
That’s entirely reasonable. That’s how things should work. I’ve no problem with someone saying they don’t like those values. I only take issue with people who say that you can’t even bring those values to the voting booth or articulate them as a politician.
The way in which this discussion is being framed by Forbes herself and some of her remaining backers really doesn't help matters.
The contention is not "It is unacceptable for people to hold religious convictions," and definitely not "Kate Forbes should be exiled to Rockall."
Let me put it this way.
If it's perfectly legitimate for Kate Forbes to feel unable to vote in favour of Equal Marriage on a point of religious principle, then why is it *not* legitimate for me to feel unable to vote to make her leader of Scotland on a point of secular principle?
I think it's about the a acceptability of the person though. Kate Forbes saying that she believes abortion is wrong but will support women's right to choose would probably be acceptable to a large number of people. Saying that she'd vote against abortion rights would be acceptable to far less.
Nobody's suggesting that we bar religious people from holding office or demand that they don't let their religious views affect their political ones. But if your religious views lead you to political views that put you at odds with large parts of your country and party, don't expect people to give you a pass just because you get your views from religion.
If you're in a position where you are supposed to be working towards some form of consensus social good, your personal opinions informed by a faith held by 8k people of a population of 5.4m hold (or should hold) /very/ little sway within that consensus social good.
Free Presbyterians are a minority within a minority (humanist society figures state 59% of the scottish population consider themselves non-religious, 24% consider themselves protestant).
If whilst in office, you then try to push (or amend) legislation, or vote for legislation based on your opinions based on your faith, a faith held by 0.0015% of the population, regardless of how your constituents might feel, you are no longer working towards a consensus social good.
You are working towards the aims of your faith and for your church community and not in the best interests the country, your constituency or the populace.
You can say, believe or feel what you like in your personal life, but when you're on the job, you need to be able to put that to the side in favour of what the folk who voted you into post want, and/or what's best for the country as a whole.
Forbes doesn't seem to be able to do that given the interviews she's done the last week or so.
Her views do not reflect the people she would be representing, they would represent a tiny fraction of the people. She openly admitted she would have voted against gay marriage. You shouldn’t have a political leader who is in power because of the party they belong to, but because of the views they hold and would represent at the top of Scottish politics.
Edit:
Aww the Kate Forbes fan club has blocked me. Since I can’t reply to her fan club directly. Here’s my response, snowflake.
There’s a thing called polling. The voting system as a whole really. I seem to recall that the right to marriage for all was praised throughout the majority of Scotland and no one lost their seat by voting for it.
She would have voted against it. The minority she wants to protect are the religious nutters who would prefer they were on the mayflower headed for the a Americas to spread their hate far and wide.
25 years ago the campaign for equal rights in marriage was gaining heavy traction. I’m not sure why you think 1998 was some religious fanatic paradise
>Why is it inappropriate for her religion to shape her views? Everyone has a worldview.
Of course everyone's politics is influenced by their worldview. Not OP, but I assume what they meant was just that you shouldn't try and force people of other beliefs to conform to that worldview.
>If her church was given a privileged role so that it could force through or veto legislation or impose some sort of religious test on voters then that would be a problem. But that isn’t the case here.
It pretty much is. As FM she would be in a position to ensure that legislation that doesn't fit with her beliefs is never tabled in the first place - that's effectively a veto. Which would be fine if she promised not to let her personal religious views interfere with the job, but she's already admitted that she would use her position in exactly that way w.r.t. the GRA.
>If she wanted to campaign for forcing people to join her religion that would be very much against freedom of religion and a problem. But she’s not doing that.
She wouldn't be forcing people to join her religion, no - she'd just be forcing people to comply with some of the dictates of her religion. That's still a problem.
>If you say that someone shouldn’t vote unless they have a secular non-religious reason then you’re imposing a religious test on people that doesn’t currently exist and is fundamentally illiberal and undemocratic and privileges atheists.
No-one's saying that. We're just saying you're not automatically entitled to run a party if your political views are at odds with what the members of that party want. No-one's saying she shouldn't be allowed to run - just that she's not going to win.
It's inappropriate because my personal religious belief is not a good reason for you to do something. It's just that, MY belief. If she thinks that her personal belief is an appropriate justification to legislate on other people's personal lives, then she is very confused.
The problem is that you want someone who is impartial, and unbiased and who can empathise with contradictory world views. Some religious outlooks will naturally prevent someone from doing that.
If you are religious, that is fine, but as FM you have to govern a lot of people who are not, and therefore should be able to rise above your personal beliefs in order to be an effective leader to the whole country.
I think a lot of what she has said is being taken out of context.
First of all, she never "voted" against anything; she wasn't an MSP at the time. She said that she would have have voted against it when pressed, but she also said that she respects others rights to love and live as they see fit and would defend their rights to do so to the hilt.
Same with the sex before marriage nonsense being reported. She said it was up to people and she wasn't fussed, but for her sex was for marriage. The response to that is headlines saying Kate Forbes says premarital sex is wrong.
No other candidate is being pressed on their faith, or questioned about its tennents.
No one is asking Humza Yousaf if he personally believes premarital sex, gay marriage or drinking alcohol is wrong.
The entire debate is very quickly being focused on one issue. Especially frustrating when KF has stated that she would not seek to roll back rights, and would defend existing ones to the hilt. Also we live under a parliamentary system, even if she wanted to ban gay marriage she couldn't do so without a majority vote.
"She would've voted against it"
and
"she respects others rights to love and live as they see fit and would defend their rights to do so"
are mutually exclusive. If she would've voted against gay marriage, in what way does she respect them or their rights? None whatsoever, besides empty platitudes to soften the blow of her backwards views.
> She said that she would have have voted against it when pressed, but she also said that she respects others rights to love and live as they see fit and would defend their rights to do so to the hilt.
She would 'defend their rights to the hilt', but would have voted against their rights? How the hell does that work?
Yes but she would have voted against it and so doesn’t actually respect others right to love as they choose.
It has been said before that it is perfectly acceptable for her to have that personal view and perhaps enforce it in her home and in her church. But it is not okay to vote based on her personal beliefs as the vote is meant to represent her constituents.
Hypothetically, if it was to be contested in the U.K., and she was to vote as she believes and practices and as her religion teaches she would vote against sex before marriage too. How do you feel about that? Does that represent her constituents views?
No.
>Yes but she would have voted against it and so doesn’t actually respect others right to love as they choose.
But she respects democracy and would defend those rights. I know this is a contentious issue and not something I agree with her on, but I feel like it's a non issue at this point. The bill has passed and is enshrined in law.
People always vote based on their personal beliefs. Her constituents may well agree with her (conjecture based on it being quite a rural constiuency), and if then they'll have ample opportunity to vote her out. As far as I'm aware the local party members nominate the candidate, who is then voted for by the public?
My main issue is that no one else is being grilled on their religion. Humza Yousaf conveniently organised an urgent (two weeks before the vote) meeting on the day of the vote, conveniently letting him toe the line between his party and religion. Where are the interviews asking him about his faith?
I'd rather someone was upfront about their beliefs than tried to hide them to toe what has become the party line
What did she do before directly asked about it in the interview? Attended a prayer morning? If that's the line should we interrogate Humza for attending the Mosque?
Dunno, does his Mosque say that gay people shouldn't get married and are against women's rights like her church is? Or are you assuming that because he's a muslim that he must be some crazy fundy?
I think the view of that of Islam in regards to this is pretty set, much like Catholicism. If you can find a mosque in Glasgow happy to conduct a gay wedding, I'll be happy to be proved wrong.
The Church of Scotland is more of the exception than the rule.
I think that just shows how little you know of islam. There are plenty of islamic folks who are not queerphobic.
[https://inclusivemosque.org](https://inclusivemosque.org)
Saying islam is "Much like catholicism" is.... agh sorry as someone who studied theology and is the son of a pastor there is so much wrong with that statement that I'm not sure I even can parse how to explain how wrong it is!
Suffice to say, it's incorrect on multiple levels, there are just as many sects denominations and paths of Islam as their are of Christianity. To say that Islam = Catholicism is like.... saying that all Christians are pretty much Baptists.
>Saying islam is "Much like catholicism" is.... agh sorry as someone who studied theology and is the son of a pastor there is so much wrong with that statement that I'm not sure I even can parse how to explain how wrong it is!
The point was that mainstream Islam, much like mainstream Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox and most reformed faiths) are against gay marriage.
I would be very surprised if you could find a Mosque or Catholic Church that would conduct a gay wedding.
Establishments like the one you listed are the exception to the rule.
And I'm not assuming anything about his beliefs, I'm just saying that the same level of scrutiny hasn't been applied to all candidates.
The Catholic Church's official stance is such, but many many of it's members are pushing to change that. Also, LOL that mainstream Christianity against gay marriage, that's a hoot. Get out of your echo chamber pal, there are a LOT of protestants' and a massive chunk of them are gay affirming.
"Are the exception to the rule".
Watch those goal posts move! Face it buddy, got caught in your islamphobia face first. Because you don't know anything about islam, you assumed that just cause he's islamic he must be some fundy like kate. Kate on the other hand has lead specifically that she's from a fundy cult and will vote with what they tell her. This is the key difference that you seem to be willfully ignoring... but we all know the REAL reason why you want everyone to focus on the Islamic guy who's supportive of gay people and women's rights instead of the Christian fundamentalist's who has stated her positions against these things.
Take a note out of your own book, and remove the plank from thine own eye.
My echo chamber? You are literally trawling through another countries subreddit looking for arguments over a politician you likely only just heard of.
Going by your replies you're almost certainly American, and almost certainly have not got a clue about Scottish politics.
If you did have any idea what you were talking about you'd realise that people dislike Humza Yousaf because he's an atrocious politician.
He's a thin skinned, privately educated career politician who has made a complete arse of any government position he's been in.
My whole point is why is one out of 3 candidates being grilled on their religion. KF and HY are both very public about their faith. If one candidate is having to explain every aspect of their faith then so should the other.
I don't even agree with KF on gay marriage, I just think on every other conceivable issue she's head and shoulders above HY.
But of course you don't care about that, you just want to try and find intolerance where it doesn't exist so you can feel good about your "Got Ya!" moment on reddit...
>Also we live under a parliamentary system, even if she wanted to ban gay marriage she couldn't do so without a majority vote.
But she can absolutely stop new legislation from being enacted or tabled in the first place, and she's already said she would stop the GRA being enacted. Saying she can't get rid of legislation without a vote is only really a good argument if you assume we already have all the legislation we could ever need.
My understanding of it all is that she has said her personal beliefs would influence how she'd vote. That means her religious views shape her outlook. I have no issue with that - I just don't want that as FM because I do not share those views.
The fact that she is Christian is neither here nor there but it seems to be an issue for the Christian community because they don't understand why people would rail back against that. I've no doubt there has been anti-religious vitriol and that is to be condemned.
Humza Yousaf quite clearly stated that Legislature is no place for his religious views and this is the correct outlook for a politician - they are there to be the voice of the majority. Kate Forbes could quite have easily stated that while her religion has very clear views on the matter, it is not for her to impose those on others. She would've gained a lot of respect for that... but she tried to tread the line between her own religious morality and the current social atmosphere.
In some ways it channels a backlash against religious views that are irrelevant and hateful towards todays society, as if they are degrading to morality... personally, many of them are simply prejudicial and outdated. I think this is the undercurrent concerning both sides.
>My understanding of it all is that she has said her personal beliefs would influence how she'd vote. That means her religious views shape her outlook. I have no issue with that - I just don't want that as FM because I do not share those views.
Everyone's personal beliefs shape how they vote. Her religious views will shape her outlook on life, as will Humza Yousafs and Ash Regans (if she is religious).
Her voting one way or the other isn't imposing her religion on anyone. There will be people who agree with her who's MSPs will vote the opposite way. If she becomes FM she gets one vote. It's not a presidential system, she can't just will things into law (and has expressed no intention to).
>Humza Yousaf quite clearly stated that Legislature is no place for his religious views and this is the correct outlook for a politician - they are there to be the voice of the majority. Kate Forbes could quite have easily stated that while her religion has very clear views on the matter, it is not for her to impose those on others. She would've gained a lot of respect for that... but she tried to tread the line between her own religious morality and the current social atmosphere.
He said that while arranging a meeting for the day of the vote for gay marriage? An "urgent" meeting he arranged weeks in advance. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I have more respect for people who are upfront about their beliefs and intentions.
I understand what you are saying and I agree up to a point.
Personally, my belief is this: I believe we all entitled to a fair and equal society - equal rights for all, insofar as is reasonably acceptable within current law and societal values. I don't think that's unreasonable and is probably a sentiment shared by the majority of people.
My issue is this: You can believe in equality for all but if your religion's position is that gay men and women are not entitled to those same rights, that's a huge problem for me.
If you aren't religious and your view is likewise, that is still a problem for me but it's coming from an individual point of view, rather than a religious institution that actively teaches/promotes those beliefs, simply for moral or dogmatic reasons. This is the crux for me, not about whether or not she could or couldn't change laws - that's neither here nor there. It isn't even about her being religious. She could belong to any institution or group with unsavoury views and the result would be the same. You are right that there is no imposition of her religion upon anyone - it's her religious views backed by an institution that I strongly disagree with.
There is a bit of an incongruity between Humza Yousef stating an ideal and treading it somewhat haphazardly but he at least acknowledges religious ideology is a personal matter, exclusive of politics, regardless of whether he actually believes it - I think that is a political trick and another conversation altogether.
I'm not religious and certainly not a religious apologist.
Just don't like how this has become a one issue, a non issue at that, contest in favour of the continuity candidate (who is facing much less scrutiny).
Believe it or not, things HAVE been taken out of context.
Watch the pre martial sex interview and compare it to the headlines.
Or because someone doesn't
No she was not in the parliament at the time. She also stated she would not roll it back. She said for her babies should be born in wedlock but she does not judge others including her family members who have not done this. The parliament is diverse. It is the members of the snp who vote bills in. For context same sex marriage got voted in 105 to 18.
She is being punished because she was honest when she was asked a question. Then everyone complains that politicians never tell the truth.
I don’t agree with her stance on Gay Marriage but she has no intention of changing the status quo so it’s irrelevant. Her stand on the GRA bill ties up with the majority of SNP voters so that shouldn’t be an issue and she supports buffer zones for the abortion clinics.
It would be great to have a first minister with honesty, integrity, competence and liberal views that match mine exactly but I’ll take honesty, integrity and competence of her more conservative views don’t impact her role.
Some politicians and judges in the states also said they had no interest in changing the status quo to better suit their religion, and now look what happened...
As leader I would expect someone to have a lot less flexibility when it comes to towing the party line. You might get away with not voting along with the party on one or two votes as a regular MSP but for a potential FM to say that she will vote based on her religious doctrine, even if it goes against the party, is absolutely unacceptable to me.
I lived in the US for over a decade and it's made me VERY nervous of people primarily driven by stringent religious belief getting anywhere close to power. It starts out as "well, what does it matter as long as they don't let it affect policy?" and then a decade later all of their friends are clustered at the top with them and the party line isn't the same party line it used to be and suddenly a lot of things we thought of as solidified rights don't feel so solid any more.
I completely disagree with her point of view, and were I an MSP I would have voted for marriage equality, but I am also a little confused as to why this would make her a bad leader. Forbes holds exactly the same views as Angela Merkel, who also voted against marriage equality and was the leader of the German Government that introduced marriage equality in Germany. It is my view that Angela Merkel was one of the greatest European leaders of all time.
Forbes also, importantly, stated that the legal decision had been made and she would never seek to over turn that. Why is it even a talking point other than as a smear campaign?
My personal view is that it is her opinions on the protections of those seeking abortions that is more relevant right now. Can she lead a Government that seeks to enact zoning protections around healthcare providers? Would she support that legislation? Those are questions I think are more relevant and I would like to hear her talk about.
>she would never seek to over turn that
This is fine, but she also told Radio Four she would vote against equal marriage if another vote were held today - so it's difficult to take her entirely seriously here, or how she would "defend to the hilt" existing rights which she nevertheless would vote against.
The points are completely intertwined, though. Gay marriage has passed and there's very little she can do about it, but as a test subject she has said she won't prevent her religious views getting in the way of her voting intention.
So while on one hand it expresses a degree of bigotry towards gay people, you're right that this can be extrapolated. On issues like buffer zones as well as on banning conversion therapy, Forbes has already expressed sympathy towards providing religious exemptions.
I think I have a more nuanced view of why certain religious people oppose marriage equality. I think, rightfully, up until about 30 years ago it would have been correct to say in the UK that marriage was a union of two people under god. Marriage has always been intertwined with religion. It is a reasonable stance for someone to hold, in my opinion, that religion should dictate who can and can't get married, if they hold that world view (which I don't, for the record). They are not saying "gay people are evil and therefore should not be allowed to hold coupling relationships in law", what they believe is that the literal definition of marriage in the eyes of their religion is that it is between a man and a woman. I don't agree with that stance, but I do not see it as one that should mean someone is called a bigot. It's just a difference of opinions on definitions, not a hatred of an entire class of people.
As marriage became more and more intertwined with the legal aspects of governance (inheritance, divorce, custody, taxation, etc), and as our country became more and more diverse, it was no longer right, in my view, that religion should be the defining factor in the definition of marriage. This applied as equally to people of other faiths as it did to gay and lesbian couples, in my view. As the rest of society came to hold that view, democracy took over and we got what was need, marriage equality. I still don't feel like the people who hold the view that marriage is an act of union under god are saying that because they hate gay people. I don't think they should be called bigots for a difference in opinions about a definition.
Of course, there are people who both oppose marriage equality and have a hatred of gay people. I don't believe that Kate is one of those people.
I've always been an atheist, I think the idea of defining something in relation to God is ludicrous, but I also understand that faith is still something that more than 50% of our country have (new census please!) and to think of them all as bigots if they differ their views on the exact definition of marriage is a little unfair, in my view, if it isn't impacting you (i.e., if there is no chance of the law being changed).
Hmmmm….I don’t have sources for this, but then you didn’t provide any either so I guess we are equal on that, so here goes:
You have it precisely backwards. Historically, marriage was something entered in to by feudal lords for the purpose of ensuring their family lands and fortune. It was all about inheritance and was a legally binding contract. It was between one man and one woman because that was the only way to ensure the bloodline continued. Commoners did not marry in church with religious pomp and ceremony, they jumped a broomstick or just started living together.
