In practice, can church and state really be separated?

Human rights conventions and legislation protect freedom of thought, conscience and religion and, among other things, religion and sex are protected characteristics.

On the other hand, it seems from the debate that voters are entitled to take into account religious views when voting for standing candidates. The controversy appears to have been prompted by observations around the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, passed by Holyrood but blocked by Westminster and opposed by groups who see it as a potential threat to women’s security and, I suppose, women’s rights in a general sense. In relation to devolution powers, it might be worth mentioning that the proposed incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scottish law was also challenged at Westminster, and remains unresolved.

The concept of separation of church and state is a main tenet in the maintenance of a democratic secular state. However, given the current complexities thrown up around human rights issues, it might be reasonable to ask if the adoption of this concept is possible in practice.

While not overlooking the influence of progressive theologians, I think it would be fair to say that orthodox religious doctrines could be seen as at times at odds with liberal – or what some might refer to as humanistic – concerns and have historically had issues with women’s freedoms, although others might disagree.

On the latter point, and reflecting on recent legal decisions in the US and other events around the world, it may be the case that maintaining liberality in human rights for women in the West is going to be an ongoing issue of the times, along with the protection of democratic values, faced with a current trend of challenges in the world today.
Peter Gorrie
Edinburgh

ANENT the furore on Kate Forbes’s religious views, a letter in The Herald last week surely identified the reason. The Unionist media were obviously holding their breath in fear of Kate becoming FM and therefore were waiting for a means to undermine her. They have found the ideal means by using a small part of her honest answer.

As a result, they pounced on her statement that she would have voted against gay marriage and totally ignored the rest of her answer, in which she made it clear that she would not allow her personal views to affect a democratic decision. In other words, if a situation arose in which she felt she had to abstain or vote against, she would not block it. In that case, she would have, just like every other MSP, one vote – not sufficient to alter the course of a truly democratically backed bill.

I am not only horrified but disappointed, and even disgusted, that some prominent members of the SNP and the Greens have seen fit to fall for this Unionist stratagem and withdraw their support from Kate. After so many efforts to remove any form of discrimination from public life, are they now indicating that no-one should be barred from any post for reasons of their religious beliefs – Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or any other – except for “Wee Frees”?

I would hope that these deserters would recognise how they have fallen into a media trap and restore their support for Kate Forbes. I, for one, would much prefer a first minister with the honesty and integrity she has shown, even if she, on a rare occasion, might withhold her vote on something to which I am personally committed.
L McGregor
Falkirk

AS Kevin McKenna emphasises in Wednesday’s National, individuals should be free to pursue whatever religious faith they wish without fear of discrimination or persecution (incredibly, according to Wikipedia, there are an estimated 4200 different religions worldwide with each one, presumably, following their own path!).

What concerns me about religion is how people interpret and apply their own particular faith. We only have to think about what happened in 1947 following partition in India or how women in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan etc are treated. There is also the question of why the Vatican helped Nazis escape justice and flee to Argentina at the end of the Second World War (presumably because they viewed the war criminals they assisted as potential allies in their fierce opposition to Stalin’s communist USSR).

I have to confess that I am an atheist and two of the verses from Michael Marra’s song Chain Up The Swings (written about those days not so long ago when children playing on the swings on a Sunday was regarded as sinful in parts of Scotland!) always come to mind whenever religion is being debated!

Six days I will be sober,
on the seventh I’ll take a drink.
I’ll sit by the window with a tin of beer,
and watch them chain up the swings.
Let them gather up their brows and their old wives’ tales,
tweed and dashes and the spikes and flails.
Let them bow down in homage to the Prince of Wales,
me, I’m going to get pished.
Alan Woodcock
Dundee

IT must have been obvious that the British media would do what they can to confuse and undermine the credibility of the SNP leadership contest. They have started on Kate Forbes, and it’s disappointing that some people have withdrawn their support because of that. As other correspondents have remarked, if she’s the candidate they most want to undermine, that should tell us something!

A couple of days ago, an article by Alastair McIntosh appeared on the Bella Caledonia website, exploring the issue of faith in politics with his usual deep and compassionate intelligence. I would commend it to all your readers.

My own reflection, as an agnostic with some spiritual leaning, is that the Calvinist tradition is deeply aware of human fallibility, and encourages self-examination and searching of conscience. As Alastair McIntosh shows in his short book Island Spirituality, the adherents of the Free Church are far from the joyless, judgmental people they have too often been caricatured as. In fact, you will go far to find more warm and generous people. Knowing all of us are fallible leads to approaching our fellow humans with compassion, not rushing to judgement.

