PROFESSOR IAN LINDEN
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • Online Books
    • Emirs, Evangelicals and Empiress
    • May You Live in Interesting Times
  • Publications
  • Articles
  • Contact

Latest Blogs

RELIGION & POLITICS: MUST KATE FORBES CHOOSE BETWEEN GOD & THE snp

7/3/2023

1 Comment

 
How has it come about that, when it comes to choosing a leader of a political party, a politician’s views on same-sex marriage seem to be a deal-breaker?  The controversy caused by Kate Forbes, once front runner for leadership of the Scottish National Party (SNP), saying she believed that “marriage is between a man and a woman” did not come out of a clear blue sky.  It has deep roots and prompts an important discussion about religious belief and politics. 
 
 
It is worth recalling the initial slow change in social attitudes after July 1967 when the bill decriminalizing homosexual acts between consenting adults over 21 was given royal assent.  The bill at the time excluded Scotland, Northern Ireland and the armed forces.  And there were setbacks such as Margaret Thatcher’s Section 28 banning in 1987 ‘the promotion of homosexuality’ in schools. 
 
 
Government provision of civil partnerships in 2004 and the 2010 Equalities Act summarising and simplifying previous anti-discrimination law were major landmarks in achieving equal right for people in same sex relationships.  The compatibility of religious belief and practice with the Equalities Act is normally established in the calm and clarity of a courtroom.  But since Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation and the instant withdrawal of prominent Forbes supporters, sexuality issues have been manipulated politically in the media by partisan contestants for her position as leader of the SNP.  As a result, the ensuing debate has been reduced to clashes on the frontline of the culture war between ‘woke’ and ‘reactionary’ belligerents.  Calm and clarity are not the first words that come to mind. 

Sexual ethics have played a significant role in religious education in the past and still do.  People with religious beliefs can hardly complain that issues of sexuality are newsworthy, it is a perennial interest and people of goodwill passionately disagree about it.  But does that mean holding socially conservative views based on religious belief should automatically exclude people from high political office?  The Equalities Act was intended to protect the rights of minorities whose sexual identities differ from the majority but also to protect the rights of religious minorities. 

Here are some observations which try to put the problem in historical context.  We now inhabit an ethical terrain in which the terms human rights and civil rights have proliferated unhelpfully in popular usage.  They have come to trump other ways of talking about and legislating what is the right thing to do.  Not everything we might reasonably hope for in a democratic society is a human right or even a civil right. 

Campaigning for gay rights was about the removal of discrimination. A success was Tony Blair’s 2004 legislation creating civil partnerships in the UK affording same-sex partnerships the civil rights equal to those of heterosexual marriage.  In later legal tidying up, the provisions of the 2004 Act became available to those in heterosexual relationships who, for one reason or another, (because of the patriarchal connotations of traditional marriage) did not wish to be married.  

Peter Tatchell’s successful campaign for same-sex marriage used the brilliant slogan “Equal Love” and was rewarded by the 2013 Same-Sex Couples Act that did away with State prohibition of same-sex civil marriage.  The 2013 Act gave recognition to the equal value of same-sex love and thus to the human dignity of the couples in same-sex relationships felt to have been inadequately expressed by the initially special minority provision called civil partnership.  But religious organisations were not obliged to religiously marry same sex partners. It was not a human right.
 
The 2004 and then 2013 Acts, subject to the permission of Local Authorities, enabled religious organisations to register marital relationships and perform same-sex marriages as well as civil partnerships.  The latter was a major change in the concept of marriage.  No longer an exclusively heterosexual institution it became a challenge to traditional Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinking and scripture on marriage, a change in both definition and meaning.  It inevitably was, and is, profoundly divisive. 
 
The concept of ‘equal love’ is a mainstay of Christian theology and in February 2023 the Church of England General Synod voted to allow priests to bless same sex marriage and civil partnerships. The Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA), though, described it as “schismatic and unbiblical behaviour”.  Alongside the no less conservative leaders of GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference) the GSFA represents over 70% of the Anglican Communion round the world, mainly provinces in the southern hemisphere.   Heaven above knows what they would call approval of the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill. 

So we come to the Scottish National Party (SNP) and the undeniably courageous Kate Forbes speaking openly about what her Christian - ‘Wee Free’ Presbyterian – beliefs demand.  In interviews she has described how she would vote according to her conscience but honour the present and future democratic will even if she personally disagreed with it.  A window into her soul best kept closed?  Refreshing openness and truthfulness in a politician or foolish candour?   Forbes does not have the good fortune to be a German politician.   In 2017 the then Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed a free vote on the same-sex marriage Act, voted against it herself, and when resigning four years later enjoyed 80% approval.   Throw in a little misogyny and Forbes may have forfeited the role of first Minister to Humza Yousaf who has contrived to miss voting on such issues. 