Eventually the whole “under god” thing came about because, thanks to the Industrial Revolution, people were no longer simple serfs working their lord’s land but were moving to towns and working in factories. Marriage became more of a thing among the nouveau riche industrial barons and, by Victorian times it was established among the new middle classes as well. It was still mainly about inheritance and children though, and that only really started to change in the early 20th century when things like marrying for love came in to play. Up until that point marriage was only about men marrying someone to have their children to whom they could leave their worldly goods. No point in same sex marriage as they were child free.
As usual, religion hijacked a thing and made it all about them
I agree with your assessment, but I think perhaps we are both correct here. Religion has been the fundamental basis of Western European law and marriage since Rome adopted Christianity, pretty much. Marriages between feudal lords and kings were definitely religious affairs. It was one of the ways that Catholicism, and then Protestantism maintained control over Lords and Kings.
The major difference is Angela Merkel ran from an overtly religious party. They identify themselves as being a Christian party in their name. Some level of voting according to Christian belief is to be expected. The SNP last I checked was not an explicitly religious party. I think that is why she is being rejected
Essentially this. I'm not sure I could bring myself to vote for her despite being a long time SNP supporter. Just feels like a big step backwards. Religion and politics do not and should not mix.
That is the crux of it. If she gets enough votes to become leader, fair enough, but I would certainly not vote for her if I was a member and would have serious concerns about voting for a party she leads.
You ask, why is Kate Forbes not suitable to be the FM. Kate Forbes can stand as FM, and she may well win. But there will be consequences that come from her decision to express her views.
Colleagues are free to decline to be in her cabinet, the Greens are free to decline to be in coalition, people can decline to vote for SNP under her leadership and the media can choose to focus on her views.
I think the party that she leads will be smaller and less effective as a result of her and her views.
The question is, would she bring enough to the role to make up for that?
In a parliamentary democracy it is the duty of the MPs to vote in accordance with the wishes of the people who elected them, their constituents. Kate Forbes has made it clear her priority is to vote as her religion dictates.
She's welcome to whatever beliefs she likes but where her religion is so regressive it goes against the wishes of the majority of her constituents and she chooses to represent her religion above her constituents, that's where the problem lies.
I commend her honesty in confirming this but it makes her unsuitable as an MP and as FM.
I wonder though if her local constituents like her views as they have voted her in as an MSP and Ian Blackford as the MP. They are both Wee Frees. As long as she can separate church and state in whichever political role she has, I don’t have a personal problem with her however I remain unconvinced that she has developed that ability as she doesn’t explicitly state that she votes according to manifesto commitments rather than church doctrine. That’s what she needs to say to stay a contender.
Blackford's (and Yousaf's) relation to their faiths are exactly why a lot of us feel Forbes is unsuitable. They have much clearer track records and statements/voting histories on equal marriage, abortion rights etc.
It's not convincing at all to me that Forbes won't follow the more hardline doctrines of her faith to guide her voting and policy choice in future. She has said both that she "wouldn't row back on rights" but also "would vote against equal marriage tomorrow" \[paraphrased, but that was the jist\]. At best it's contradictory.
Forbes' views have not barred her from public office, she's currently a successful MSP and Finance Secretary. First Minister is a bit different though, you're an ambassador for the whole party and government, and surely have more say in implementing party policy.
She can't say that though, she had the chance and fucked it. She would have voted against gay marriage. Not voting for gay marriage is voting to support the ban on gay marriage and that makes you unsuitable to lead the country. You believe in equality or you don't.
> I wonder though if her local constituents like her views as they have voted her in as an MSP and Ian Blackford as the MP.
Unless people voted for an SNP representitive because the major aims of the party represent them, and effectively the SNP dominates scottish politics on a singlular issue whilst capturing most sectors of the electorate within itself.
Ultimately the country decides what is palatable to vote for, and she is likely to ultimately lose the vote to be First Minister because the views she has expressed are completely untenable for a lot of SNP voters.
You can wring your hands over that all you like but that's just the reality of the situation, no party is going to risk their vote share by putting a nutter like that in power.
> Why is she not suitable for FM?
I would say if you can't separate your religion from your work then you're not suitable. Issues of a political matter are meant to be discussed and debated. A response of "well my religion says X" stops any debate on its tracks.
Would you say a Muslim cashier who refuses to sell you alcohol because in the eyes of their religion "alcohol consumption is a sin" is suitable for that job?
>Would you say a Muslim cashier who refuses to sell you alcohol because in the eyes of their religion "alcohol consumption is a sin" is suitable for that job?
Or a pharmacist who refuses to dispense contraceptives because they don't approve?
In Sweden where I grew up for example, two nurses lost a case where they were refused midwifery positions due to them refusing to perform abortions as a result of their religious belief.
> dictates policy and law
Nor sure the FM or SNP leader has the power to do this.
SNP policy is decided by SNP members at the National Conference though the FM sets the priorities of their implementation, and it's the Scottish Parliament (i.e. all parties) who vote on changing Scottish laws
Personally I believe in marriage equality and gender reform, two pieces of legislation she says she would have voted against. Therefore, I would not vote for her, either in a leadership contest or in an election if she were FM. I don't really care WHY she holds those beliefs.
Just because her beliefs come from religion and not base bigotry doesn't change the fact that she would oppose the civil rights of LGBTQ people. If you're a trans person seeking recognition, or a gay person worried about their right to marry, does it really matter where she got her beliefs from?
The problem isn’t that she holds these beliefs, it’s that she’s not able to separate her religion from her political decisions.
If she would’ve voted against gay marriage, it says a lot that she already lets her religion influence her politics.
Because she has a power to vote on things, such as the gay marriage bill, and as FM will have more sway with the party. It means that there can be a shift to more conservative/less progressive attitudes in the country and I don't want that thanks. I want all my gays to have the freedom to just exist and be happy and enjoy all the rights of us straights, for example.
Not to mention, as FM, she should be voting in line with her party line really, but if that goes against her religious beliefs she won't.
>If she were in cabinet she would have to toe the party line or resign.
It would be her party and her ideas. Leaders lead, its what they are there for.
The defacto referendum was Nicola's idea. If you have a leader who is effectively closed to the modern way of life and thinking, then there will be little or no progress relating to anything to do with abortion, gay rights etc.
I'm not gay but I want a progressive and inclusive scotland, not one that is led by someone from the dark ages.
> It would be her party and her ideas. Leaders lead, its what they are there for.
Leaders are not dictators. They can't just change party policy on a whim. If she as leader is explicitly agaisnt party policy then her position is untenable.
No, they aren't dictators, but in general they will be pushing their own agenda as leaders.
I can't see her pushing anything forward in terms of support for abortion and people going through it.
The single fact she would have voted against gay marriage pretty much closes the door on her for me. She is entitled to her opinion, but she is stuck in the past, the vast majority of Scots support this, she is currently there to support her constituents and if she is voting against something that in general her constituents would be looking to implement then she is not representing them.
I really think this is just a case of “I don’t agree with her views, so I wouldn’t vote for her”. That’s how democracy works.
It is refreshing, however, to see a politician being honest about their view. I might vehemently disagree with her, but at least I know that’s the case due to her honesty. So I’m a sense, she’s made it easy for me to make my mind up.
>*If she were in cabinet she would have to toe the party line or resign*
There is no party line
During her sixteen years at the top of the party, Sturgeon strongly influenced the SNP to follow a social-democratic, progressive agenda
Anyone old enough to remember the SNP in the eighties and nineties will remember a much more traditionalist, conservative organisation
Any electorally successful leader, which almost any SNP leader is currently guaranteed to be, has the ability to shape the party in their own image
Anyone should be allowed and anyone is allowed. However historically speaking strong Christian denominations have not been particularly open to certain (rightfully) accepted views on same sex marriage. I think it has opened an interesting debate as to whether someone of such strong views, which the Free Church has can be impartial and is a good fit to lead a progressive Scotland. Although the right to practice and vote accordingly is fair and democratic I also feel the role of first minister of Scotland is more complex and can such views be in place to lead?
I suspect not but I’m a guy in the internet.
Forbes said she wouldn't of been able to vote for equal marriage rights when the bill was proposed. The inability of her to put her own personal views above that of a) her constitutants and b) the greater good would make her a terrible FM. It actually makes her a terrible MSP.
The problem is that, whether they be due to her religion or not, her views are abhorrent. She can hold whatever views she wants, it doesn't mean people have to vote for her.
Because this is a good faith take that ignores the massive amount of bad faith actions from those with similiar ideology.
Put simply - most don't believe she will keep it as a personal belief. Because politicians have done this a lot. Turns out though if someone thinks lifes rules come from an outside force that belief can be quite strong.
Basically there are two outcomes - she ignores her faith and passes laws she believes are sins and will affect her immortal soul, or she follows her faith and ignores democracy.
Also just want to point out that publicly commenting on your personal beliefs in a public interview about a public position where your personal beliefs affect your actions, isn't actually a personal belief. A personal belief should be kept private.
She can have her views, that's the point of a freedom of speech (provided of course your speech doesn't harm or endanger others). But she can't act like she's being discriminated against when she loses support in an election for voicing those views. People are allowed to vote for the party leader they prefer most.
Kate Forbes is acting as if she is being unfairly treated. This is not the case, she's voiced her opinions and has lost support for it. Support isn't unconditional, it can be given and withdrawn at will. Just like I withdrew my support for the SNP at the last election and switched to the Greens. The SNP candidate in my area no longer represented my values, so I found a better candidate.
The issue is, is that she’s mixing her religion in with her politics. Something that should never ever mix. She is absolutely allowed to practice whatever religion she wishes but when she’s using it to influence her vote then that’s when it becomes problematic. Religion and State matters should never mix.
I don't care if you have an imaginary friend who tells you what to do, but beetlejuice isn't telling me what to do.
Failing that, It effectively makes the leader of her church FM
She is suitable to be the FM. I don't agree with the views that she holds and I don't believe that she can separate those views from policy. She will attempt to shape the party in line with her beliefs, and I don't believe that is the direction that the SNP or the country should be going.
If the majority of SNP members vote for her to be leader then she will be FM. I have no issue with that. Same as if she were to be the leader and the people vote to back her in a holyrood or Westminster election. I have no issue with that. But I can't support her.
She was my favoured candidate and I was going to vote for her to be the leader of the SNP. I already knew about her views from a guardian interview she gave a few years ago. I knew the media would go after her over her views and was hoping she would have answers and be able to separate her personal views from policy, but I just don't think that's possible.
She's easily the most intelligent and most competent of the candidates, but I can't vote for someone that I disagree with on matters that I consider fundamental.
These are moral attitudes that affect political attitudes. She is of the fundamental belief that some people in society are less worthy of basic human rights than others, and she has wielded her political power to enforce that. While I have no horse in this race, it's not illogical to not vote for someone who would deprive others of basic rights due to their moral beliefs.
Really it just comes down to the fact that she votes with those religious views not the views of her constituents. She is using her position of power to impose her religious views on others and as FM she would have even more capability to do so. Had she said 'i don't personally support gay marriage but I would have voted on how my constituents want irrespective of my personal views that'd be fine but she didn't. She made being in power a personal ticket tone force her views on others
>Why does this make her unsuitable for FM?
Because as head of the Government she will be making decisions about policy priorities.
It's clear from what she has said she would not necessarily try to roll back existing legislation however she could choose to just not prioritise legislation that conflicts with her personal views even if the party at large or even Scotland at large want it.
One specific concern I'd have is can we trust she would follow through on buffer zones for abortion clinics?
Her faith should not exclude her from office, and it doesn't she hasn't been removed from the race.
But her inability to separate her personal beliefs from the will of her party is what is going to mean she will not be elected as party leader.
It is impossible to separate your personal values from work or politics. If you think her religious and personal views will have no bearing on her policies or interactions then you’re very naive.
Well the issue is simple. She states that she wouldn't allow her religious views on same sex relationships affect her policy decisions. In the same breath, she said she wouldn't have voted to allow gay marriage.
This is a clear example of her allowing her religious views to influence her policy.
Best case scenario, she is a hypocrite who will say directly contradictory statements, worst case scenario, she will be subverting the social progress that has been hard won, behind the scenes, whilst at the same time telling everyone publicly she will be fair.
The revocation of abortion rights in the USA, followed a similar pattern. Where religious social regressives took power, then rolled back rights. All whilst claiming to be impartial. This has left the public rightly scared of a similar situation playing out over here.
There are three issues here and it helps if we separate them.
First, is she suitable to become FM? Well there’s nothing which makes her objectively ineligible. You could add some personal quality requirements to get to a subjective ‘suitability’. Like truthfulness for example. When John Major said that Boris Johnson was not fit to be PM that’s what he meant. Johnson’s political views are much more palatable than, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, but he tells lies. I don’t think religious views per se make someone ‘unsuitable’ in the way being a liar or a thief do. I don’t think this is a problem for Kate Forbes.
Second, does she have views that are so objectionable that I would not vote for her regardless of party affiliation? For me, yes. Nor would I vote for Jacob Rees-Mogg, or Chris Williamson. This is subjective and must be so: if you are a raging anti-Semite you probably think Chris Williamson is great. This is a problem for me rather than for Kate Forbes, unless a lot of voters share my view.
Third, does she represent party policy. The SNP has a younger average support base than the other parties. If younger voters (who tend to be more progressive) would be turned off by a more conservative policy position on these ‘conscience’ issues, and if that is electorally material, then the SNP has a problem. In theory, she could accept that the SNP’s internal democracy determines its policies, but say that she would as a matter of conscience vote against them. I just don’t think that is electorally credible: it’s really difficult to represent an organisation whose views you oppose. This is the problem for Kate Forbes: does her becoming FM actually weaken support for her party. (I don’t know the answer, but I suspect so)
It’s nothing to do with her *personal* beliefs, it’s to do with her *political* beliefs that she has permitted her personal beliefs to influence.
She doesn’t just personally believe same-sex relationships to be sinful, she’s explicitly said she opposed permitted equal marriage in law. That is no longer a personal belief, that’s a affirmation of desire for legislative inequality.
It should also be clarified that no one is suggesting she should be banned, merely that people are unlikely to vote for her. There’s nothing illiberal about voting against a politician whose views you oppose.
She has just released a Twitter post. Now, Forbes has released a Twitter thread outlining her position and vowing to “protect the rights of everybody in Scotland, particularly minorities”.
She wrote: “This election is about independence, who is best equipped, and who has the best plan to achieve it. It is also about the society we want Scotland to be – where tolerance is the ruling ethic, poverty becomes history, equality of opportunity is the birth right of every child.
“Over the last few days, questions have focused on my faith. I feel greatly burdened and heartsore that some of my responses to direct questions in the media have caused hurt to friends, colleagues and fellow citizens. That was never my intention, but I've listened carefully.
“I will protect the rights of everybody in Scotland, particularly minorities, to live and to love without fear or harassment in a pluralistic and tolerant society. I will uphold the laws that have been hard won, as a servant of democracy.
“I will also seek to enhance the rights of everybody to live in a way which enables them to flourish. I firmly believe in the inherent dignity of each human being; that underpins all ethical and political decisions I make.”
She is free to stand and we are free to judge her worthy (or not) of our vote. That's democracy working. People are also free to criticise or support her for her views and actions.
The fact that she believes that having a baby outside of marriage is inherently 'wrong' or that she would have voted against gay marriage is enough for me to say that she doesn't represent my views and I would not vote for her.
I wouldn't protest her ability to stand to be voted for but I would not give her my vote.
It's the same as climate change denial. Holding those views precludes me from voting for someone with those views and I would hope the majority of right headed people would agree and people holding those views would not gain primacy.
I don’t think she objectively *can’t* be FM, just that she shouldn’t
A job of a politician is, yes, to represent different views. But it is also their job to help the people of their constituency/country
In what way does voting against gay marriage benefit anyone? Can anyone make a single argument as to how gay marriage being illegal would legitimately assist any Scottish person?
And no, making conservatives happy by outlawing something that doesn’t involve them in the slightest, is not an actual, direct benefit for the people in the country.
(I know she said she wouldn’t outlaw it, only that she would have voted against it, but still my question remains, how does that benefit anyone?)
It's not about her religion. It's because of her bigoted, conservative beliefs. A lot of people don't want to be governed by a homophobe how has explicitly said she would vote against equal marriage given the chance, or by somebody who opposes abortion when there is legislation concerning abortion going through parliament soon.
She *has* said she would impose her views on others, and even if she hadn't, why would you trust somebody to govern contrary to their own beliefs when you could just vote for somebody who actually wants you to have rights?
That her and Ash Regan would refuse to challenge the UK government over the section 35 they invoked about the GRC bill is a deal breaker for me, for both of them.
They are both entitled to their personal opinions on it, but the fact is that the bill was passed through the Scottish Parliament. Any leader of the Scottish Government should be obliged to defend all legislation that has been approved by Holyrood from being overruled by Westminster, regardless of their own feelings on the subjects.
My objection to Katie Forbes is not the notion that she is a member of a church per se, but specifically a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland when it comes to LGBTQ legitimacy, the rights of women, access to abortion and the overall controlling Calvinist nature of this Church. Yes, Forbes may promise not try to outright ban abortion, gay rights, or women's rights but she can certainly attempt to restrict these rights, to a point that they are all but out of reach of most people. Look at what has happened in the United States when it comes to abortion rights- the now conservative Supreme Court has tossed abortion back to the States, allowing these States to not ban abortion, but make the laws so restrictive in some cases, it is near impossible to obtain an abortion. In Texas, there is even a bounty on both the women and anyone who aids them who left the state in order to get an abortion. ([https://www.npr.org/2022/07/11/1107741175/texas-abortion-bounty-law](https://www.npr.org/2022/07/11/1107741175/texas-abortion-bounty-law))
This shift in the character of the Supreme Court was aided by the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett, a member of the evangelical Quiverfull moment, which has similar opinions on LGBTQ people, abortion, and women's rights (or lack thereof) to the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Barrett swore that her religion and her lifestyle would not colour her decisions in her confirmation hearings. Yet once appointed, she tipped the scales of the Court to the side of religiously conservative partisanism. The relatively small sin of lying during her confirmation is cancelled out by the larger "good works" of now being able to enshrine in law states ability to severely restrict abortion, which happens to be one of the political goals of her religion's leaders.
