Nicola Sturgeon

[ncRover]

This is interesting. I wonder if there would be a similar discussion from the media if there was an orthodox Muslim or Jew going for the job of leader. Would the media question them in the same way or would it be too sensitive a topic for them to raise?

But then I guess we’d see push back some certain far-right/far-left factions.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Why hypothesise about this?

Hamza Yusuf is a practicing Muslim. He voted for legalising gay marriage in the Scottish Parliament vote.

[ncRover]

Why hypothesise about this?

Hamza Yusuf is a practicing Muslim. He voted for legalising gay marriage in the Scottish Parliament vote.

I know, some religious people have more traditional / outdated views than others. I just wondered if Forbes’ views but coming from a different religious background would have the same reaction.

I’m not trying to make a point or anything don’t worry, was just a curious thought after the discussion on the other thread.

Like you said people free to vote and decide. All good.

[SydneyRover]

Maybe you've nailed a problem right there regarding open discussion about religion that people have been cowed into tippy toeing around it and that has allowed some involved in religion to totally corrupt it.

[Sprotyrover]

It's nice to see that the SNP is tolerant of all views on life,if this lady has a biblical view so what!

[danumdon]

Why hypothesise about this?

Hamza Yusuf is a practicing Muslim. He voted for legalising gay marriage in the Scottish Parliament vote.

I know, some religious people have more traditional / outdated views than others. I just wondered if Forbes’ views but coming from a different religious background would have the same reaction.

I’m not trying to make a point or anything don’t worry, was just a curious thought after the discussion on the other thread.

Like you said people free to vote and decide. All good.

You were right to raise it.

The point being, is Hamza Yusuf more concerned about advancing his political career than him being a good practising Muslim?

[BillyStubbsTears]

It's literally impossible to argue with that approach DD

[drfchound]

Thank goodness for that.  Hallelujah.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Shouldn't it be in a democracy that we take all of the views and actually she should be entitled to say any of that but she'd never be able to reverse it as she's in a minority.

But shouldn't religious people of all types be entitled to have a view and representation?

I'm sure we all have opinions on gay marriage etc. Some will be much more liberal in view on that than others.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yes BFYP.

And her party has the right to decide if they want someone with her views as their leader.

It works both ways.

[SydneyRover]

Shouldn't it be in a democracy that we take all of the views and actually she should be entitled to say any of that but she'd never be able to reverse it as she's in a minority.

But shouldn't religious people of all types be entitled to have a view and representation?

I'm sure we all have opinions on gay marriage etc. Some will be much more liberal in view on that than others.

Correct, and all people should be able to express their views on religion

[BillyStubbsTears]

This gets to the heart of my issue with people bleating about being taken to task for their religious views.

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1628688409433714690

What Tim Farron is saying here is "You are being intolerant for criticising my religious beliefs, which require me to be intolerant of other people's nature. "

And he doesn't even seem to realise what he is saying.

Forbes's religious beliefs would lead her to brand two people's love for each other as sinful, and prevent them from sharing the benefits of a legally sanctioned union. And Farron here has the lack of self awareness to complain about people hold her to task for that.

[i_ateallthepies]

Some very well reasoned logic to many of the points made in that link.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And then there's the quite spectacular arrogance in the opinion that human rights are only secured by the existence of God.

[drfchound]

And then there's the quite spectacular arrogance in the opinion that human rights are only secured by the existence of God.

Shouldn't it be in a democracy that we take all of the views and actually she should be entitled to say any of that but she'd never be able to reverse it as she's in a minority.

But shouldn't religious people of all types be entitled to have a view and representation?

I'm sure we all have opinions on gay marriage etc. Some will be much more liberal in view on that than others.

Correct, and all people should be able to express their views on religion

Mmmmm.
Contrasting opinions?

[ncRover]

And then there's the quite spectacular arrogance in the opinion that human rights are only secured by the existence of God.

That’s easy for anyone to say now. But perhaps humans organised in to religions for a reason. And we don’t know if we’d be living in the ‘best time to be alive’ (like now) if they hadn’t.

From an Agnostic.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Farron is talking about now.

[ncRover]

Farron is talking about now.

I meant easy to say that it’s arrogant, but I guess that can apply to Farron too. We don’t know either way and we never can.

If you could remove religion at the click of a finger, we couldn’t predict what the world would end up looking like.

I think it’s human nature to organise the mind and society (big or small) in such a way*, you can see that in archaeological findings. I think that religions maybe better and worse would gradually come about naturally in this hypothetical future. Especially in a future that has descended in to chaos.