Can Scotland trust Kate Forbes to honour the democratic will?  The most compelling argument made against her is that whatever she now says no-one can be sure that as First Minister her strong Christian principles wouldn’t later unacceptably influence her policy judgements.  Acceptance depends on trusting her word.  Strange then that her truth-telling should be distrusted but a serial offender against truth, the untrustworthy Boris Johnson, was elected leader of the Conservative Party and remained popular even when the threat of a Corbyn government receded.
  
 
We live in a democracy.  Those who are unwilling to set aside a candidate’s religious views are free not to vote for them.  But the question remains do views on sexuality influence political judgement more strongly than other views?    After all, socially conservative views on sexuality do not imply or mean conservative views on all other social and political issues.  For example, views on climate change, inequality, defence, health and social care need probing before a candidate is judged either way.  Again, why is this minority position on sexuality a deal-breaker?  Is this about making faith a private matter, excluding religion from public debate?
 
Forget woke and not woke. It is time to step back, reject the social media lynch mob, and start listening to each other.  Writing in The Observer 26 February Kenan Malik’s proposes that in a secular democracy strong religious views can be safely compatible with the top job in, say, the Treasury and Foreign Office but problematic for a Party leader responsible for the totality of policy.  Pure conjecture of course but interesting. Yet when we reach a point where someone convicted of raping two women, described as a ‘transgender woman’, is sent to an all-female prison for assessment, it is arguable that Scotland needs someone running the SNP with some old-fashioned ideas, or at least some common sense. 
 
 
The first leadership debate on STV on 7 March will have been an opportunity for participants to listen to religious views and treat them with respect.  In the words of the Scottish Catholic Bishops “religion is not a problem for legislators to solve but instead makes its own vital contribution to the national conversation”. 


   ​
1 Comment
Jonathan Cotton link
10/3/2023 11:13:59

8 March 2023
Thank you Professor Ian Linden. You have written an article that clarifies our challenges in the UK, and it may help when and if there may be a dialogue on these issues. For example I applaud the way you have written about these views with which I agree.
There are deeply held opinions on both sides to be discussed.
I would promote the word “dialogue”. Often such dialogue does not happen as both sides are too emotional and cannot imagine that there is something to learn from the opponent. I would suggest that some discussion and training on the issue of dialogue should be undertaken. It is not easy but well worth while.
My reason for focussing on dialogue and training is because I am at the minute engaged with Sophia University in Loppiano where a brilliant expert is leading a course precisely on the issue. He is Professor Roberto Catalano and in this case it is Italian, though as Sophia is in the Tuscan countryside outside Florence in Italy. In my old age as a Benedictine monk of Ampleforth I am having a sabbatical year.
It did strike me that a link with Sophia University might be useful with St Mary’s Strawberry Hill. For one thing there is an emphasis on dialogue and Trinitarian Theology. It is also international in its Professors and its students. I know of, but little about St Mary’s though I have been there in the chapel and have read some very good documents coming out of St Mary’s. The rector of Sophia University is Professor Declan O’ Byrne.
You point out not explicitly but implicitly the difficulties that those people like me have even in trying to start a dialogue that remains rational, civil, and open to the possibility of both sides learning.
The dialogue in the Kate Forbes situation is not so much on the issues that are the sticking point. It is about the issue of trust as you clearly point out. The issues are something that all our citizens live with and I doubt if there will be any change in legislation in the present climate.
Some are convinced that somebody who personally opposes same-sex marriage is unable to let their personal views to be honestly and truthfully put aside in the climate in which we live. As you point out there is no equality given the evidence that there have been leaders chosen without any kind of pre-election trustworthiness. In this case of Kate Forbes she is brave and open and truthful, and she deserves to be trusted as Angela Merkel was. She is deemed to be the best person for the leadership of the SNP political party but that does not count.
What we need is the possibility to have different views and to look rationally at all those who have the good of our own country and of others in our view. We can search for the truth with others who have different views even if it does not lead to political change.
These issues are worldwide, and we need to do it peacefully and without domination, threats and pressures stirred up by the side that seems to have the most power at present in the issue.
Even that may be too idealistic but is it worth a try?
Jonathan Cotton osb.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • Online Books
    • Emirs, Evangelicals and Empiress
    • May You Live in Interesting Times
  • Publications
  • Articles
  • Contact