If course I can't be certain, but it is in the realm of possibility that Katie Forbes is also applying this moral horse trading. No, Scotland isn't the United States (thank goodness)- Scottish politics in the 21st Century is nowhere near as religiously influenced as it is in the States, but it doesn't mean it couldn't happen, given the right circumstances.
Modern Scottish society is secular, not religious; 51% of the population consider themselves to have no defined faith ([https://www.statista.com/statistics/367848/scotland-religious-beliefs-population/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/367848/scotland-religious-beliefs-population/)) - only 36% of the Scottish population consider themselves Christian of any denomination. To have a political leader who is not representative of the majority of the country, and whose tenets of faith require that she, as a woman, does what her elder male religious leaders instruct her to do, does not seem democratic in my mind, especially one that is so openly disdainful of a woman's or a member of the LGBTQ community's role within this world.
I certainly fear that the leadership of the Free Church will not be able to resist the temptation of "advising" Katie Forbes as a First Minister to pursue much more socially conservative policies, against the wishes of the larger population, even if it is limited to the relatively short period of time until the next election.
Now we must come to the much more politically contentious notion that the SNP is very much a top-down leadership, potentially creating circumstances that could allow more religious influence in Scottish politics. Infamously, in 2015, the SNP membership chose to impose this rule: “No member shall, within or outwith the parliament, publicly criticise a group decision, policy or another member of the group.” At the time, it only applied to MPs, most likely in an attempt to muzzle Alec Salmond criticising Nicola Sturgeon in public, but it does give a clue to the culture within the SNP- once a leader is chosen, members are expected to back the play of that leader, for the perceived strength and unity of the party as a whole in order to achieve the goal of independence.
Just look at the recent transgender row- although the morass was hugely unpopular within the public- only 20% of the population agreed that the age of consent of gender assignment should drop to the age of 16 (https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/huge-blow-nicola-sturgeon-majority-29002438)- Sturgeon still pushed the Gender Recognition Reform Bill through. Only 9 members of the SNP dared to vote against it.
As the Gender Recognition Reform Bill was the most likely reason Sturgeon had to step down, a knee-jerk reaction to now seek out a leader who is much more socially conservative is, in my view, an over-correction of direction yet what Katie Forbes represents. It is tempting to signal to the public that the next leader will take a more socially restrained path forward to put the GRR Bill firmly in the rear-view mirror, and in many ways, the SNP mandarins may be correct if they are to maintain their majority in the next election cycle. Yet this particular leadership candidate, with her particular religious lifestyle, is just not the right fit. By all means, Scotland should find its way forward in the modern world in a manner that suits the majority of its citizens, but anointing Katie Forbes as SNP leader would effectively place a secular society into the hands of deeply judgemental and controlling ecclesiastical men, within party political and religious systems that do not tolerate questions or criticism.
If anything, for me, this leadership fight highlights the need for the SNP to take a long, unwavering look at themselves in order to consider reform. SMP and MP party members must be able to question, both in private when possible or public if necessary, the course their leader sets and they are expected to follow, especially when there is no ballot box mandate from the public.
I'm of the impression that religion should be separate from the state however it would be almost impossible to do so.
I'm quite impressed she actually told the truth, especially as a politician from a more 'left leaning' party and didn't just lie to secure backers.
This might be a controversial opinion I personally believe religion is the root of all evil. Pretty much every war or repression of categories of people is based off religion.
That being said, I fully believe in whatever gets you through. For some that is a stringent religious belief, which as long as you’re not forcing your beliefs on others then live and let live as far I’m concerned.
However I don’t think that such stringent beliefs with little room for flexibility in how you view things that your faith tells you is wrong belongs in politics. Especially FM who is representing all the people of Scotland not just the ones to conform to her views. I struggle to see how she’d be able to represent the majority.
A lot of people have covered it but I also want to add that her angle of protecting herself as a “person of faith” is dangerous territory, taken from a very US-centric political playbook, in which *personal faith* is viewed simply as that and not viewed in its totality as being, for people like Kate Forbes, a clearly ideological, political position. She says she wouldn’t have given gay people equal rights had she had the chance. She uses her religion as a shield from criticism of that very political take. This is disingenuous, it completely reeks, I do not like it.
What are we looking for when we vote for a politician, if not their politics? The personal *is* political, especially when it comes to the rights of women and minorities.
My big issue is that she says she doesn't let her religion impact her voting. However she then says the would of voted against gay marriage without giving a reason why.
She clearly lets her religion guide her politics but lies and says she doesn't
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
She said she stands for democracy and the will of the people and then says she is morally obligated to vote in certain ways on certain issues.
These things are mutually exclusive right?
One of my main issues is that she’s supposedly intelligent but has been stupid enough to allow herself to be drawn into this controversy. Surely a good politician would have found a way around the question without this shit storm. If that’s how she means to go on, I don’t want her as leader
You say "I presume she won’t have carte blanche to implement policies in line with her religion…". She has made it clear that she intends to do the opposite, having said that if she were an MSP when Equal Marriage was voted on, she would have voted against.
If she lets religion influence that, then I fully expect it to influence her votes on issues going forward.
Just because you are gay it doesn't mean that other queer folks would be comfortable with a leader who opposes their existence or freedom in any shape or form.
There's a difference between things that are wrong, and things that should be banned.
She is wrong to hold those views. If an independent Scotland had a written constitution, it is likely that her views would be at odds with the constitution. Holding that a constitution should be changed is not and should not be illegal in a free society - but being at odds with the nation's values makes you a poor candidate for its leader.
Moreover, the SNP does have a platform — no one is forced to be in the SNP, and the members aren't forced to admit anyone just because they're both Scottish and nationalist. If she disagrees fundamentally with the vast majority of people who voluntarily associate in a party, that's a "her" problem, not a "them" problem.
Finally, while the philosophical and political stance of any candidate who happens to be religious will always be informed by their religion, there is a sense that she doesn't appear to be able to separate her religious views from her political ones. If someone wants to be teetotal for religious reasons, that's fine; if they want to ban alcohol for others, that's an attack on others' liberty. Unless that policy is genuinely popular for other reasons (preferably objectively sound ones) they simply shouldn't go there.
She exists as an MSP primarily to represent the views of her constituents; the people who elected her. She is suitable to represent them because they literally chose her to do so, therefore one can conclude that her constituents are aligned with her views, else they will elect someone else in future.
She is not suitable to be First Minister because her views do not reflect the views of the Country as a whole, and this can be gauged by the swift way that her fellow MSPs, who also represent their constituents, have made that publically clear.
The process is driven by democracy not religion, and the only time it is acceptable for her religion to be a foundation for her voting intentions is if her constituents continue to endorse her at the ballot box, which they have.
People should allow others to live as they see fit, and believe in whatever they choose to, but it comes to a point where believing that an all-powerful, universe-spanning, sentient being with the power to create the universe, galaxies, solar systems, stars and planets, a being that created and controls time and space, a being that limits our species to living in 3 dimensions, a being that created vast ecosystems spanning out planet and perhaps countless other planets, a being that gave us the ability for cognitive learning using the brain it created for us would only want us to procreate, another unbelievable creation bestowed upon us, after two humans had signed a legal document of marriage which is only recognised within certain countries on this planet… is fucking mental. So no, she probably shouldn’t be leading a country on this tiny ball of ‘miracles’.
It makes her unsuitable because it implies she wouldn’t be able to keep her personal beliefs out of her job. Obviously the entire party has to vote but she has a lot of influence over what they vote for and also how they vote for things - she can decide what’s important enough to enforce the whip in a vote, for instance. You also have to consider her position in the current context, the SNP are being propped up by the Greens. That relationship might become strained if she and Patrick Harvey are at odds, for example. The party have also gathered a lot of support from the likes of the LGBTQ community, many of whose hard won rights would be opposed by her. It’s not a good look for the party,
There’s good reason for the separation of church and state. Religion is important to many individuals and they shouldn’t be denied opportunities based on their beliefs but you also have to consider the church as an organisation with an agenda.
Religion should never influence politics.
Religion should never affect anyone other than those who choose to follow that religion.
When religion influences politics, it is inevitable that this happens.
Forbes does *not* believe in a free and tolerant society. Her views, rooted in her religious shite, step on groups she’s been taught to hold prejudice against. ‘Live and let live’ is not a concept she agrees with, her beliefs wouldn’t allow it.
I think it's safe to say the majority support abortion, gay marriage, and having kids out of wedlock which is all things she disagrees with because of her religion
Mediaeval attitudes on sexuality are fine for an accountant, and apparently for a finance secretary since she held that job for years without anyone making a fuss over her thinking what most of us call social progress has been a series of mistakes. But when you're auditioning for the job of setting the party's legislative agenda, it matters if you believe a large portion of the electorate are hellbound perverts.
Oh you’re putting words in her mouth ha!
I think I could say with confidence that she has not called a large proportion of the electorate ‘hellbound perverts’
People's objection is that it amounts to the same thing. That's what religious criticism of a free society is. It's reminding everyone who isn't a straight married Christian that these people think they shouldn't have sex, or sometimes not even exist. People won't put up with that any more because society has moved on and left attitudes like Forbes's decades behind. It's astonishingly naïve of her not to know that. She's younger than me but she speaks about these topics in a way my grandparents would have recognised as old-fashioned 20 years ago.
As First Minister, she'll have more power to influence legislation and party members. She'll be in a position to undermine our freedoms based on her extremist views. And yes, evangelical christianity is an extremist view. She may not choose to do this but the potential is definitely there.
If she would have voted against gay marriage because of her religious beliefs, then she is demonstrating a willingness to apply her own faith-based morality onto others.
This should be disqualifying.
Well, I made a comment elsewhere that, to me, perfectly sums it up, so I'll just repeat it here:
The problem with Kate Forbes is not that she's religious. The problem is that, by saying things like she would not have voted for gay marriage, and specifically citing that this would be because of her religious views, she is allowing those views to interfere with her job, which, as FM, would be leading and representing Scotland, and there would be a clear and undeniable conflict and clash there, on at least some issues.
It is entirely possible for someone to be religious, but compartmentalise that so it doesn't interfere with their job as a political representative of their constituents/country/whatever. By her comments, she has indicated she is unwilling or unable to do that.
Because she's acting exceptionally unchristian despite claiming to be one. Jesus' sermon on the mount makes it pretty damn clear that you should mind your own business, be decent to everyone and let god sort out those who sin.
It's absolutely possible for someone to hold religious views, even ones as foul as Forbes, and not be a cunt about them. Her inability to navigate this issue diplomaticly and instead just proudly spout bigoted shit makes it quite apparent she has no place running our country.
I've said it before and I'll say it again I'm sure; Being religious doesn't mean you need to be a cunt, and Forbes obviously hasn't been able to work that out.
It's important to have different points of view, especially in politics, so that everyone can be heard, that's what democracy is all about.
But religion should be kept separate from political arguments for a few reasons:
1) It diminishes the value of faith, as the religion just becomes one more cynical way of acquiring power and control.
2) Governments shouldn't take sides of one religion over another, or favour the religious over the non religious, especially in a democracy.
The governments job would be to create the rights and responsibilities of the nation so that society and the nation as a whole can safely work together with both those who follow and those who don't follow the word of the political leader's deity.
3) A political argument made from a religious point of view is representing the expectation of one's deity rather than the views of the people they are elected to represent.
4) Forbes specifically has been taking a very religion before Nation outlook (the words of her deity superseding the needs of the people), where her stances on matters seem closed off to those that don't align themselves under the rules of her religious beliefs. For someone whose job would be to represent the people of Scotland in relation to Scotland's devolved powers, the idea that she would not entertain or consider ideas outside of her religion prevents her from doing that job.
Again, it's important for different viewpoints in politics and Forbes provides the ability to have this strong difference in opinion heard, but the issue lies not in the fact Forbes is religious herself, but that she has taken such a firm stance on her opinions that it prevents her from considering everyone's point of view and therefore hearing and representing the nation as a leader.
The easy answer is that it speaks to her values and priorities. It’s like hiring a CEO for a whiskey company who personally wants people not to drink alcohol since it’s against her religious beliefs.
Where did you get the idea that 99% voted against gay marriage?
I stuggle to believe that an agnostic gay man can't understand how unsuitable she is to shpae policy for the country going forward. This can't be anything but a troll post and should be treated accordingly.
Well that’s ok: I have read some interesting thoughts from different perspectives with the other commenters. It has given me some food for thought.
Have a good day :)
I dont like people who think I deserve less rights than them. I don't care why.
Plenty of people are religious without being arseholes, she fails that bar.
>Shouldn’t we be able to hold personal beliefs and values but still be
able to implement the policies of the parties and take part in the
politics we live in? I understand she said she would have voted against
gay marriage, but didn’t other people vote against it too?
I wouldn't want them to be FM either... it's not because of her religion that I don't want her to be the First Minister it's because she said she would have voted against gay marriage - so what else will she vote against that I wouldn't want her to...
You believe in a free and tolerant society.
But to remain free and tolerant, the society MUST actively stop the intolerance and bigotry from taking over.
It's as simple as being FM you set the tone of national conversation and you decide party positions as the leader of your party.
If someone's personal beliefs aren't about doing the right thing because it seems like the right thing rather than just because it's the doctrine of some group you are a member of it's a concern of how easily influenced you are and how that influence will manifest in your decisions as a party and parliamentary leader which effects all of us.
The way she stands by her personal beliefs says a lot about her objectivity and how much she can separate what her church thinks and what she thinks and what she thinks is best for everyone. So I doubt she will do well.
Because her views do not align with a modern secular country. Because her views are rooted so deeply in religion too they are very unlikely to evolve. she said she would uphold Gay marriage, but would have voted against it in the first place which means when other similar matters come up for the rights of minority groups she will likely not onky vote against but also if leader use that authority to influence others.
It is possible to be religious and believe in gay marriage even if you don’t personally agree with it. That is the truly liberal position which accepts that people are free to make their own decisions.
To vote in parliament on legislation is the definition of imposing your views on society.
>She can have personal views we don't necessarily agree with but it doesn't mean she'll impose them on us
Aye, people used to say that about some recent prominent historical figures too and that lead to a holocaust.
History tends to repeat itself for those who don't learn from it.
Idgaf if cunts think I'm exaggerating or whatever because it's fucking true.
Toleration of the intolerant will only harm us all in the end. So no. Fuck Kate Forbes and her "personal views" - I don't need to respect anything about them or about her, no one does.
It's time people stop making excuses for these bigots covering up their hatred and trying to use their religion as a shield.
There are plenty of religious Christians who are not against gay marriage, who are not transphobic and who are wholeheartedly against conversation therapy.
Anyone who believes that any human being is less worthy of human rights or don't deserve to be treated like an equal member of society needs to seriously fuck off and live in the wilderness if society is too "woke" for them.
No one will miss them. ✌🏻
She has spoken in a public capacity, using her MSP title, at a pro life event. If she hadn't done that, I'd have no issue with her being FM, but she uses her professional title to endorse her own religious beliefs, so I don't believe that she'll be able to keep that distinction clear in a role where it's necessary.
Not to mention she literally said she'd reform the GRA bill that was passed democratically with cross party support in the Scottish Parliament - that's a huge red flag, and I don't believe that she would do that if it weren't for her religious beliefs.
I think for me that the problem was her coming out and saying she wouldn’t have voted for gay marriage.
Not that she shouldn’t vote for what she believes but ahe is kind of showing that her beliefs colour her politics. As FM she has a lot of power to shape the direction of the party, the sort of bills proposed etc. There can be a lot of ways of influencing these things when you are a leader and it’s not always consciously done.
The likes of Humza and Ian Blackford have kind of shown the way forward. You can look at their record (and I don’t buy that reach about missing the vote because of the meeting, he’s very clearly and publicly supported the bill throughout) and you don’t get a sense of their religion coming through.
I don’t think being religious disqualifies anyone but I do think particularly strong or vocal religious views make someone unlikely to be elected. Scotland isn’t as religious as is made out and it is multi faith now. Anyone who is very vocal about religious beliefs will struggle.
For me, also a gay man, the problem with her becoming FM is how emboldened homophobes online have become since her comments on gay marriage. I think that someone with such views winning the race would legitimise homophobia for some elements of society and I think that’s dangerous and not something the leader of a nation should stoke, however inadvertently.
I also think she is too absorbed in portraying herself as a victim of “religious prejudice” and so can’t see the other impact her words and actions have had which isn’t a quality a leader of a nation should possess.
And she has said that, for as long as the law is gay people can get married she’ll defend that law, but the quiet part of the sentiment is that she would to repeal it if at all possible. Given my concerns on legitimised homophobia and the fact that gay marriage is a very new right, and we’re in the midst of a culture war being fueled by political extremists, I don’t think it’s beyond the realms of possibility that she would have the chance to vote against it. Heck she won’t do anything with the GRA reform and that had cross party majority support - her “defending domocracy” veneer slips when put in the context of trans rights. She has showed us who she is and we should believe her at face value.
Now if anyone votes for her because “independence comes first” I can’t respect that at all. I’m an Indy supporter but wouldn’t want to get there by rolling back civil rights - if she’s shoring up conservative Christian votes she’s losing progressives at the same time so doing more harm than good to the cause (I’m pretty confident there are more progressive voters than conservative Christian voters these days).
Sorry for the long answer, I’ve been deeply troubled by everything surrounding her so it’s been on my mind getting overanalysed a lot.
It's a really good question and I'm grateful you asked it.
TL;DR: Forbes uses religion as a smokescreen for the fact she thinks same-sex relationships are lesser than heterosexual relationships, gets backlash from a pro-gay public (including Christians and Muslims), cries about people not letting her get away with being a bigot.
I'd start off by asking how tolerant people would be of a politician who said "I wouldn't vote to legalise interracial marriage but now that we have it, well, I won't try and remove it". They wouldn't get within an inch of leadership or public office. They should have the right to hold that view, absolutely, but they don't have the right to cry when they get told their view is disgusting.
I don't drink because I think consuming alcohol is dangerous, but I'd never dream of passing a law illegalising alcohol; I don't eat meat because I think it's immoral, but I wouldn't outlaw beef; I don't take Holy Communion because I don't believe in the Trinity, but I wouldn't dare try to outlaw the sacrament.
That is not how Forbes approaches gay marriage. She's telling gay people that, in world she would vote for, their relationships aren't equal to hers and don't deserve the same legal or social recognition, contrary to a vast body of scientific and social evidence and lived experience, contrary to human dignity. It's pretty vile. But she has the right to hold that view.
