The ongoing effort to replace the First Minister of Scotland has prompted considerable discussion around the role of secularism in politics. Of note, one of the potential candidates, Katie Forbes, has, rightly, been the target of harsh criticism on social media due to her public opposition to same-sex marriage and Gender Recognition. Forbes, however, has not concealed her personal religious beliefs, which underlie her stance, there is no ambiguity with Forbes. By contrast, another candidate, Humza Yousaf, a practising Muslim, has been a little bit vague about things, he too failed to vote positively on same-sex marriage, this is no small detail yet the leftfield side of the SNP wishes to make it so – and have decided to set the hounds on the Christian instead.
I once invited Yousaf to speak at an event hosted by the now defunct “Scottish Secular Society” (SSS)- of which I was then chair – but he subsequently cancelled with no explanation and despite numerous requests, refused to attend any future events. This was despite a letter from Nicola Sturgeon asking to be kept up to date by the SSS.
No other person of faith had ever refused to address the SSS, but we couldn’t seem to lock down prospective Muslim speakers for some reason!
Despite the significant overlap in religious worldview between Forbes and Yousaf, certain progressive left-leaning individuals, presumably in pursuit of a secular and democratic Scotland, have targeted Forbes only for her religious affiliations while refusing to challenge Yousaf in the same way. It is incumbent upon us seculars to recognize the value of diversity in religious belief and practice and to avoid the judgment of individuals on this basis (I myself have made this fundamental mistake many times) Especially as Forbes’ particular denomination, is a small minority in a fairly irreligious government.
In addition, the separation of personal beliefs from professional roles is of paramount importance, particularly in the context of public office. Forbes’ personal beliefs should not be used as a basis for evaluating her ability to perform her duties as an MSP. Rather, her ability to serve her constituents effectively should be assessed based on her actions, decisions, and leadership qualities.
Katie Forbes’ religious affiliation as a member of the Free Church of Scotland should have no bearing on whether or not she would make a great leader for Scotland. This is because a person’s religious beliefs do not necessarily determine their ability to lead and govern a country effectively. While it is important for leaders to have a set of values and beliefs that guide their decision-making, it is equally important for them to respect the diversity of beliefs and perspectives within their communities.
(Of Blasphemy, from the Narrenschiff (The Ship of Fools); woodcut attributed to Albrecht Dürer)
Moreover, secularism, which separates religion and state, is an important principle in modern democracies, including Scotland. Secularism is not an attack on religion or religious people, but rather a recognition that the state should not promote or favour any particular religion over others. This protects the rights of all religious and non-religious individuals, allowing them to freely practice their beliefs without fear of persecution or discrimination.
Furthermore, a leader’s religious affiliation does not necessarily align with the views and beliefs of the wider population. It is important for leaders to represent the diverse needs and opinions of their constituents, regardless of their own personal beliefs. As such, it is crucial for leaders to uphold secularism and respect the right of all citizens to freely practice their own religion or none at all.
In fact, many successful leaders throughout history have been able to separate their personal beliefs from their governance. For example, President John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic President of the United States, yet he famously stated, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.” This sentiment underscores the importance of leaders being able to put the needs and rights of their citizens first, regardless of their own personal beliefs.
The hyper-progressives need to leave the gate and put their torches out.
Ultimately, what matters most in a leader is their character, experience, and ability to lead, not their religious affiliation. By upholding secularism, Scotland can protect the rights of all its citizens and ensure that its leaders represent the diverse needs and opinions of its people. In this way, Scotland can continue to try to be a shining example of a modern, pluralistic democratic society.
What Forbes has demonstrated over the last few days is something utterly absent from modern political discourse – honesty and transparency.
If Forbes is successful (which I doubt, now that her hypocritic former supporters-come-backstabbers have been dragged back into the ideological mind-hive) Scotland has enough checks and balances to contain any religious radicalism that may be unpalatable to the majority, we’re not perfect but the role of religion in Scottish politics barely registers, yes there may be one or two archaic hangovers from days gone (and believe me, I’ve tried to contest them) but we’re not a nation of religious radicals, quite the opposite, Scotland is a progressive society, this should be applauded but like religion, certain forms of progressivism should also have its own set of checks and balances, as the unfortunate Sturgeon found out, much to her demise.
And one last note on Yousaf whilst we’re talking about “freedom of things” it wasn’t too long ago his “hate crime” ( which was, ironically, a modern-day blasphemy bill) would have families reporting each other over comments made at the kitchen table. This is much more sinister than anything Kate Forbes could have possibly drawn up. Maybe consider what a future Scotland would be like with someone like him in charge?
Damned if I do.. 