It has been well said that the opposite of faith is not doubt, which people of true faith will always grapple with. It is certainty. Faith is having trust when you cannot know for sure.

I can’t help noticing that the adherents of so-called social justice ideology (of which transgender activism is part) wrap themselves in self-righteous certainty, meeting any doubts or questions with aggressive accusations of hate and bigotry. What a way to win people over to your point of view!

I, for one, would like to see more faith and less certainty in our politics.
Robert Moffat
Penicuik

IT’S indeed a sad reflection that, in a so-called religious nation, a Christian and a Muslim have to justify their faiths in the SNP leadership contest.

Both Kate Forbes and Humza Yousaf are excellent political leaders and stand together for independence and the NHS. Their religious views should never be a disadvantage within the secular political process.

The endless cacophony of Unionist media questions, about whether Kate Forbes’s Christian faith conflicts with SNP policies, is totally fraudulent. In accepting that her views are scrutinised, she has said, many times, that following debate she stands by collective responsibility on SNP government decisions, as democracy demands.

In truth, the honesty of Kate is a gift to the vast Unionist media, who will continue to denigrate her and the SNP-led independence campaign.

As the weeks pass, the leadership qualities of Kate Forbes will develop along direct and inspirational lines. In bringing a fresh, strong and honest approach to the good governance of Scotland, she will fight poverty and inequality, uphold human rights and, above all, bring together a successful independence movement.
Grant Frazer
Newtonmore

THIS letter is not a comment on Kate Forbes’s religious beliefs. Everyone quite rightly has a right to hold whatever religious beliefs they have. It is, however, my right as a Scottish citizen to make comment on what type of outlook and values I personally want to see in our first minister.

In response to a reporter’s question about the possibility of challenging the UK Government in the courts over the blocking of the Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) Bill using a Section 35 order, Kate stated: “My polling, as it were, is based on conversations with normal, ordinary people over the last seven months and to a person they say, ‘focus on the NHS, focus on the cost of living crisis and focus on making the case for independence’. That, I think, is more of a priority than legal cases so I would be loath to challenge it.”

Who are these “normal, ordinary people”? I wonder how many trans folk throughout Scotland right now have been made to feel “normal and ordinary” after recent events or gay people in reaction to Kate’s comments about same-sex marriage? I am 62 and when

I was younger in the 1970s, in the eyes of society generally, “normal and ordinary” unfortunately didn’t usually mean gay, trans or other minority groups for that matter.

Society has changed drastically since then but events such as Brexit, Trump becoming president of the USA and, of course, our very own debates on the GRR Bill have depressingly stirred up too many dark feelings among some folk, although I acknowledge many genuine concerns also regarding the bill.

I know there will be folk who consider this was just an innocent use of words. However, given the context, the toxic atmosphere surrounding the GRR Bill debate and latterly comment on same-sex marriage, I think they were clumsy and ill-considered, at best. Problem is, Kate came across to me throughout these interviews as someone that chose her words very carefully and, for me, words are everything.

True equality was never, and will never, be about making compromises to appease “normal and ordinary” people, whoever the hell they are! I know it’s a cliche, but a cliche that’s never been more relevant in what type of Scotland I personally want to live in and firmly believe is shared by many:

Oor either a country that brings aw Jock Tamson’s bairns intae the body o’ the kirk, or oor nowt!
Ivor Telfer
Dalgety Bay, Fife

YOUR report about the Free Church of Scotland claiming intolerance in the reaction to the views of Kate Forbes (February 22) takes the well-worn path of recent years regarding challenges to faith-based opinions.

We are all free to express our beliefs and our reasoning that informs them. However, no one is obliged to respect them. In the last few years, simply stating one disagrees with a religiously informed belief immediately has the religious playing the victim card and accusing those who dare to disagree of being intolerant, prejudiced or discriminatory. The cry of “persecution” goes up, which apparently in Christian-speak means you have the temerity to disagree with us.

It’s particularly ironic given the intolerance of the Free Church of Scotland practised down the decades and still enforced today in its Isle of Lewis stronghold. Just ask the locals in Stornoway who want to take the family swimming on Sundays who find their leisure centre remains closed.
Alistair McBay
Perth