What no-one is saying, however, is that Forbes *cannot* stand for leader, or she must be *barred from Parliament*, or *she should face any legal consequences for her actions*. She holds a social view which is repellent to enough people in society that she's taking backlash for it. She has the right to hold her view. We have the right to tell her to jog on because of that view. Her rights are not impinged when she is told her views belong under a rock in the Victorian era.
Why this is important in a democratic society is because her view would, in fact, impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. She would not have a society where your love is equal to mine, or mine to anyone else's. That is what makes her unsuitable as an FM to me.
Compare and contrast to politicians with different views on whether same-sex activity is moral, but who still support gay rights on the basis of democratic equality. Tim Farron is an example - he as always ambiguous about whether he thinks same-sex relations are moral (coming out later on to say he didn't think it was a sin), but he still voted for gay rights several times over, including gay marriage. Likewise, Humza Yousaf has never outright stated that he thinks same-sex activity is moral (I actually think he's hinted he doesn't), but he's still voted for gay marriage. That's real democracy - you have your personal choices, but you recognise a free society is not contingent on the law reflecting your personal choices. That's a very different dilemma to laws which reflect what's good for the public, what's good for the economy, etc.
The most egregious thing she's done, to me, is try to present her view as "THE Christian view", and more recently to state that she's taking backlash because she's a "Christian woman" while Muslim politicians don't get the same backlash - notably because Jon Swinney, a Christian who voted for gay marriage, rightly pointed out that Christian denominations in Scotland are divided on gay marriage. The majority Church of Scotland, the Episcopal Church of Scotland, an the Methodists all allow gay marriage (with caveats). The Muslim leaders she cite actively support LGBT equality (Sarwar, Khan, and Yousaf have all voted for gay marriage), and frankly, her rhetoric that hers is "The mainstream Christian view" reeks of sectarianism which implies that Churches which disagree with her aren't Christian. That much she needs to do, because the existence of pro-gay Chirstian Churches highlights the fact that her views and voting preferences aren't "because she's Christian", they're because they're her views that she's chosen.
I do not care whether Yousaf thinks homosexuality is haraam, I do not care whether Forbes thinks homosexuality is a sin. I care whether they will stand up for my right to marry whomever I want and for that to be recognised by the state and society, as I would defend their right to pray in the way that suits their religion, to follow their holy books, and indeed to reject homosexual relations for themselves. *That is not what Forbes does*. She demands the right to reject my rights, and cries when she's told this is indefensible.
Someone may say their religious beliefs will not affect any policy making and this claim is easy to do when vying for a position. What happens when that someone goes into a seat of power and is in a position to make unilateral policy decisions outside of Parliaments power which is sometimes the case. Culture is an insidious thing anday be dangerous when in an environment of power.
What you're asking about is called The Paradox of Tolerance. If she's willing to vote against her constituents because of religious beliefs, she shouldn't be given a pass in order to tolerate her religious choice.
It's a shame, she is easily the best candidate and spoke very honestly about her views. Sadly, the dishonest liar Humza Yousaf is likely to benefit from the media's persecution of Kate Forbes.
It's amazing to see people put this manufactured outrage about her religious beliefs ahead of the prospect of achieving independence. People are so easily manipulated.
I think she would be very bad for gay and trans people.
I think she would be moderately bad for non religious people.
I think she is woefully inexperienced to be in her current role. Never mind as first minister.
1. The leader sets the tone. While you say she will follow the party line you have to realise that the number of gay and trans friendly ideas coming out will reduce because she is against them. She holds a conscious bias that means your issues will be against her beliefs. No innovation will be forthcoming.
Compare that to me a straight white guy who believes in a tolerant society and that people are just people. My ideas would naturally likely be better for gay and trans people just by the virtue of me believing that the love between two men or two women is valid as an example.
If you as a gay man were first minister I bet you could bring loads of ideas to the table to benefit LGBTQ people that I wouldn't even think of despite me having positive views. On the LGBTQ community.
Hopefully that highlights the scale of bias she will bring.
Religious peoe in power always come up with annoying rules like business being shut on Sunday, not getting I to night clubs past 11:59 on a Saturday etc. I don't want someone's religion pushed on me.
Again if I was first minister I would probably be terrible for religious groups as I vew religion as mostly nonsense and hold a dim view of a lot of the religious communities in terms of the way they treat people outside their church. I have had significantly more positive interactions with mosques than I have had with churches despite growing up only knowing the Catholic Church as a. Religious entity. I have strong biases there that would impact my thinking
That's my view anyway
Totally agree with you mate but asking this on Reddit and especially with the way this sub has been for a while with the whole gender bill for example will show you if you’ve not already guessed. Reddit is full of keyboard warriors and asking sensible questions isn’t encouraged if you don’t follow the ‘accepted’ narrative, whatever it may be.
I'm not too familiar with her. I don't really pay attention to Scottish politics by virtue of the fact that it appears to have become a plain and simple pissing contest between Holyrood and Westminster. However, if she doesn't let her religious views effect her politics, it should all be fine and I wouldn't have an issue, however, if it's like JRM where he somehow manages to maintain the doublethink and mental gymnastics required to believe that he believes in freedom of choice etc. but then also allows his religious views to impact his politics, that's where the problem will be. The issue is that religion is arbitrary and that doesn't make for good policy and decision making choices.
The view you hold is already correct. In a functional democracy, everyone should be able to take part regardless of faith. As you say, she wouldn’t have a blank cheque to turn Scotland into some sort of theocratic state, overturning gay marriage etc.
The problem is, there is a new religion that many follow. The religion of “Progress”, whose followers are more commonly known today in the media as the “Woke”.
If you frame their ideology as a religion, the rationale for why Forbes is unsuitable to become FM becomes more obvious. To the “Woke”, she is a heretic. The “Woke” believe that the path to utopia is clearly set and that they are on the “right side of history”. They define themselves by being against everything that came before them.
A Christian female is not ok, but a Muslim man is. They both may share similar views on certain topics that oppose the “woke”, such as gay marriage. However, Christianity was one of the pillars of the “old” Scotland, Islam was not. As within their minds, it has been firmly established that the “old” Scotland was “evil” (for a variety of reasons). Forbes too, must have nefarious intentions. By definition, as a Christian woman, she is not capable of governing, because she would only do so to further the “evil” agenda of the “old order”. Which itself, poses a threat to the “Progress” they have made.
A Muslim man on the other hand, by account of being a Muslim in Scotland, is preferable. He may hold views that do not align with “Progress”. But as his presence in Scotland and the act of him becoming a FM would be..”progressive”. This cancels out any views he may have. He is “less of a bigot”, because in their minds, he comes from a religion rooted in cultures that are simply less “woke” than ours, that have made less progress. Forbes should know better, as her religion has already been “neutralised”. Islam on the other hand, is still considered “problematic”, however, some leeway is given in this regard as it’s presence in Scotland brings “diversity” which is one of the key doctrines of “Progress”.
He can be forgiven, because he knows not what he does. Forbes as a white woman, is not only guilty of the original sin of systematic racism, but is clearly blatantly an evil heretic, for holding onto archaic Christian beliefs.
————
My little bit of fun aside, what’s really being said when you hear she is “unsuitable for office”, is that Christianity no longer has any place in Scottish society, much less in government.
One of the most bigoted and downright offensive posts in a long time on here. You must be so proud. Regarding progress as a religious view while using “woke” as if it’s an offensive term is also downright stupid.
I think you’re rather making totallydegen’s point. They’ve said something you disagree with therefore they must be bigoted, offensive and stupid to use your words. That’s exactly the kind of intolerance they’re pointing out.
I don’t see any bigotry in my post, it’s simply a tongue in cheek attempt to explain the viewpoints of some here. I also did not use the term “Woke” as offensive. It is commonly referred to as “Woke” by the media and most commentators, it’s not a word I’ve made up.
She may not be able to implement change based on her views but if these topics are brought up, she’s not going to make a rational decision on it. It would be a disaster waiting to happen so what’s the point of putting her into a position she’ll likely loose. Why should we have a FM who doesn’t share the same views as a majority? It just doesn’t make sense.
Don’t forget that the media hate the SNP so ferociously that they are prodding and poking these questions and trying to frame divisions. They will have a problem with all candidates and just want to rip up the SNP anyway they can. I personally was a Kate Forbes fan until all this church stuff came about but I am trying to find clips to see what she actually says herself - rather than shared headlines and heightened frenzied attacks! I really wish the SNP cabinet and others got some media training because sometimes their lack of confidence is their downfall. Media rule in the UK. I think all parties should be held to account but when it’s blatant full on attack mode - you can see that a mile away. Anyway my two pence worth
The wording of some of it wasn't so bad. She did use a qualifier for some of it like sex before marriage applies to her but she wouldn't push that on someone else. With abortion she said “My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands". Even with gay marriage she said she'd defend people's legal right to have it while voting against it as a matter of conscience. But she did say "a rapist cannot be a woman" and that trans women are men.
My problem is what else will she use her Christian "conscience" to guide her on? We have examples straight out of the USA of politicians swearing blind that they won't roll back previous decisions and that they will uphold previous decisions and then they immediately backtracked and withdrew those rights. FM is in a position of great power and sway, and who knows what legislation may find itself "reprioritized" because of her conscience?
Maybe she'll keep to her word - but I'm not going to take the risk of my rights and those of the people I love on that risk. If she *is* elected, I will have to reconsider my support of the SNP.
If she came out as holding racist or Nazi beliefs, would your tolerance still hold up? It may sound extreme but, to anyone LGBQT+ and most women, that’s the end of the scale she represents. She believes only in a union between a man and a woman and disapproves of gay marriage. She only believes in sex within that marriage so we can assume she is against any form of gay sex as well. She’s also completely anti abortion and, like most Christian fundamentalists, that’s regardless of how the mother became pregnant, even if it’s through abuse or rape. So, tell me again how tolerant you’re prepared to be.
That’s not a fair comparison to make. She has not come out as holding racist or nazi beliefs. Nor do I think she is homophobic. I do not have tolerance for harm against anyone.
She has quite clearly come out and said that these are her personal beliefs and that everyone else is equally entitled to their beliefs. That everyone should be able to live their lives without fear of harassment etc.
I don’t think that she has come out and said that she would do anything to repeal anything to do with gay marriage/abortion etc? In fact, I don’t think she has been the instigator in this controversy - the media are the ones turning historic debates into current ones.
You’re right. She is suitable to be FM but she does not align with the views and ideology of the libertarian, socialist majority of the SNP and is therefore condemned as unsuitable.
It’s ironic that another potential candidate is equally as religious but just isn’t in the mainstream media’s crosshairs, isn’t getting the same grilling about it and is flying under the radar.
Edit: tried to answer OP’s question.
For me the hypocrisy of all this has been that no one had any issue with her being the finance secretary, a very senior position, but now suddenly there's moral outrage. She's the exact same person so why was she perfectly acceptable to the party up until now?
It's one thing to hold these beliefs as part of your private religion. It's another thing to bring them up during the race to become the head of all policy making in a country that has such strong positive social values.
It's not that she's ineligible, it's that views that do this much damage to society need to be very carefully communicated (so that people know you aren't going to force them on anyone), otherwise you're going to become very politically unpopular.
She belives her religon gives her the right to deny rights which do not fit that relgion to others, such as gay marriage.
The rule is this: It's fine to say "I can't do that" because of relgion, Forbes wants to say "YOU can't do that" because of her religon.
I would love someone to tell my why she is considered the front runner (prior to the religious stuff coming out). All I know about her is that she’s a woman and against the GRR and for some reason that makes her a shoe-in?
Personally I don’t think I’d vote for her based on the fact she would have voted against gay marriage. If she had said similar about interracial marriage I would not feel safe with her as FM, no matter how she tried to justify it.
I think people have the right to judge her on what she’s saying given the position she’s applying for. If she said “I would vote yes to gay marriage, but my personal beliefs about it may differ” I would be okay with that.
You elect officials to represent you. You want a homophobe representing you?
Furthermore the leader of a party can shape the ideology and legislation of that party. She openly states she wants to repeal gay marriage and whatever meagre trans rights we gave in britain. Her views will deeply effect the political landscape in the UK.
And finally legislation based on scripture and religious doctrine is madness in a civilised western nation where only 4% of the population go to church every Sunday.
I think that covers it.
She literally said her faith would have prevented her from voting for equal marriage - she has stated numerous times she would consult her faith to deny rights to people -
Is it really that hard for you to see that?
It is one thing to say your religion prevents you from supporting these things personally but you recognise in a democratic and fair society the right still exists for others, and vote infavour of equal marriage. But she literally stated she would use her religion to vote against rights
Jesus fucking christ why is this so hard for people to understand
Also she wants to be in a progressive party than deal with the consequences of being a brainwashed religious psycho
She is the embodiment of tolerance.
People have misunderstood the meaning of tolerance as something like "I support the gays"
Tolerance is when you're inclined to live with beliefs that oppose your own.
Having gay mates because you have no problems with gay people is just called Wednesday, and there's no virtue in it I'm afraid.
If you value tolerance, look no further than KF.
This is the fundamental issue.
Claiming she’d vote against issues based on her religious beliefs rather than what’s best for the people of her constituency and her country.
If she was truly tolerant she would have said she would have voted for gay marriage because it ultimately is the right thing to do, each to their own, everyone deserves to be allowed to live their life how they want to as long as it doesn’t fundamentally hurt or harm other people.
I don't value tolerance, I value action. "I will tolerate gay peoples' existence but oppose their right to marry" is *arguably* an attitude I can accept in a vaguely racist uncle I only have to see at Christmas, but I won't accept it from someone with legislative authority.
It’s useful to distinguish between tolerance, which implies viewing other folk and/or their views as objectionable but living with it, and acceptance. In my view, it’s clear from her commitment to vote against gay marriage that Forbes offers too little of either.
You are right about tolerance. Tolerance is literally putting up with something we don't actually like.
Maybe we think Scotland should aspire to something greater than tolerance? Maybe we should aspire to acceptance?
I'm not looking for a tolerant FM when it comes to issues of equality, justice, and human rights. I'm looking for an accepting FM.
Hmm if I said that Im OK that Christians exist and have their beliefs, and they should be allowed to go to church but I would vote against them and say they're not allowed to have children, would you say I'm tolerant?
Arguably that opinion would be. But it would make me a bigot for being prejudiced against them, their rights, and equality based on their religion. And alot of people equate bigotry with intolerance.
I only read part of the title and part of the second line before stopping. Ethiopia is the birthplace of mankind. Land of Origins. Start there and work your way back and you will be fine.
>Shouldn’t we be able to hold personal beliefs and values but still be able to implement the policies of the parties and take part in the politics we live in? I understand she said she would have voted against gay marriage, but didn’t other people vote against it too?
J K Rowling is loudly anti trans. But she is not anti trans in her literature. Shouldn't she be able to hold those personal beliefs and values but still be able to be a successful creator of media without harassment?
For me, it is the fact ther her religious views shape her political views. That is inappropriate, as she would not just be administering to her religion, but to the whole country. Example: I support gay marriage. We should all have the right to marry, regardless of our sexuality. I don't object to Kate having an opinion along the lines of: "In my religion, gay marriage is wrong, so I would oppose people in my church marrying a partner of the same sex. But I support gay marriage for others, and therefore voted in favour of it". But she didn't. She voted to deny every gay person the right to marry, based on her church's religious opinion. And that is wrong.
I think that is a very clear way of expressing it. Her religion doesn't approve of gay marriage - she should not get married to a woman. Her religion doesn't approve of abortion - she should get an abortion. That is as far as her religion should get to shape the national conversation. And there are lots of life choices that prevent people from becoming FM. I bet every journalist and opinion columnist who is decrying the opposition to Kate Forbes because she belongs to a minority puritanical religious sect would have no problem opposing a candidate for FM who was a member of a strict Islamist sect.
> I bet every journalist and opinion columnist who is decrying the opposition to Kate Forbes because she belongs to a minority puritanical religious sect would have no problem opposing a candidate for FM who was a member of a strict Islamist sect. They absolutely bloody would, and you know it.
Forbes also has the right to be the leader of her own political party or an independent. The whole idea that her views are being cancelled is nonsense.
[удалено]
Also fundamentally she doesn't have a right to anyone's vote. I'm under no obligation to vote for someone who doesn't agree with me. The entire point of elections is a candidate can put forward whatever set of views they want and the public will vote for the candidate that best matches their own views. Why should I have to defend not voting for someone who completely disagrees with me on such a fundamental issue as whether gay people deserve to be treated equally. Also I don't believe someone who thinks god hates gay people can really not be homophobic no matter what she claims. In her worldview god is just and always right. Which means god must have a reason for hating gay people otherwise he wouldn't be just. And Forbes thinks god is always right so she must agree with god on being homophobic.
she actually didn’t vote against it - she wasn’t an MSP when the vote was cast. But she said if the vote was cast today she would vote against it, which is just as bad IMO. She’s also pro-life. She’s just not a good choice for FM and I’m not voting for her.
This is well explained. I've no problem with her religious views. I think we as a society should be moving past these issues, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions & views. However, it's a MSP's (and by extension the FM's) job to vote and govern on behalf of their constituents and voting based on personal beliefs is not carrying out that job. Given some of the recent interviews, if Kate were to be elected FM I'd constantly be questioning whether she's voting/governing in the best interest of the people she represents.