*For example highly intelligent people now can stick to their political ideology with a heavy bias regardless of evidence to the contrary and lead others in to following them.

But this is just my philosophical rambling anyway.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And then there's the quite spectacular arrogance in the opinion that human rights are only secured by the existence of God.

Here he is, doubling down.

https://twitter.com/timfarron/status/1628778336053764097?s=20

"No God = No Human Rights"

I think what he's trying to say is that a belief in God gives a constant moral framework, whereas if it's only mere humans that define "human rights" they can change them as different ages and societies see fit.

In which case, he's even more f**king stupid than I gave him credit for. "God" told mankind in previous era's to publicly execute women who had extramarital sex. So much for eternal human rights.

[wilts rover]

Good to see people dont have a problem with a country being run by a religious fundamentalist.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Yes BFYP.

And her party has the right to decide if they want someone with her views as their leader.

It works both ways.

Absolutely.

Shouldn't it be in a democracy that we take all of the views and actually she should be entitled to say any of that but she'd never be able to reverse it as she's in a minority.

But shouldn't religious people of all types be entitled to have a view and representation?

I'm sure we all have opinions on gay marriage etc. Some will be much more liberal in view on that than others.

Correct, and all people should be able to express their views on religion

To a point, there is a line.

[SydneyRover]

Without wishing to get into an endless debate pud, can you explain about the 'line' and what you mean?

I've already been abused by someone of faith or religion, which apparently depends on his view at the time presumably because I don't agree with him.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Just a bit of common sense isn't it?  There's a big difference between having a different view on something and expressing that politely than calling someone outright wrong for their religious view, just the same as most things really.  Ultimately I don't necessarily agree that people have to accept in their own mind every change in the modern world, be that differing relationships, choices of gender etc.  But at the same point I don't think they should explicitly cause issues for those of that persuasion and you could say this about billions of things from relationship choices through to watching love island.

I do in a number of cases also think we bend too far for religious things in walks of life.  Should we have to allow employees time to pray 8 times a day?  Not in my view but the law would say otherwise.  Don't get me started on smoking breaks!

[SydneyRover]

That's the point isn't it? religion is not common sense. You forgot to talk about the line, where is it at the end of european religion, middle east religion, asian religion? You ask anyone that puts up non-scientific theories and they get short shrift on here. This goes back to what I referred to before, people have been cowed into not challenging it, where any other non-scientific topic is. Now about that line please.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP

With respect, I think you're missing the point here.

We are talking about 2 politicians who have voted, or would vote to restrict the freedoms of other people, based on the reasoning that a 2000 year old book told them that the people in question are sinful. And THEN they complain of intolerance when people question whether that approach means they are unsuitable for high office.
 

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

BFYP

With respect, I think you're missing the point here.

We are talking about 2 politicians who have voted, or would vote to restrict the freedoms of other people, based on the reasoning that a 2000 year old book told them that the people in question are sinful. And THEN they complain of intolerance when people question whether that approach means they are unsuitable for high office.
 

So they aren't entitled to their belief?  You're essentially saying we should ignore religion because it doesn't fit with what some perceive as their take on how the modern world should be.

Is it not right that both trains of thought could be valid?

That's the point isn't it? religion is not common sense. You forgot to talk about the line, where is it at the end of european religion, middle east religion, asian religion? You ask anyone that puts up non-scientific theories and they get short shrift on here. This goes back to what I referred to before, people have been cowed into not challenging it, where any other non-scientific topic is. Now about that line please.

In your opinion.  I suspect it isn't worth debate as you appear to be quite intolerant of anyone who has a religious belief.

[SydneyRover]

That's the easy way out pud, tell me I'm intolerant so you don't have to think about it. If you don't wish to discuss it on a rational level it's your call.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I'm not quite sure what I have to think about, my personal beliefs are frankly just that and I have no desire to either debate or be questioned around my personal or religious beliefs frankly nor question those of others as long as they're not killing anyone or forcing it upon others.

[SydneyRover]

Didn't you enter this conversation because of your personal beliefs?

[wilts rover]

I'm not quite sure what I have to think about, my personal beliefs are frankly just that and I have no desire to either debate or be questioned around my personal or religious beliefs frankly nor question those of others as long as they're not killing anyone or forcing it upon others.

If your views are well known and then you become the leader of a political party - are you 'forcing your views on others' if you change the law to match your views?