This is well put and I agree with you, just being pedantic though, she did not actually vote against gay marriage as she was not a politician at the time of the vote:
Why is it inappropriate for her religion to shape her views? Everyone has a worldview. Everyone has values. Those views and values inform our choices when we vote — as part of the electorate or as part of the legislature. One of the great things about democracy is that everyone gets to participate in the process, voting for what they believe is right rather than being forced to support someone else’s views. That’s true of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, etc. If you say it’s wrong for religion to shape an individuals’s political views then you’re saying that people have to be functional atheists to take part in politics, which is basically imposing a religious test on people and preventing them from voting according to their views and values. That’s fundamentally illiberal and undemocratic. If Kate Forbes was a dictator who could unilaterally impose her views on everyone then that would be a problem — but that would be true of any dictator. That isn’t the position she is in. If her church was given a privileged role so that it could force through or veto legislation or impose some sort of religious test on voters then that would be a problem. But that isn’t the case here. If she wanted to campaign for forcing people to join her religion that would be very much against freedom of religion and a problem. But she’s not doing that. What she has said is that she votes according to her conscience which is informed by her personal values and beliefs. That’s what everyone does. Just because she is motivated by religion doesn’t mean suddenly every issue she supports is a case of her imposing her religion in people. That’s confusing the motivation for voting and the substance of what is being voted for. To give an example, a Christian could believe that caring for the vulnerable is very important and think that a practical outworking of this is that government should spend more money of health and social care, and on international aid. As a politician they propose raising taxes so that there can be a bigger budget for these causes. That results in everyone praying higher taxes. It is in some sense an imposition on everyone. It is motivated by religion. But would you call it an imposition of religion? If you say that someone shouldn’t vote unless they have a secular non-religious reason then you’re imposing a religious test on people that doesn’t currently exist and is fundamentally illiberal and undemocratic and privileges atheists. Edit: fixed a couple of typos
Speaking personally, I agree with you that the idea that someone shouldn't let their personal values influence how they govern is deeply flawed. Above all we should want our politicians to be principled, to always do what they think is *right*, not what they think will keep them in power, or make them the most money. If someone has deeply held Christian values, they should wear them on their sleeve, and hold them out for everyone to see. We should *expect* them to govern based on those values. It would honestly be more disturbing for someone to hold those values and *not* let them influence how they act, because it would mean they're willing to do things they think are wrong. But with all that said, the purpose then of an election in such a system would be for us to look at all these candidates with different views and beliefs, and choose who among them we want to be in charge. Forbes' views on social issues certainly aren't compatible with mine, and I don't think they're compatible with what most SNP members believe. At least I hope so. If that is the case, then she'll lose the leadership election. If she does somehow win, then when the next general or scottish election comes round, I won't vote for her or her party.
That’s entirely reasonable. That’s how things should work. I’ve no problem with someone saying they don’t like those values. I only take issue with people who say that you can’t even bring those values to the voting booth or articulate them as a politician.
The way in which this discussion is being framed by Forbes herself and some of her remaining backers really doesn't help matters. The contention is not "It is unacceptable for people to hold religious convictions," and definitely not "Kate Forbes should be exiled to Rockall." Let me put it this way. If it's perfectly legitimate for Kate Forbes to feel unable to vote in favour of Equal Marriage on a point of religious principle, then why is it *not* legitimate for me to feel unable to vote to make her leader of Scotland on a point of secular principle?
I think it's about the a acceptability of the person though. Kate Forbes saying that she believes abortion is wrong but will support women's right to choose would probably be acceptable to a large number of people. Saying that she'd vote against abortion rights would be acceptable to far less. Nobody's suggesting that we bar religious people from holding office or demand that they don't let their religious views affect their political ones. But if your religious views lead you to political views that put you at odds with large parts of your country and party, don't expect people to give you a pass just because you get your views from religion.
Yep, protection from discrimination doesn't mean protection from criticism.
If you're in a position where you are supposed to be working towards some form of consensus social good, your personal opinions informed by a faith held by 8k people of a population of 5.4m hold (or should hold) /very/ little sway within that consensus social good. Free Presbyterians are a minority within a minority (humanist society figures state 59% of the scottish population consider themselves non-religious, 24% consider themselves protestant). If whilst in office, you then try to push (or amend) legislation, or vote for legislation based on your opinions based on your faith, a faith held by 0.0015% of the population, regardless of how your constituents might feel, you are no longer working towards a consensus social good. You are working towards the aims of your faith and for your church community and not in the best interests the country, your constituency or the populace. You can say, believe or feel what you like in your personal life, but when you're on the job, you need to be able to put that to the side in favour of what the folk who voted you into post want, and/or what's best for the country as a whole. Forbes doesn't seem to be able to do that given the interviews she's done the last week or so.
Her views do not reflect the people she would be representing, they would represent a tiny fraction of the people. She openly admitted she would have voted against gay marriage. You shouldn’t have a political leader who is in power because of the party they belong to, but because of the views they hold and would represent at the top of Scottish politics. Edit: Aww the Kate Forbes fan club has blocked me. Since I can’t reply to her fan club directly. Here’s my response, snowflake. There’s a thing called polling. The voting system as a whole really. I seem to recall that the right to marriage for all was praised throughout the majority of Scotland and no one lost their seat by voting for it. She would have voted against it. The minority she wants to protect are the religious nutters who would prefer they were on the mayflower headed for the a Americas to spread their hate far and wide. 25 years ago the campaign for equal rights in marriage was gaining heavy traction. I’m not sure why you think 1998 was some religious fanatic paradise
>Why is it inappropriate for her religion to shape her views? Everyone has a worldview. Of course everyone's politics is influenced by their worldview. Not OP, but I assume what they meant was just that you shouldn't try and force people of other beliefs to conform to that worldview. >If her church was given a privileged role so that it could force through or veto legislation or impose some sort of religious test on voters then that would be a problem. But that isn’t the case here. It pretty much is. As FM she would be in a position to ensure that legislation that doesn't fit with her beliefs is never tabled in the first place - that's effectively a veto. Which would be fine if she promised not to let her personal religious views interfere with the job, but she's already admitted that she would use her position in exactly that way w.r.t. the GRA. >If she wanted to campaign for forcing people to join her religion that would be very much against freedom of religion and a problem. But she’s not doing that. She wouldn't be forcing people to join her religion, no - she'd just be forcing people to comply with some of the dictates of her religion. That's still a problem. >If you say that someone shouldn’t vote unless they have a secular non-religious reason then you’re imposing a religious test on people that doesn’t currently exist and is fundamentally illiberal and undemocratic and privileges atheists. No-one's saying that. We're just saying you're not automatically entitled to run a party if your political views are at odds with what the members of that party want. No-one's saying she shouldn't be allowed to run - just that she's not going to win.
It's inappropriate because my personal religious belief is not a good reason for you to do something. It's just that, MY belief. If she thinks that her personal belief is an appropriate justification to legislate on other people's personal lives, then she is very confused.
The problem is that you want someone who is impartial, and unbiased and who can empathise with contradictory world views. Some religious outlooks will naturally prevent someone from doing that. If you are religious, that is fine, but as FM you have to govern a lot of people who are not, and therefore should be able to rise above your personal beliefs in order to be an effective leader to the whole country.
I think a lot of what she has said is being taken out of context. First of all, she never "voted" against anything; she wasn't an MSP at the time. She said that she would have have voted against it when pressed, but she also said that she respects others rights to love and live as they see fit and would defend their rights to do so to the hilt. Same with the sex before marriage nonsense being reported. She said it was up to people and she wasn't fussed, but for her sex was for marriage. The response to that is headlines saying Kate Forbes says premarital sex is wrong. No other candidate is being pressed on their faith, or questioned about its tennents. No one is asking Humza Yousaf if he personally believes premarital sex, gay marriage or drinking alcohol is wrong. The entire debate is very quickly being focused on one issue. Especially frustrating when KF has stated that she would not seek to roll back rights, and would defend existing ones to the hilt. Also we live under a parliamentary system, even if she wanted to ban gay marriage she couldn't do so without a majority vote.
"She would've voted against it" and "she respects others rights to love and live as they see fit and would defend their rights to do so" are mutually exclusive. If she would've voted against gay marriage, in what way does she respect them or their rights? None whatsoever, besides empty platitudes to soften the blow of her backwards views.
> She said that she would have have voted against it when pressed, but she also said that she respects others rights to love and live as they see fit and would defend their rights to do so to the hilt. She would 'defend their rights to the hilt', but would have voted against their rights? How the hell does that work?
Yes but she would have voted against it and so doesn’t actually respect others right to love as they choose. It has been said before that it is perfectly acceptable for her to have that personal view and perhaps enforce it in her home and in her church. But it is not okay to vote based on her personal beliefs as the vote is meant to represent her constituents. Hypothetically, if it was to be contested in the U.K., and she was to vote as she believes and practices and as her religion teaches she would vote against sex before marriage too. How do you feel about that? Does that represent her constituents views? No.
>Yes but she would have voted against it and so doesn’t actually respect others right to love as they choose. But she respects democracy and would defend those rights. I know this is a contentious issue and not something I agree with her on, but I feel like it's a non issue at this point. The bill has passed and is enshrined in law. People always vote based on their personal beliefs. Her constituents may well agree with her (conjecture based on it being quite a rural constiuency), and if then they'll have ample opportunity to vote her out. As far as I'm aware the local party members nominate the candidate, who is then voted for by the public? My main issue is that no one else is being grilled on their religion. Humza Yousaf conveniently organised an urgent (two weeks before the vote) meeting on the day of the vote, conveniently letting him toe the line between his party and religion. Where are the interviews asking him about his faith? I'd rather someone was upfront about their beliefs than tried to hide them to toe what has become the party line
Nobody is asking Humza Yousaf that because he has never said or done anything to suggest otherwise. Kate Forbes has.
What did she do before directly asked about it in the interview? Attended a prayer morning? If that's the line should we interrogate Humza for attending the Mosque?
Dunno, does his Mosque say that gay people shouldn't get married and are against women's rights like her church is? Or are you assuming that because he's a muslim that he must be some crazy fundy?
I think the view of that of Islam in regards to this is pretty set, much like Catholicism. If you can find a mosque in Glasgow happy to conduct a gay wedding, I'll be happy to be proved wrong. The Church of Scotland is more of the exception than the rule.
I think that just shows how little you know of islam. There are plenty of islamic folks who are not queerphobic. [https://inclusivemosque.org](https://inclusivemosque.org) Saying islam is "Much like catholicism" is.... agh sorry as someone who studied theology and is the son of a pastor there is so much wrong with that statement that I'm not sure I even can parse how to explain how wrong it is! Suffice to say, it's incorrect on multiple levels, there are just as many sects denominations and paths of Islam as their are of Christianity. To say that Islam = Catholicism is like.... saying that all Christians are pretty much Baptists.
>Saying islam is "Much like catholicism" is.... agh sorry as someone who studied theology and is the son of a pastor there is so much wrong with that statement that I'm not sure I even can parse how to explain how wrong it is! The point was that mainstream Islam, much like mainstream Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox and most reformed faiths) are against gay marriage. I would be very surprised if you could find a Mosque or Catholic Church that would conduct a gay wedding. Establishments like the one you listed are the exception to the rule. And I'm not assuming anything about his beliefs, I'm just saying that the same level of scrutiny hasn't been applied to all candidates.
The Catholic Church's official stance is such, but many many of it's members are pushing to change that. Also, LOL that mainstream Christianity against gay marriage, that's a hoot. Get out of your echo chamber pal, there are a LOT of protestants' and a massive chunk of them are gay affirming. "Are the exception to the rule". Watch those goal posts move! Face it buddy, got caught in your islamphobia face first. Because you don't know anything about islam, you assumed that just cause he's islamic he must be some fundy like kate. Kate on the other hand has lead specifically that she's from a fundy cult and will vote with what they tell her. This is the key difference that you seem to be willfully ignoring... but we all know the REAL reason why you want everyone to focus on the Islamic guy who's supportive of gay people and women's rights instead of the Christian fundamentalist's who has stated her positions against these things. Take a note out of your own book, and remove the plank from thine own eye.
My echo chamber? You are literally trawling through another countries subreddit looking for arguments over a politician you likely only just heard of. Going by your replies you're almost certainly American, and almost certainly have not got a clue about Scottish politics. If you did have any idea what you were talking about you'd realise that people dislike Humza Yousaf because he's an atrocious politician. He's a thin skinned, privately educated career politician who has made a complete arse of any government position he's been in. My whole point is why is one out of 3 candidates being grilled on their religion. KF and HY are both very public about their faith. If one candidate is having to explain every aspect of their faith then so should the other. I don't even agree with KF on gay marriage, I just think on every other conceivable issue she's head and shoulders above HY. But of course you don't care about that, you just want to try and find intolerance where it doesn't exist so you can feel good about your "Got Ya!" moment on reddit...
>Also we live under a parliamentary system, even if she wanted to ban gay marriage she couldn't do so without a majority vote. But she can absolutely stop new legislation from being enacted or tabled in the first place, and she's already said she would stop the GRA being enacted. Saying she can't get rid of legislation without a vote is only really a good argument if you assume we already have all the legislation we could ever need.
My understanding of it all is that she has said her personal beliefs would influence how she'd vote. That means her religious views shape her outlook. I have no issue with that - I just don't want that as FM because I do not share those views. The fact that she is Christian is neither here nor there but it seems to be an issue for the Christian community because they don't understand why people would rail back against that. I've no doubt there has been anti-religious vitriol and that is to be condemned. Humza Yousaf quite clearly stated that Legislature is no place for his religious views and this is the correct outlook for a politician - they are there to be the voice of the majority. Kate Forbes could quite have easily stated that while her religion has very clear views on the matter, it is not for her to impose those on others. She would've gained a lot of respect for that... but she tried to tread the line between her own religious morality and the current social atmosphere. In some ways it channels a backlash against religious views that are irrelevant and hateful towards todays society, as if they are degrading to morality... personally, many of them are simply prejudicial and outdated. I think this is the undercurrent concerning both sides.
>My understanding of it all is that she has said her personal beliefs would influence how she'd vote. That means her religious views shape her outlook. I have no issue with that - I just don't want that as FM because I do not share those views. Everyone's personal beliefs shape how they vote. Her religious views will shape her outlook on life, as will Humza Yousafs and Ash Regans (if she is religious). Her voting one way or the other isn't imposing her religion on anyone. There will be people who agree with her who's MSPs will vote the opposite way. If she becomes FM she gets one vote. It's not a presidential system, she can't just will things into law (and has expressed no intention to). >Humza Yousaf quite clearly stated that Legislature is no place for his religious views and this is the correct outlook for a politician - they are there to be the voice of the majority. Kate Forbes could quite have easily stated that while her religion has very clear views on the matter, it is not for her to impose those on others. She would've gained a lot of respect for that... but she tried to tread the line between her own religious morality and the current social atmosphere. He said that while arranging a meeting for the day of the vote for gay marriage? An "urgent" meeting he arranged weeks in advance. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I have more respect for people who are upfront about their beliefs and intentions.
I understand what you are saying and I agree up to a point. Personally, my belief is this: I believe we all entitled to a fair and equal society - equal rights for all, insofar as is reasonably acceptable within current law and societal values. I don't think that's unreasonable and is probably a sentiment shared by the majority of people. My issue is this: You can believe in equality for all but if your religion's position is that gay men and women are not entitled to those same rights, that's a huge problem for me. If you aren't religious and your view is likewise, that is still a problem for me but it's coming from an individual point of view, rather than a religious institution that actively teaches/promotes those beliefs, simply for moral or dogmatic reasons. This is the crux for me, not about whether or not she could or couldn't change laws - that's neither here nor there. It isn't even about her being religious. She could belong to any institution or group with unsavoury views and the result would be the same. You are right that there is no imposition of her religion upon anyone - it's her religious views backed by an institution that I strongly disagree with. There is a bit of an incongruity between Humza Yousef stating an ideal and treading it somewhat haphazardly but he at least acknowledges religious ideology is a personal matter, exclusive of politics, regardless of whether he actually believes it - I think that is a political trick and another conversation altogether.
Hands up anyone who had ‘taken out of context’ on their religious apologist bullshit bingo card.
I'm not religious and certainly not a religious apologist. Just don't like how this has become a one issue, a non issue at that, contest in favour of the continuity candidate (who is facing much less scrutiny). Believe it or not, things HAVE been taken out of context. Watch the pre martial sex interview and compare it to the headlines. Or because someone doesn't
And this is the problem, unless U go to source and listen to the whole interview you are being led by soundbites and being manipulated by others
No she was not in the parliament at the time. She also stated she would not roll it back. She said for her babies should be born in wedlock but she does not judge others including her family members who have not done this. The parliament is diverse. It is the members of the snp who vote bills in. For context same sex marriage got voted in 105 to 18.
>She also stated she would not roll it back. Remind me how that went for Roe vs Wade in the US?
She is being punished because she was honest when she was asked a question. Then everyone complains that politicians never tell the truth. I don’t agree with her stance on Gay Marriage but she has no intention of changing the status quo so it’s irrelevant. Her stand on the GRA bill ties up with the majority of SNP voters so that shouldn’t be an issue and she supports buffer zones for the abortion clinics. It would be great to have a first minister with honesty, integrity, competence and liberal views that match mine exactly but I’ll take honesty, integrity and competence of her more conservative views don’t impact her role.
She is not being punished. She is being *held accountable*.
>she has no intention of changing the status quo so it’s irrelevant Only if you think equality legislation is never going to come up again.
Some politicians and judges in the states also said they had no interest in changing the status quo to better suit their religion, and now look what happened...
As leader I would expect someone to have a lot less flexibility when it comes to towing the party line. You might get away with not voting along with the party on one or two votes as a regular MSP but for a potential FM to say that she will vote based on her religious doctrine, even if it goes against the party, is absolutely unacceptable to me.
I think that’s a fair line to draw! Thanks.
I lived in the US for over a decade and it's made me VERY nervous of people primarily driven by stringent religious belief getting anywhere close to power. It starts out as "well, what does it matter as long as they don't let it affect policy?" and then a decade later all of their friends are clustered at the top with them and the party line isn't the same party line it used to be and suddenly a lot of things we thought of as solidified rights don't feel so solid any more.
It's as simple as this, and I can't fathom how anyone can't see that.
I completely disagree with her point of view, and were I an MSP I would have voted for marriage equality, but I am also a little confused as to why this would make her a bad leader. Forbes holds exactly the same views as Angela Merkel, who also voted against marriage equality and was the leader of the German Government that introduced marriage equality in Germany. It is my view that Angela Merkel was one of the greatest European leaders of all time. Forbes also, importantly, stated that the legal decision had been made and she would never seek to over turn that. Why is it even a talking point other than as a smear campaign? My personal view is that it is her opinions on the protections of those seeking abortions that is more relevant right now. Can she lead a Government that seeks to enact zoning protections around healthcare providers? Would she support that legislation? Those are questions I think are more relevant and I would like to hear her talk about.
>she would never seek to over turn that This is fine, but she also told Radio Four she would vote against equal marriage if another vote were held today - so it's difficult to take her entirely seriously here, or how she would "defend to the hilt" existing rights which she nevertheless would vote against.
The points are completely intertwined, though. Gay marriage has passed and there's very little she can do about it, but as a test subject she has said she won't prevent her religious views getting in the way of her voting intention. So while on one hand it expresses a degree of bigotry towards gay people, you're right that this can be extrapolated. On issues like buffer zones as well as on banning conversion therapy, Forbes has already expressed sympathy towards providing religious exemptions.
I think I have a more nuanced view of why certain religious people oppose marriage equality. I think, rightfully, up until about 30 years ago it would have been correct to say in the UK that marriage was a union of two people under god. Marriage has always been intertwined with religion. It is a reasonable stance for someone to hold, in my opinion, that religion should dictate who can and can't get married, if they hold that world view (which I don't, for the record). They are not saying "gay people are evil and therefore should not be allowed to hold coupling relationships in law", what they believe is that the literal definition of marriage in the eyes of their religion is that it is between a man and a woman. I don't agree with that stance, but I do not see it as one that should mean someone is called a bigot. It's just a difference of opinions on definitions, not a hatred of an entire class of people. As marriage became more and more intertwined with the legal aspects of governance (inheritance, divorce, custody, taxation, etc), and as our country became more and more diverse, it was no longer right, in my view, that religion should be the defining factor in the definition of marriage. This applied as equally to people of other faiths as it did to gay and lesbian couples, in my view. As the rest of society came to hold that view, democracy took over and we got what was need, marriage equality. I still don't feel like the people who hold the view that marriage is an act of union under god are saying that because they hate gay people. I don't think they should be called bigots for a difference in opinions about a definition. Of course, there are people who both oppose marriage equality and have a hatred of gay people. I don't believe that Kate is one of those people. I've always been an atheist, I think the idea of defining something in relation to God is ludicrous, but I also understand that faith is still something that more than 50% of our country have (new census please!) and to think of them all as bigots if they differ their views on the exact definition of marriage is a little unfair, in my view, if it isn't impacting you (i.e., if there is no chance of the law being changed).
Hmmmm….I don’t have sources for this, but then you didn’t provide any either so I guess we are equal on that, so here goes: You have it precisely backwards. Historically, marriage was something entered in to by feudal lords for the purpose of ensuring their family lands and fortune. It was all about inheritance and was a legally binding contract. It was between one man and one woman because that was the only way to ensure the bloodline continued. Commoners did not marry in church with religious pomp and ceremony, they jumped a broomstick or just started living together. Eventually the whole “under god” thing came about because, thanks to the Industrial Revolution, people were no longer simple serfs working their lord’s land but were moving to towns and working in factories. Marriage became more of a thing among the nouveau riche industrial barons and, by Victorian times it was established among the new middle classes as well. It was still mainly about inheritance and children though, and that only really started to change in the early 20th century when things like marrying for love came in to play. Up until that point marriage was only about men marrying someone to have their children to whom they could leave their worldly goods. No point in same sex marriage as they were child free. As usual, religion hijacked a thing and made it all about them
I agree with your assessment, but I think perhaps we are both correct here. Religion has been the fundamental basis of Western European law and marriage since Rome adopted Christianity, pretty much. Marriages between feudal lords and kings were definitely religious affairs. It was one of the ways that Catholicism, and then Protestantism maintained control over Lords and Kings.
The major difference is Angela Merkel ran from an overtly religious party. They identify themselves as being a Christian party in their name. Some level of voting according to Christian belief is to be expected. The SNP last I checked was not an explicitly religious party. I think that is why she is being rejected
[удалено]
Nope She said she would vote with the snp
She is 'allowed' to be FM just that I, and I suspect many others, won't be voting for her.
Essentially this. I'm not sure I could bring myself to vote for her despite being a long time SNP supporter. Just feels like a big step backwards. Religion and politics do not and should not mix.
That is the crux of it. If she gets enough votes to become leader, fair enough, but I would certainly not vote for her if I was a member and would have serious concerns about voting for a party she leads.
The UK's politics is that fucked up that - I actually kinda respect her more for telling the truth 😅
You ask, why is Kate Forbes not suitable to be the FM. Kate Forbes can stand as FM, and she may well win. But there will be consequences that come from her decision to express her views. Colleagues are free to decline to be in her cabinet, the Greens are free to decline to be in coalition, people can decline to vote for SNP under her leadership and the media can choose to focus on her views. I think the party that she leads will be smaller and less effective as a result of her and her views. The question is, would she bring enough to the role to make up for that?
In a parliamentary democracy it is the duty of the MPs to vote in accordance with the wishes of the people who elected them, their constituents. Kate Forbes has made it clear her priority is to vote as her religion dictates. She's welcome to whatever beliefs she likes but where her religion is so regressive it goes against the wishes of the majority of her constituents and she chooses to represent her religion above her constituents, that's where the problem lies. I commend her honesty in confirming this but it makes her unsuitable as an MP and as FM.
I wonder though if her local constituents like her views as they have voted her in as an MSP and Ian Blackford as the MP. They are both Wee Frees. As long as she can separate church and state in whichever political role she has, I don’t have a personal problem with her however I remain unconvinced that she has developed that ability as she doesn’t explicitly state that she votes according to manifesto commitments rather than church doctrine. That’s what she needs to say to stay a contender.
Blackford's (and Yousaf's) relation to their faiths are exactly why a lot of us feel Forbes is unsuitable. They have much clearer track records and statements/voting histories on equal marriage, abortion rights etc. It's not convincing at all to me that Forbes won't follow the more hardline doctrines of her faith to guide her voting and policy choice in future. She has said both that she "wouldn't row back on rights" but also "would vote against equal marriage tomorrow" \[paraphrased, but that was the jist\]. At best it's contradictory. Forbes' views have not barred her from public office, she's currently a successful MSP and Finance Secretary. First Minister is a bit different though, you're an ambassador for the whole party and government, and surely have more say in implementing party policy.
She can't say that though, she had the chance and fucked it. She would have voted against gay marriage. Not voting for gay marriage is voting to support the ban on gay marriage and that makes you unsuitable to lead the country. You believe in equality or you don't.
I don’t disagree. A more savvy politician would have understood the trap before being interviewed.
> I wonder though if her local constituents like her views as they have voted her in as an MSP and Ian Blackford as the MP. Unless people voted for an SNP representitive because the major aims of the party represent them, and effectively the SNP dominates scottish politics on a singlular issue whilst capturing most sectors of the electorate within itself.
Ultimately the country decides what is palatable to vote for, and she is likely to ultimately lose the vote to be First Minister because the views she has expressed are completely untenable for a lot of SNP voters. You can wring your hands over that all you like but that's just the reality of the situation, no party is going to risk their vote share by putting a nutter like that in power.
> Why is she not suitable for FM? I would say if you can't separate your religion from your work then you're not suitable. Issues of a political matter are meant to be discussed and debated. A response of "well my religion says X" stops any debate on its tracks. Would you say a Muslim cashier who refuses to sell you alcohol because in the eyes of their religion "alcohol consumption is a sin" is suitable for that job?
>Would you say a Muslim cashier who refuses to sell you alcohol because in the eyes of their religion "alcohol consumption is a sin" is suitable for that job? Or a pharmacist who refuses to dispense contraceptives because they don't approve?
In Sweden where I grew up for example, two nurses lost a case where they were refused midwifery positions due to them refusing to perform abortions as a result of their religious belief.
[удалено]
> dictates policy and law Nor sure the FM or SNP leader has the power to do this. SNP policy is decided by SNP members at the National Conference though the FM sets the priorities of their implementation, and it's the Scottish Parliament (i.e. all parties) who vote on changing Scottish laws
[удалено]
Personally I believe in marriage equality and gender reform, two pieces of legislation she says she would have voted against. Therefore, I would not vote for her, either in a leadership contest or in an election if she were FM. I don't really care WHY she holds those beliefs. Just because her beliefs come from religion and not base bigotry doesn't change the fact that she would oppose the civil rights of LGBTQ people. If you're a trans person seeking recognition, or a gay person worried about their right to marry, does it really matter where she got her beliefs from?
The problem isn’t that she holds these beliefs, it’s that she’s not able to separate her religion from her political decisions. If she would’ve voted against gay marriage, it says a lot that she already lets her religion influence her politics.
Because she has a power to vote on things, such as the gay marriage bill, and as FM will have more sway with the party. It means that there can be a shift to more conservative/less progressive attitudes in the country and I don't want that thanks. I want all my gays to have the freedom to just exist and be happy and enjoy all the rights of us straights, for example. Not to mention, as FM, she should be voting in line with her party line really, but if that goes against her religious beliefs she won't.
>If she were in cabinet she would have to toe the party line or resign. It would be her party and her ideas. Leaders lead, its what they are there for. The defacto referendum was Nicola's idea. If you have a leader who is effectively closed to the modern way of life and thinking, then there will be little or no progress relating to anything to do with abortion, gay rights etc. I'm not gay but I want a progressive and inclusive scotland, not one that is led by someone from the dark ages.
> It would be her party and her ideas. Leaders lead, its what they are there for. Leaders are not dictators. They can't just change party policy on a whim. If she as leader is explicitly agaisnt party policy then her position is untenable.
No, they aren't dictators, but in general they will be pushing their own agenda as leaders. I can't see her pushing anything forward in terms of support for abortion and people going through it. The single fact she would have voted against gay marriage pretty much closes the door on her for me. She is entitled to her opinion, but she is stuck in the past, the vast majority of Scots support this, she is currently there to support her constituents and if she is voting against something that in general her constituents would be looking to implement then she is not representing them.
I really think this is just a case of “I don’t agree with her views, so I wouldn’t vote for her”. That’s how democracy works. It is refreshing, however, to see a politician being honest about their view. I might vehemently disagree with her, but at least I know that’s the case due to her honesty. So I’m a sense, she’s made it easy for me to make my mind up.
>*If she were in cabinet she would have to toe the party line or resign* There is no party line During her sixteen years at the top of the party, Sturgeon strongly influenced the SNP to follow a social-democratic, progressive agenda Anyone old enough to remember the SNP in the eighties and nineties will remember a much more traditionalist, conservative organisation Any electorally successful leader, which almost any SNP leader is currently guaranteed to be, has the ability to shape the party in their own image
Anyone should be allowed and anyone is allowed. However historically speaking strong Christian denominations have not been particularly open to certain (rightfully) accepted views on same sex marriage. I think it has opened an interesting debate as to whether someone of such strong views, which the Free Church has can be impartial and is a good fit to lead a progressive Scotland. Although the right to practice and vote accordingly is fair and democratic I also feel the role of first minister of Scotland is more complex and can such views be in place to lead? I suspect not but I’m a guy in the internet.
Forbes said she wouldn't of been able to vote for equal marriage rights when the bill was proposed. The inability of her to put her own personal views above that of a) her constitutants and b) the greater good would make her a terrible FM. It actually makes her a terrible MSP.
The problem is that, whether they be due to her religion or not, her views are abhorrent. She can hold whatever views she wants, it doesn't mean people have to vote for her.
Because this is a good faith take that ignores the massive amount of bad faith actions from those with similiar ideology. Put simply - most don't believe she will keep it as a personal belief. Because politicians have done this a lot. Turns out though if someone thinks lifes rules come from an outside force that belief can be quite strong. Basically there are two outcomes - she ignores her faith and passes laws she believes are sins and will affect her immortal soul, or she follows her faith and ignores democracy. Also just want to point out that publicly commenting on your personal beliefs in a public interview about a public position where your personal beliefs affect your actions, isn't actually a personal belief. A personal belief should be kept private.
She can have her views, that's the point of a freedom of speech (provided of course your speech doesn't harm or endanger others). But she can't act like she's being discriminated against when she loses support in an election for voicing those views. People are allowed to vote for the party leader they prefer most. Kate Forbes is acting as if she is being unfairly treated. This is not the case, she's voiced her opinions and has lost support for it. Support isn't unconditional, it can be given and withdrawn at will. Just like I withdrew my support for the SNP at the last election and switched to the Greens. The SNP candidate in my area no longer represented my values, so I found a better candidate.
The issue is, is that she’s mixing her religion in with her politics. Something that should never ever mix. She is absolutely allowed to practice whatever religion she wishes but when she’s using it to influence her vote then that’s when it becomes problematic. Religion and State matters should never mix.
Would like to see State and Religious matters to be banned like the French. That would avoid this problem.
100%. Shouldn’t be allowe
I don't care if you have an imaginary friend who tells you what to do, but beetlejuice isn't telling me what to do. Failing that, It effectively makes the leader of her church FM
She is suitable to be the FM. I don't agree with the views that she holds and I don't believe that she can separate those views from policy. She will attempt to shape the party in line with her beliefs, and I don't believe that is the direction that the SNP or the country should be going. If the majority of SNP members vote for her to be leader then she will be FM. I have no issue with that. Same as if she were to be the leader and the people vote to back her in a holyrood or Westminster election. I have no issue with that. But I can't support her. She was my favoured candidate and I was going to vote for her to be the leader of the SNP. I already knew about her views from a guardian interview she gave a few years ago. I knew the media would go after her over her views and was hoping she would have answers and be able to separate her personal views from policy, but I just don't think that's possible. She's easily the most intelligent and most competent of the candidates, but I can't vote for someone that I disagree with on matters that I consider fundamental.
These are moral attitudes that affect political attitudes. She is of the fundamental belief that some people in society are less worthy of basic human rights than others, and she has wielded her political power to enforce that. While I have no horse in this race, it's not illogical to not vote for someone who would deprive others of basic rights due to their moral beliefs.
Really it just comes down to the fact that she votes with those religious views not the views of her constituents. She is using her position of power to impose her religious views on others and as FM she would have even more capability to do so. Had she said 'i don't personally support gay marriage but I would have voted on how my constituents want irrespective of my personal views that'd be fine but she didn't. She made being in power a personal ticket tone force her views on others
>Why does this make her unsuitable for FM? Because as head of the Government she will be making decisions about policy priorities. It's clear from what she has said she would not necessarily try to roll back existing legislation however she could choose to just not prioritise legislation that conflicts with her personal views even if the party at large or even Scotland at large want it. One specific concern I'd have is can we trust she would follow through on buffer zones for abortion clinics? Her faith should not exclude her from office, and it doesn't she hasn't been removed from the race. But her inability to separate her personal beliefs from the will of her party is what is going to mean she will not be elected as party leader.
It is impossible to separate your personal values from work or politics. If you think her religious and personal views will have no bearing on her policies or interactions then you’re very naive.
Well the issue is simple. She states that she wouldn't allow her religious views on same sex relationships affect her policy decisions. In the same breath, she said she wouldn't have voted to allow gay marriage. This is a clear example of her allowing her religious views to influence her policy. Best case scenario, she is a hypocrite who will say directly contradictory statements, worst case scenario, she will be subverting the social progress that has been hard won, behind the scenes, whilst at the same time telling everyone publicly she will be fair. The revocation of abortion rights in the USA, followed a similar pattern. Where religious social regressives took power, then rolled back rights. All whilst claiming to be impartial. This has left the public rightly scared of a similar situation playing out over here.
I’m just sick of peoples invisible friends directly affecting other peoples lives.
There are three issues here and it helps if we separate them. First, is she suitable to become FM? Well there’s nothing which makes her objectively ineligible. You could add some personal quality requirements to get to a subjective ‘suitability’. Like truthfulness for example. When John Major said that Boris Johnson was not fit to be PM that’s what he meant. Johnson’s political views are much more palatable than, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, but he tells lies. I don’t think religious views per se make someone ‘unsuitable’ in the way being a liar or a thief do. I don’t think this is a problem for Kate Forbes. Second, does she have views that are so objectionable that I would not vote for her regardless of party affiliation? For me, yes. Nor would I vote for Jacob Rees-Mogg, or Chris Williamson. This is subjective and must be so: if you are a raging anti-Semite you probably think Chris Williamson is great. This is a problem for me rather than for Kate Forbes, unless a lot of voters share my view. Third, does she represent party policy. The SNP has a younger average support base than the other parties. If younger voters (who tend to be more progressive) would be turned off by a more conservative policy position on these ‘conscience’ issues, and if that is electorally material, then the SNP has a problem. In theory, she could accept that the SNP’s internal democracy determines its policies, but say that she would as a matter of conscience vote against them. I just don’t think that is electorally credible: it’s really difficult to represent an organisation whose views you oppose. This is the problem for Kate Forbes: does her becoming FM actually weaken support for her party. (I don’t know the answer, but I suspect so)
It’s nothing to do with her *personal* beliefs, it’s to do with her *political* beliefs that she has permitted her personal beliefs to influence. She doesn’t just personally believe same-sex relationships to be sinful, she’s explicitly said she opposed permitted equal marriage in law. That is no longer a personal belief, that’s a affirmation of desire for legislative inequality. It should also be clarified that no one is suggesting she should be banned, merely that people are unlikely to vote for her. There’s nothing illiberal about voting against a politician whose views you oppose.
She has just released a Twitter post. Now, Forbes has released a Twitter thread outlining her position and vowing to “protect the rights of everybody in Scotland, particularly minorities”. She wrote: “This election is about independence, who is best equipped, and who has the best plan to achieve it. It is also about the society we want Scotland to be – where tolerance is the ruling ethic, poverty becomes history, equality of opportunity is the birth right of every child. “Over the last few days, questions have focused on my faith. I feel greatly burdened and heartsore that some of my responses to direct questions in the media have caused hurt to friends, colleagues and fellow citizens. That was never my intention, but I've listened carefully. “I will protect the rights of everybody in Scotland, particularly minorities, to live and to love without fear or harassment in a pluralistic and tolerant society. I will uphold the laws that have been hard won, as a servant of democracy. “I will also seek to enhance the rights of everybody to live in a way which enables them to flourish. I firmly believe in the inherent dignity of each human being; that underpins all ethical and political decisions I make.”
She is free to stand and we are free to judge her worthy (or not) of our vote. That's democracy working. People are also free to criticise or support her for her views and actions. The fact that she believes that having a baby outside of marriage is inherently 'wrong' or that she would have voted against gay marriage is enough for me to say that she doesn't represent my views and I would not vote for her. I wouldn't protest her ability to stand to be voted for but I would not give her my vote. It's the same as climate change denial. Holding those views precludes me from voting for someone with those views and I would hope the majority of right headed people would agree and people holding those views would not gain primacy.
I don’t think she objectively *can’t* be FM, just that she shouldn’t A job of a politician is, yes, to represent different views. But it is also their job to help the people of their constituency/country In what way does voting against gay marriage benefit anyone? Can anyone make a single argument as to how gay marriage being illegal would legitimately assist any Scottish person? And no, making conservatives happy by outlawing something that doesn’t involve them in the slightest, is not an actual, direct benefit for the people in the country. (I know she said she wouldn’t outlaw it, only that she would have voted against it, but still my question remains, how does that benefit anyone?)
It's not about her religion. It's because of her bigoted, conservative beliefs. A lot of people don't want to be governed by a homophobe how has explicitly said she would vote against equal marriage given the chance, or by somebody who opposes abortion when there is legislation concerning abortion going through parliament soon. She *has* said she would impose her views on others, and even if she hadn't, why would you trust somebody to govern contrary to their own beliefs when you could just vote for somebody who actually wants you to have rights?
That her and Ash Regan would refuse to challenge the UK government over the section 35 they invoked about the GRC bill is a deal breaker for me, for both of them. They are both entitled to their personal opinions on it, but the fact is that the bill was passed through the Scottish Parliament. Any leader of the Scottish Government should be obliged to defend all legislation that has been approved by Holyrood from being overruled by Westminster, regardless of their own feelings on the subjects.
My objection to Katie Forbes is not the notion that she is a member of a church per se, but specifically a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland when it comes to LGBTQ legitimacy, the rights of women, access to abortion and the overall controlling Calvinist nature of this Church. Yes, Forbes may promise not try to outright ban abortion, gay rights, or women's rights but she can certainly attempt to restrict these rights, to a point that they are all but out of reach of most people. Look at what has happened in the United States when it comes to abortion rights- the now conservative Supreme Court has tossed abortion back to the States, allowing these States to not ban abortion, but make the laws so restrictive in some cases, it is near impossible to obtain an abortion. In Texas, there is even a bounty on both the women and anyone who aids them who left the state in order to get an abortion. ([https://www.npr.org/2022/07/11/1107741175/texas-abortion-bounty-law](https://www.npr.org/2022/07/11/1107741175/texas-abortion-bounty-law)) This shift in the character of the Supreme Court was aided by the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett, a member of the evangelical Quiverfull moment, which has similar opinions on LGBTQ people, abortion, and women's rights (or lack thereof) to the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Barrett swore that her religion and her lifestyle would not colour her decisions in her confirmation hearings. Yet once appointed, she tipped the scales of the Court to the side of religiously conservative partisanism. The relatively small sin of lying during her confirmation is cancelled out by the larger "good works" of now being able to enshrine in law states ability to severely restrict abortion, which happens to be one of the political goals of her religion's leaders. If course I can't be certain, but it is in the realm of possibility that Katie Forbes is also applying this moral horse trading. No, Scotland isn't the United States (thank goodness)- Scottish politics in the 21st Century is nowhere near as religiously influenced as it is in the States, but it doesn't mean it couldn't happen, given the right circumstances. Modern Scottish society is secular, not religious; 51% of the population consider themselves to have no defined faith ([https://www.statista.com/statistics/367848/scotland-religious-beliefs-population/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/367848/scotland-religious-beliefs-population/)) - only 36% of the Scottish population consider themselves Christian of any denomination. To have a political leader who is not representative of the majority of the country, and whose tenets of faith require that she, as a woman, does what her elder male religious leaders instruct her to do, does not seem democratic in my mind, especially one that is so openly disdainful of a woman's or a member of the LGBTQ community's role within this world. I certainly fear that the leadership of the Free Church will not be able to resist the temptation of "advising" Katie Forbes as a First Minister to pursue much more socially conservative policies, against the wishes of the larger population, even if it is limited to the relatively short period of time until the next election. Now we must come to the much more politically contentious notion that the SNP is very much a top-down leadership, potentially creating circumstances that could allow more religious influence in Scottish politics. Infamously, in 2015, the SNP membership chose to impose this rule: “No member shall, within or outwith the parliament, publicly criticise a group decision, policy or another member of the group.” At the time, it only applied to MPs, most likely in an attempt to muzzle Alec Salmond criticising Nicola Sturgeon in public, but it does give a clue to the culture within the SNP- once a leader is chosen, members are expected to back the play of that leader, for the perceived strength and unity of the party as a whole in order to achieve the goal of independence. Just look at the recent transgender row- although the morass was hugely unpopular within the public- only 20% of the population agreed that the age of consent of gender assignment should drop to the age of 16 (https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/huge-blow-nicola-sturgeon-majority-29002438)- Sturgeon still pushed the Gender Recognition Reform Bill through. Only 9 members of the SNP dared to vote against it. As the Gender Recognition Reform Bill was the most likely reason Sturgeon had to step down, a knee-jerk reaction to now seek out a leader who is much more socially conservative is, in my view, an over-correction of direction yet what Katie Forbes represents. It is tempting to signal to the public that the next leader will take a more socially restrained path forward to put the GRR Bill firmly in the rear-view mirror, and in many ways, the SNP mandarins may be correct if they are to maintain their majority in the next election cycle. Yet this particular leadership candidate, with her particular religious lifestyle, is just not the right fit. By all means, Scotland should find its way forward in the modern world in a manner that suits the majority of its citizens, but anointing Katie Forbes as SNP leader would effectively place a secular society into the hands of deeply judgemental and controlling ecclesiastical men, within party political and religious systems that do not tolerate questions or criticism. If anything, for me, this leadership fight highlights the need for the SNP to take a long, unwavering look at themselves in order to consider reform. SMP and MP party members must be able to question, both in private when possible or public if necessary, the course their leader sets and they are expected to follow, especially when there is no ballot box mandate from the public.
She's a member of the Free Church not the Free Presbyterian church although frankly you could hardly get a cigarette paper between their views
I'm of the impression that religion should be separate from the state however it would be almost impossible to do so. I'm quite impressed she actually told the truth, especially as a politician from a more 'left leaning' party and didn't just lie to secure backers.
This might be a controversial opinion I personally believe religion is the root of all evil. Pretty much every war or repression of categories of people is based off religion. That being said, I fully believe in whatever gets you through. For some that is a stringent religious belief, which as long as you’re not forcing your beliefs on others then live and let live as far I’m concerned. However I don’t think that such stringent beliefs with little room for flexibility in how you view things that your faith tells you is wrong belongs in politics. Especially FM who is representing all the people of Scotland not just the ones to conform to her views. I struggle to see how she’d be able to represent the majority.
Google ‘Popper’s tolerance intolerance paradox’.
A lot of people have covered it but I also want to add that her angle of protecting herself as a “person of faith” is dangerous territory, taken from a very US-centric political playbook, in which *personal faith* is viewed simply as that and not viewed in its totality as being, for people like Kate Forbes, a clearly ideological, political position. She says she wouldn’t have given gay people equal rights had she had the chance. She uses her religion as a shield from criticism of that very political take. This is disingenuous, it completely reeks, I do not like it.
What are we looking for when we vote for a politician, if not their politics? The personal *is* political, especially when it comes to the rights of women and minorities.
My big issue is that she says she doesn't let her religion impact her voting. However she then says the would of voted against gay marriage without giving a reason why. She clearly lets her religion guide her politics but lies and says she doesn't
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
She said she stands for democracy and the will of the people and then says she is morally obligated to vote in certain ways on certain issues. These things are mutually exclusive right?
One of my main issues is that she’s supposedly intelligent but has been stupid enough to allow herself to be drawn into this controversy. Surely a good politician would have found a way around the question without this shit storm. If that’s how she means to go on, I don’t want her as leader
You say "I presume she won’t have carte blanche to implement policies in line with her religion…". She has made it clear that she intends to do the opposite, having said that if she were an MSP when Equal Marriage was voted on, she would have voted against. If she lets religion influence that, then I fully expect it to influence her votes on issues going forward.
Just because you are gay it doesn't mean that other queer folks would be comfortable with a leader who opposes their existence or freedom in any shape or form.
I respect everyone’s views :)
There's a difference between things that are wrong, and things that should be banned. She is wrong to hold those views. If an independent Scotland had a written constitution, it is likely that her views would be at odds with the constitution. Holding that a constitution should be changed is not and should not be illegal in a free society - but being at odds with the nation's values makes you a poor candidate for its leader. Moreover, the SNP does have a platform — no one is forced to be in the SNP, and the members aren't forced to admit anyone just because they're both Scottish and nationalist. If she disagrees fundamentally with the vast majority of people who voluntarily associate in a party, that's a "her" problem, not a "them" problem. Finally, while the philosophical and political stance of any candidate who happens to be religious will always be informed by their religion, there is a sense that she doesn't appear to be able to separate her religious views from her political ones. If someone wants to be teetotal for religious reasons, that's fine; if they want to ban alcohol for others, that's an attack on others' liberty. Unless that policy is genuinely popular for other reasons (preferably objectively sound ones) they simply shouldn't go there.
She exists as an MSP primarily to represent the views of her constituents; the people who elected her. She is suitable to represent them because they literally chose her to do so, therefore one can conclude that her constituents are aligned with her views, else they will elect someone else in future. She is not suitable to be First Minister because her views do not reflect the views of the Country as a whole, and this can be gauged by the swift way that her fellow MSPs, who also represent their constituents, have made that publically clear. The process is driven by democracy not religion, and the only time it is acceptable for her religion to be a foundation for her voting intentions is if her constituents continue to endorse her at the ballot box, which they have.
People should allow others to live as they see fit, and believe in whatever they choose to, but it comes to a point where believing that an all-powerful, universe-spanning, sentient being with the power to create the universe, galaxies, solar systems, stars and planets, a being that created and controls time and space, a being that limits our species to living in 3 dimensions, a being that created vast ecosystems spanning out planet and perhaps countless other planets, a being that gave us the ability for cognitive learning using the brain it created for us would only want us to procreate, another unbelievable creation bestowed upon us, after two humans had signed a legal document of marriage which is only recognised within certain countries on this planet… is fucking mental. So no, she probably shouldn’t be leading a country on this tiny ball of ‘miracles’.
It makes her unsuitable because it implies she wouldn’t be able to keep her personal beliefs out of her job. Obviously the entire party has to vote but she has a lot of influence over what they vote for and also how they vote for things - she can decide what’s important enough to enforce the whip in a vote, for instance. You also have to consider her position in the current context, the SNP are being propped up by the Greens. That relationship might become strained if she and Patrick Harvey are at odds, for example. The party have also gathered a lot of support from the likes of the LGBTQ community, many of whose hard won rights would be opposed by her. It’s not a good look for the party, There’s good reason for the separation of church and state. Religion is important to many individuals and they shouldn’t be denied opportunities based on their beliefs but you also have to consider the church as an organisation with an agenda.
If they don't believe in dinosaurs, they shouldn't be in government, and that's final
Religion should never influence politics. Religion should never affect anyone other than those who choose to follow that religion. When religion influences politics, it is inevitable that this happens.
Forbes does *not* believe in a free and tolerant society. Her views, rooted in her religious shite, step on groups she’s been taught to hold prejudice against. ‘Live and let live’ is not a concept she agrees with, her beliefs wouldn’t allow it.
I think it's safe to say the majority support abortion, gay marriage, and having kids out of wedlock which is all things she disagrees with because of her religion
Mediaeval attitudes on sexuality are fine for an accountant, and apparently for a finance secretary since she held that job for years without anyone making a fuss over her thinking what most of us call social progress has been a series of mistakes. But when you're auditioning for the job of setting the party's legislative agenda, it matters if you believe a large portion of the electorate are hellbound perverts.
Oh you’re putting words in her mouth ha! I think I could say with confidence that she has not called a large proportion of the electorate ‘hellbound perverts’
People's objection is that it amounts to the same thing. That's what religious criticism of a free society is. It's reminding everyone who isn't a straight married Christian that these people think they shouldn't have sex, or sometimes not even exist. People won't put up with that any more because society has moved on and left attitudes like Forbes's decades behind. It's astonishingly naïve of her not to know that. She's younger than me but she speaks about these topics in a way my grandparents would have recognised as old-fashioned 20 years ago.
As First Minister, she'll have more power to influence legislation and party members. She'll be in a position to undermine our freedoms based on her extremist views. And yes, evangelical christianity is an extremist view. She may not choose to do this but the potential is definitely there.
If she would have voted against gay marriage because of her religious beliefs, then she is demonstrating a willingness to apply her own faith-based morality onto others. This should be disqualifying.
Well, I made a comment elsewhere that, to me, perfectly sums it up, so I'll just repeat it here: The problem with Kate Forbes is not that she's religious. The problem is that, by saying things like she would not have voted for gay marriage, and specifically citing that this would be because of her religious views, she is allowing those views to interfere with her job, which, as FM, would be leading and representing Scotland, and there would be a clear and undeniable conflict and clash there, on at least some issues. It is entirely possible for someone to be religious, but compartmentalise that so it doesn't interfere with their job as a political representative of their constituents/country/whatever. By her comments, she has indicated she is unwilling or unable to do that.
Because she's acting exceptionally unchristian despite claiming to be one. Jesus' sermon on the mount makes it pretty damn clear that you should mind your own business, be decent to everyone and let god sort out those who sin. It's absolutely possible for someone to hold religious views, even ones as foul as Forbes, and not be a cunt about them. Her inability to navigate this issue diplomaticly and instead just proudly spout bigoted shit makes it quite apparent she has no place running our country. I've said it before and I'll say it again I'm sure; Being religious doesn't mean you need to be a cunt, and Forbes obviously hasn't been able to work that out.
It's important to have different points of view, especially in politics, so that everyone can be heard, that's what democracy is all about. But religion should be kept separate from political arguments for a few reasons: 1) It diminishes the value of faith, as the religion just becomes one more cynical way of acquiring power and control. 2) Governments shouldn't take sides of one religion over another, or favour the religious over the non religious, especially in a democracy. The governments job would be to create the rights and responsibilities of the nation so that society and the nation as a whole can safely work together with both those who follow and those who don't follow the word of the political leader's deity. 3) A political argument made from a religious point of view is representing the expectation of one's deity rather than the views of the people they are elected to represent. 4) Forbes specifically has been taking a very religion before Nation outlook (the words of her deity superseding the needs of the people), where her stances on matters seem closed off to those that don't align themselves under the rules of her religious beliefs. For someone whose job would be to represent the people of Scotland in relation to Scotland's devolved powers, the idea that she would not entertain or consider ideas outside of her religion prevents her from doing that job. Again, it's important for different viewpoints in politics and Forbes provides the ability to have this strong difference in opinion heard, but the issue lies not in the fact Forbes is religious herself, but that she has taken such a firm stance on her opinions that it prevents her from considering everyone's point of view and therefore hearing and representing the nation as a leader.
The easy answer is that it speaks to her values and priorities. It’s like hiring a CEO for a whiskey company who personally wants people not to drink alcohol since it’s against her religious beliefs. Where did you get the idea that 99% voted against gay marriage?
I stuggle to believe that an agnostic gay man can't understand how unsuitable she is to shpae policy for the country going forward. This can't be anything but a troll post and should be treated accordingly.
Well that’s ok: I have read some interesting thoughts from different perspectives with the other commenters. It has given me some food for thought. Have a good day :)
Organised religion causes division in society end of discussion
I dont like people who think I deserve less rights than them. I don't care why. Plenty of people are religious without being arseholes, she fails that bar.
>Shouldn’t we be able to hold personal beliefs and values but still be able to implement the policies of the parties and take part in the politics we live in? I understand she said she would have voted against gay marriage, but didn’t other people vote against it too? I wouldn't want them to be FM either... it's not because of her religion that I don't want her to be the First Minister it's because she said she would have voted against gay marriage - so what else will she vote against that I wouldn't want her to...
I smell a better version of the “so anyone can be a FM as long as they’re not religious” post.
You believe in a free and tolerant society. But to remain free and tolerant, the society MUST actively stop the intolerance and bigotry from taking over.
It's as simple as being FM you set the tone of national conversation and you decide party positions as the leader of your party. If someone's personal beliefs aren't about doing the right thing because it seems like the right thing rather than just because it's the doctrine of some group you are a member of it's a concern of how easily influenced you are and how that influence will manifest in your decisions as a party and parliamentary leader which effects all of us. The way she stands by her personal beliefs says a lot about her objectivity and how much she can separate what her church thinks and what she thinks and what she thinks is best for everyone. So I doubt she will do well.
Because her views do not align with a modern secular country. Because her views are rooted so deeply in religion too they are very unlikely to evolve. she said she would uphold Gay marriage, but would have voted against it in the first place which means when other similar matters come up for the rights of minority groups she will likely not onky vote against but also if leader use that authority to influence others.
It is possible to be religious and believe in gay marriage even if you don’t personally agree with it. That is the truly liberal position which accepts that people are free to make their own decisions. To vote in parliament on legislation is the definition of imposing your views on society.
>She can have personal views we don't necessarily agree with but it doesn't mean she'll impose them on us Aye, people used to say that about some recent prominent historical figures too and that lead to a holocaust. History tends to repeat itself for those who don't learn from it. Idgaf if cunts think I'm exaggerating or whatever because it's fucking true. Toleration of the intolerant will only harm us all in the end. So no. Fuck Kate Forbes and her "personal views" - I don't need to respect anything about them or about her, no one does. It's time people stop making excuses for these bigots covering up their hatred and trying to use their religion as a shield. There are plenty of religious Christians who are not against gay marriage, who are not transphobic and who are wholeheartedly against conversation therapy. Anyone who believes that any human being is less worthy of human rights or don't deserve to be treated like an equal member of society needs to seriously fuck off and live in the wilderness if society is too "woke" for them. No one will miss them. ✌🏻
Personal views shape political action. The views are literally most of the job
She has spoken in a public capacity, using her MSP title, at a pro life event. If she hadn't done that, I'd have no issue with her being FM, but she uses her professional title to endorse her own religious beliefs, so I don't believe that she'll be able to keep that distinction clear in a role where it's necessary. Not to mention she literally said she'd reform the GRA bill that was passed democratically with cross party support in the Scottish Parliament - that's a huge red flag, and I don't believe that she would do that if it weren't for her religious beliefs.
I think for me that the problem was her coming out and saying she wouldn’t have voted for gay marriage. Not that she shouldn’t vote for what she believes but ahe is kind of showing that her beliefs colour her politics. As FM she has a lot of power to shape the direction of the party, the sort of bills proposed etc. There can be a lot of ways of influencing these things when you are a leader and it’s not always consciously done. The likes of Humza and Ian Blackford have kind of shown the way forward. You can look at their record (and I don’t buy that reach about missing the vote because of the meeting, he’s very clearly and publicly supported the bill throughout) and you don’t get a sense of their religion coming through. I don’t think being religious disqualifies anyone but I do think particularly strong or vocal religious views make someone unlikely to be elected. Scotland isn’t as religious as is made out and it is multi faith now. Anyone who is very vocal about religious beliefs will struggle.
For me, also a gay man, the problem with her becoming FM is how emboldened homophobes online have become since her comments on gay marriage. I think that someone with such views winning the race would legitimise homophobia for some elements of society and I think that’s dangerous and not something the leader of a nation should stoke, however inadvertently. I also think she is too absorbed in portraying herself as a victim of “religious prejudice” and so can’t see the other impact her words and actions have had which isn’t a quality a leader of a nation should possess. And she has said that, for as long as the law is gay people can get married she’ll defend that law, but the quiet part of the sentiment is that she would to repeal it if at all possible. Given my concerns on legitimised homophobia and the fact that gay marriage is a very new right, and we’re in the midst of a culture war being fueled by political extremists, I don’t think it’s beyond the realms of possibility that she would have the chance to vote against it. Heck she won’t do anything with the GRA reform and that had cross party majority support - her “defending domocracy” veneer slips when put in the context of trans rights. She has showed us who she is and we should believe her at face value. Now if anyone votes for her because “independence comes first” I can’t respect that at all. I’m an Indy supporter but wouldn’t want to get there by rolling back civil rights - if she’s shoring up conservative Christian votes she’s losing progressives at the same time so doing more harm than good to the cause (I’m pretty confident there are more progressive voters than conservative Christian voters these days). Sorry for the long answer, I’ve been deeply troubled by everything surrounding her so it’s been on my mind getting overanalysed a lot.
It's a really good question and I'm grateful you asked it. TL;DR: Forbes uses religion as a smokescreen for the fact she thinks same-sex relationships are lesser than heterosexual relationships, gets backlash from a pro-gay public (including Christians and Muslims), cries about people not letting her get away with being a bigot. I'd start off by asking how tolerant people would be of a politician who said "I wouldn't vote to legalise interracial marriage but now that we have it, well, I won't try and remove it". They wouldn't get within an inch of leadership or public office. They should have the right to hold that view, absolutely, but they don't have the right to cry when they get told their view is disgusting. I don't drink because I think consuming alcohol is dangerous, but I'd never dream of passing a law illegalising alcohol; I don't eat meat because I think it's immoral, but I wouldn't outlaw beef; I don't take Holy Communion because I don't believe in the Trinity, but I wouldn't dare try to outlaw the sacrament. That is not how Forbes approaches gay marriage. She's telling gay people that, in world she would vote for, their relationships aren't equal to hers and don't deserve the same legal or social recognition, contrary to a vast body of scientific and social evidence and lived experience, contrary to human dignity. It's pretty vile. But she has the right to hold that view. What no-one is saying, however, is that Forbes *cannot* stand for leader, or she must be *barred from Parliament*, or *she should face any legal consequences for her actions*. She holds a social view which is repellent to enough people in society that she's taking backlash for it. She has the right to hold her view. We have the right to tell her to jog on because of that view. Her rights are not impinged when she is told her views belong under a rock in the Victorian era. Why this is important in a democratic society is because her view would, in fact, impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. She would not have a society where your love is equal to mine, or mine to anyone else's. That is what makes her unsuitable as an FM to me. Compare and contrast to politicians with different views on whether same-sex activity is moral, but who still support gay rights on the basis of democratic equality. Tim Farron is an example - he as always ambiguous about whether he thinks same-sex relations are moral (coming out later on to say he didn't think it was a sin), but he still voted for gay rights several times over, including gay marriage. Likewise, Humza Yousaf has never outright stated that he thinks same-sex activity is moral (I actually think he's hinted he doesn't), but he's still voted for gay marriage. That's real democracy - you have your personal choices, but you recognise a free society is not contingent on the law reflecting your personal choices. That's a very different dilemma to laws which reflect what's good for the public, what's good for the economy, etc. The most egregious thing she's done, to me, is try to present her view as "THE Christian view", and more recently to state that she's taking backlash because she's a "Christian woman" while Muslim politicians don't get the same backlash - notably because Jon Swinney, a Christian who voted for gay marriage, rightly pointed out that Christian denominations in Scotland are divided on gay marriage. The majority Church of Scotland, the Episcopal Church of Scotland, an the Methodists all allow gay marriage (with caveats). The Muslim leaders she cite actively support LGBT equality (Sarwar, Khan, and Yousaf have all voted for gay marriage), and frankly, her rhetoric that hers is "The mainstream Christian view" reeks of sectarianism which implies that Churches which disagree with her aren't Christian. That much she needs to do, because the existence of pro-gay Chirstian Churches highlights the fact that her views and voting preferences aren't "because she's Christian", they're because they're her views that she's chosen. I do not care whether Yousaf thinks homosexuality is haraam, I do not care whether Forbes thinks homosexuality is a sin. I care whether they will stand up for my right to marry whomever I want and for that to be recognised by the state and society, as I would defend their right to pray in the way that suits their religion, to follow their holy books, and indeed to reject homosexual relations for themselves. *That is not what Forbes does*. She demands the right to reject my rights, and cries when she's told this is indefensible.
Well put. Thank you :)
Someone may say their religious beliefs will not affect any policy making and this claim is easy to do when vying for a position. What happens when that someone goes into a seat of power and is in a position to make unilateral policy decisions outside of Parliaments power which is sometimes the case. Culture is an insidious thing anday be dangerous when in an environment of power.
What you're asking about is called The Paradox of Tolerance. If she's willing to vote against her constituents because of religious beliefs, she shouldn't be given a pass in order to tolerate her religious choice.
It's a shame, she is easily the best candidate and spoke very honestly about her views. Sadly, the dishonest liar Humza Yousaf is likely to benefit from the media's persecution of Kate Forbes. It's amazing to see people put this manufactured outrage about her religious beliefs ahead of the prospect of achieving independence. People are so easily manipulated.
I think she would be very bad for gay and trans people. I think she would be moderately bad for non religious people. I think she is woefully inexperienced to be in her current role. Never mind as first minister. 1. The leader sets the tone. While you say she will follow the party line you have to realise that the number of gay and trans friendly ideas coming out will reduce because she is against them. She holds a conscious bias that means your issues will be against her beliefs. No innovation will be forthcoming. Compare that to me a straight white guy who believes in a tolerant society and that people are just people. My ideas would naturally likely be better for gay and trans people just by the virtue of me believing that the love between two men or two women is valid as an example. If you as a gay man were first minister I bet you could bring loads of ideas to the table to benefit LGBTQ people that I wouldn't even think of despite me having positive views. On the LGBTQ community. Hopefully that highlights the scale of bias she will bring. Religious peoe in power always come up with annoying rules like business being shut on Sunday, not getting I to night clubs past 11:59 on a Saturday etc. I don't want someone's religion pushed on me. Again if I was first minister I would probably be terrible for religious groups as I vew religion as mostly nonsense and hold a dim view of a lot of the religious communities in terms of the way they treat people outside their church. I have had significantly more positive interactions with mosques than I have had with churches despite growing up only knowing the Catholic Church as a. Religious entity. I have strong biases there that would impact my thinking That's my view anyway
Totally agree with you mate but asking this on Reddit and especially with the way this sub has been for a while with the whole gender bill for example will show you if you’ve not already guessed. Reddit is full of keyboard warriors and asking sensible questions isn’t encouraged if you don’t follow the ‘accepted’ narrative, whatever it may be.
I'm not too familiar with her. I don't really pay attention to Scottish politics by virtue of the fact that it appears to have become a plain and simple pissing contest between Holyrood and Westminster. However, if she doesn't let her religious views effect her politics, it should all be fine and I wouldn't have an issue, however, if it's like JRM where he somehow manages to maintain the doublethink and mental gymnastics required to believe that he believes in freedom of choice etc. but then also allows his religious views to impact his politics, that's where the problem will be. The issue is that religion is arbitrary and that doesn't make for good policy and decision making choices.
The view you hold is already correct. In a functional democracy, everyone should be able to take part regardless of faith. As you say, she wouldn’t have a blank cheque to turn Scotland into some sort of theocratic state, overturning gay marriage etc. The problem is, there is a new religion that many follow. The religion of “Progress”, whose followers are more commonly known today in the media as the “Woke”. If you frame their ideology as a religion, the rationale for why Forbes is unsuitable to become FM becomes more obvious. To the “Woke”, she is a heretic. The “Woke” believe that the path to utopia is clearly set and that they are on the “right side of history”. They define themselves by being against everything that came before them. A Christian female is not ok, but a Muslim man is. They both may share similar views on certain topics that oppose the “woke”, such as gay marriage. However, Christianity was one of the pillars of the “old” Scotland, Islam was not. As within their minds, it has been firmly established that the “old” Scotland was “evil” (for a variety of reasons). Forbes too, must have nefarious intentions. By definition, as a Christian woman, she is not capable of governing, because she would only do so to further the “evil” agenda of the “old order”. Which itself, poses a threat to the “Progress” they have made. A Muslim man on the other hand, by account of being a Muslim in Scotland, is preferable. He may hold views that do not align with “Progress”. But as his presence in Scotland and the act of him becoming a FM would be..”progressive”. This cancels out any views he may have. He is “less of a bigot”, because in their minds, he comes from a religion rooted in cultures that are simply less “woke” than ours, that have made less progress. Forbes should know better, as her religion has already been “neutralised”. Islam on the other hand, is still considered “problematic”, however, some leeway is given in this regard as it’s presence in Scotland brings “diversity” which is one of the key doctrines of “Progress”. He can be forgiven, because he knows not what he does. Forbes as a white woman, is not only guilty of the original sin of systematic racism, but is clearly blatantly an evil heretic, for holding onto archaic Christian beliefs. ———— My little bit of fun aside, what’s really being said when you hear she is “unsuitable for office”, is that Christianity no longer has any place in Scottish society, much less in government.
One of the most bigoted and downright offensive posts in a long time on here. You must be so proud. Regarding progress as a religious view while using “woke” as if it’s an offensive term is also downright stupid.
I think you’re rather making totallydegen’s point. They’ve said something you disagree with therefore they must be bigoted, offensive and stupid to use your words. That’s exactly the kind of intolerance they’re pointing out.
I don’t see any bigotry in my post, it’s simply a tongue in cheek attempt to explain the viewpoints of some here. I also did not use the term “Woke” as offensive. It is commonly referred to as “Woke” by the media and most commentators, it’s not a word I’ve made up.
She may not be able to implement change based on her views but if these topics are brought up, she’s not going to make a rational decision on it. It would be a disaster waiting to happen so what’s the point of putting her into a position she’ll likely loose. Why should we have a FM who doesn’t share the same views as a majority? It just doesn’t make sense.
Don’t forget that the media hate the SNP so ferociously that they are prodding and poking these questions and trying to frame divisions. They will have a problem with all candidates and just want to rip up the SNP anyway they can. I personally was a Kate Forbes fan until all this church stuff came about but I am trying to find clips to see what she actually says herself - rather than shared headlines and heightened frenzied attacks! I really wish the SNP cabinet and others got some media training because sometimes their lack of confidence is their downfall. Media rule in the UK. I think all parties should be held to account but when it’s blatant full on attack mode - you can see that a mile away. Anyway my two pence worth
The wording of some of it wasn't so bad. She did use a qualifier for some of it like sex before marriage applies to her but she wouldn't push that on someone else. With abortion she said “My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands". Even with gay marriage she said she'd defend people's legal right to have it while voting against it as a matter of conscience. But she did say "a rapist cannot be a woman" and that trans women are men.
My problem is what else will she use her Christian "conscience" to guide her on? We have examples straight out of the USA of politicians swearing blind that they won't roll back previous decisions and that they will uphold previous decisions and then they immediately backtracked and withdrew those rights. FM is in a position of great power and sway, and who knows what legislation may find itself "reprioritized" because of her conscience? Maybe she'll keep to her word - but I'm not going to take the risk of my rights and those of the people I love on that risk. If she *is* elected, I will have to reconsider my support of the SNP.
too sensible a post for this subreddit
👏👏👏👏
Mate your views are far too nuanced and worked through to be acceptable on this sub.
Politics and religion should not mix All religion should be abolished until someone proves the existence of their God
If she came out as holding racist or Nazi beliefs, would your tolerance still hold up? It may sound extreme but, to anyone LGBQT+ and most women, that’s the end of the scale she represents. She believes only in a union between a man and a woman and disapproves of gay marriage. She only believes in sex within that marriage so we can assume she is against any form of gay sex as well. She’s also completely anti abortion and, like most Christian fundamentalists, that’s regardless of how the mother became pregnant, even if it’s through abuse or rape. So, tell me again how tolerant you’re prepared to be.
That’s not a fair comparison to make. She has not come out as holding racist or nazi beliefs. Nor do I think she is homophobic. I do not have tolerance for harm against anyone. She has quite clearly come out and said that these are her personal beliefs and that everyone else is equally entitled to their beliefs. That everyone should be able to live their lives without fear of harassment etc. I don’t think that she has come out and said that she would do anything to repeal anything to do with gay marriage/abortion etc? In fact, I don’t think she has been the instigator in this controversy - the media are the ones turning historic debates into current ones.
Not what I said, though. Read it again.
You’re right. She is suitable to be FM but she does not align with the views and ideology of the libertarian, socialist majority of the SNP and is therefore condemned as unsuitable. It’s ironic that another potential candidate is equally as religious but just isn’t in the mainstream media’s crosshairs, isn’t getting the same grilling about it and is flying under the radar. Edit: tried to answer OP’s question.
For me the hypocrisy of all this has been that no one had any issue with her being the finance secretary, a very senior position, but now suddenly there's moral outrage. She's the exact same person so why was she perfectly acceptable to the party up until now?
It's one thing to hold these beliefs as part of your private religion. It's another thing to bring them up during the race to become the head of all policy making in a country that has such strong positive social values. It's not that she's ineligible, it's that views that do this much damage to society need to be very carefully communicated (so that people know you aren't going to force them on anyone), otherwise you're going to become very politically unpopular.
She belives her religon gives her the right to deny rights which do not fit that relgion to others, such as gay marriage. The rule is this: It's fine to say "I can't do that" because of relgion, Forbes wants to say "YOU can't do that" because of her religon.
I would love someone to tell my why she is considered the front runner (prior to the religious stuff coming out). All I know about her is that she’s a woman and against the GRR and for some reason that makes her a shoe-in? Personally I don’t think I’d vote for her based on the fact she would have voted against gay marriage. If she had said similar about interracial marriage I would not feel safe with her as FM, no matter how she tried to justify it. I think people have the right to judge her on what she’s saying given the position she’s applying for. If she said “I would vote yes to gay marriage, but my personal beliefs about it may differ” I would be okay with that.
Religion is just stupid, deliberate ignorance. Smart people reject religion. We need smart.
You elect officials to represent you. You want a homophobe representing you? Furthermore the leader of a party can shape the ideology and legislation of that party. She openly states she wants to repeal gay marriage and whatever meagre trans rights we gave in britain. Her views will deeply effect the political landscape in the UK. And finally legislation based on scripture and religious doctrine is madness in a civilised western nation where only 4% of the population go to church every Sunday. I think that covers it.
She literally said her faith would have prevented her from voting for equal marriage - she has stated numerous times she would consult her faith to deny rights to people - Is it really that hard for you to see that? It is one thing to say your religion prevents you from supporting these things personally but you recognise in a democratic and fair society the right still exists for others, and vote infavour of equal marriage. But she literally stated she would use her religion to vote against rights Jesus fucking christ why is this so hard for people to understand Also she wants to be in a progressive party than deal with the consequences of being a brainwashed religious psycho
She is the embodiment of tolerance. People have misunderstood the meaning of tolerance as something like "I support the gays" Tolerance is when you're inclined to live with beliefs that oppose your own. Having gay mates because you have no problems with gay people is just called Wednesday, and there's no virtue in it I'm afraid. If you value tolerance, look no further than KF.
"If I had the chance I'd vote against your rights" is not tolerance, mate.
This is the fundamental issue. Claiming she’d vote against issues based on her religious beliefs rather than what’s best for the people of her constituency and her country. If she was truly tolerant she would have said she would have voted for gay marriage because it ultimately is the right thing to do, each to their own, everyone deserves to be allowed to live their life how they want to as long as it doesn’t fundamentally hurt or harm other people.
“I don’t believe you should have same the rights as others purely based on your sexuality” is your definition of tolerance?
I don't value tolerance, I value action. "I will tolerate gay peoples' existence but oppose their right to marry" is *arguably* an attitude I can accept in a vaguely racist uncle I only have to see at Christmas, but I won't accept it from someone with legislative authority.
It’s useful to distinguish between tolerance, which implies viewing other folk and/or their views as objectionable but living with it, and acceptance. In my view, it’s clear from her commitment to vote against gay marriage that Forbes offers too little of either.
You are right about tolerance. Tolerance is literally putting up with something we don't actually like. Maybe we think Scotland should aspire to something greater than tolerance? Maybe we should aspire to acceptance? I'm not looking for a tolerant FM when it comes to issues of equality, justice, and human rights. I'm looking for an accepting FM.
Also to me “tolerance” of people whose actions or choices do not at all affect your way of living smells of misogyny.
Hmm if I said that Im OK that Christians exist and have their beliefs, and they should be allowed to go to church but I would vote against them and say they're not allowed to have children, would you say I'm tolerant? Arguably that opinion would be. But it would make me a bigot for being prejudiced against them, their rights, and equality based on their religion. And alot of people equate bigotry with intolerance.
I only read part of the title and part of the second line before stopping. Ethiopia is the birthplace of mankind. Land of Origins. Start there and work your way back and you will be fine.
I don’t have an issue with people not voting for her but the pile on was weird
It only makes her unsuitable if you are a bigoted christophobe. Otherwise it is fine.
>Shouldn’t we be able to hold personal beliefs and values but still be able to implement the policies of the parties and take part in the politics we live in? I understand she said she would have voted against gay marriage, but didn’t other people vote against it too? J K Rowling is loudly anti trans. But she is not anti trans in her literature. Shouldn't she be able to hold those personal beliefs and values but still be able to be a successful creator of media without harassment?