Why religious politicians should be scrutinised
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 кві 2023
- Church of England priest and writer The Reverend Fergus Butler-Gallie joins PoliticsJOE to discuss his new book Touching Cloth. He discusses whether or not the Church is cringe, why it politican's religious views should be scrutinised, and how he ended up praying down the phone to a dog.
Subscribe to our new podcast now, or you're a silly goose:
linktr.ee/pubcast
Subscribe to our podcast: linktr.ee/pubcast
I particularly like Rees-Mogg's brand of Christianity, where he cherry-picks which bits of the Bible to follow. For example he completely ignores this one: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God."
And then there is this: "The Somerset MP is against abortion even in rape cases, but profits from the sale of pills widely used in illegal abortions in Indonesia."
So you are just a bad faith person.
Cons are hypocrites
People choose the parts of their religion they align with or fits their beliefs and values then ignore parts that don't or engage in Olympic level mental gymnastics to explain why.
Although the saying " the louder the sinner the bigger the sin" when religious figures are hating on gays get caught in relationships with men does seem to hold water.
The camel passing through the eye of a needle passage is about putting faith in God not money in the sense of making not God the summum bonum.
@@jonathandnicholson nah its pretty obvious it's about how wealth corrupts. Because it does
They can be whatever they want. But the state should be secular. That's the whole point. So they don't force their weird ideas down anyone's throat.
Secular is code for atheist, so religious people by default are discriminated against, unless those "religious" people abandon they're religion (in name only) to gain power thus the country gains what no one wants, another dishonest politician for power/position.
@@Sr68720 It isn't 'code' for atheist. If only.
@@hg82met Secular does mean absence of God, so that would mean excluding believers.
Well they wouldn't be forcing anything down anyones throat any more than the way non religious politicians throw their "world views" down peoples throats.
@@jonathandnicholson Everyone has a religion even if they say they don't.
Politicians having a religious belief is not a problem. Political religion or religious politics runs the risk of creating a lethal poison we could well do without.
Absolutely NOT I wouldn't trust a tory Christian as far as I could throw them.
Honestly same
MLK , Malcom X & Ghandi were all men of faith who were also greatest leaders of 20th Century.
Having a love for all people's is at the core of my Christian faith, I'm a member of Socialist party & XR.
I disagree. I think they were both dangerous and led to dangerous movements, e.g., Hindutva and Nation of Islam. Any utopia built on the belief in magic can only be bad. Let's all meet in reality.
Religion can be used to guide your actions but shouldn't be used as exuse to control the actions of others.
That's how I see it
@@Aarenby which is pretty much the whole purpose of religion! 🤣
All politicians should be scrutinised
Religion has to be separate from politics. Punkt
So people's morals and values should be separate from politics, makes no sense/and is impossible.
@@Sr68720 Funnily enough - morals and values aren't exclusive to the religious. Some of us can tell right from wrong without the help of fairytales.
@@Sr68720 Religious ≠ moral
@@segue2ant395 why are peoples "morals and values" that they have invented for themselves superior to peoples religious morals and values?
@@lee9650 for starters, non-believers don't need the threat of eternal damnation in order to be good people. The fact that religious people have to be told they will burn for eternity if they murder/rape/steal so they shouldn't do it is rather telling... 😁
I’m an atheist but I believe that people should be free to believe in whatever they want as long as it doesn’t harm anyone. In that belief I don’t think religion should be used to argue for laws.
Thank you for that interview.
Touching cloth?
The sequel to his first book ’Turtles Head’
He actually seems quite funny to be fair and im an atheist
His explanation of how he became a priest is similar to how i got married.
Me too, but it worked for me and her; this year is our 39th anniversary.
@@roderickjoyce6716 congratulations, here's to many more happy years!
Separate religion from politics but don’t harass anyone who doesn’t believe the same things as you
How do you separate religion from politics?
@@jonathandnicholson By not involving religion, completely irrelevant childish fairytales in the literal management of society.
@@progressivedemagogue8480 As I asked: how do you separate religion from politics?
@@jonathandnicholson
Maybe atheists should run the world. They’re the bright ones anyway..
@Jonathan Nicholson ask Kate Forbes.
An example. Our sitting MP is one of two, maybe three practising Mormons in the HOC. In the free vote in the assisted dying bill, despite his constituents overwhelmingly supporting the Bill, his personal religious belief was more important and he vote against the bill. Effectively, we were all cuckoo Mormons for the day. It's simply appalling.
The state should be secular but as a free society a politician have practice whatever faith they so wish in private. However, they shouldn’t be making government policy based upon religion
Absurd. You mean a politician could not vote on, say, the Homicide Act 1957? Church is not the only part of Christianity and Church is not a Sunday brunch club. Anyway, if religious people should not make policy based on their religion perhaps Communists, Conservatives, Liberals etc should not be able to pass laws based on the writings of Marx, Burke or Mill et al.That can apply to statisticians too.
Why not if a policy has passed the democratic process?
@@jonathandnicholson you're missing the point. A motivation to pass a specific policy should not be driven solely by religion. And yeah purely ideologically driven politics is bad whatever flavour. Theres plenty of non ideological reasons to oppose homicide. Though your disregard for statistics is a little worrying as we should definitely base policy on things which are provable.
@@JP-sm4cs Tell me how, statistically, as you invoked, murder etc is wrong. I believe murder to be bad, unjust and wrong. That is because I believe people are made in the image of God and God said not to do so because He loves you (and I love God and you) rather than because of the importance of Gross Domestic Product or any other material or statistical concern.
We need a seperation of church and state. And we need to recognise that while religion is part of person their role as an MP is not to legislate with religious reasoning, because that's theocracy, they should use metarial reasoning as that's democracy
Since the only reasonable and rational answer is "yes to the extent they don't act like it" then the answer is actually *no.* Cut out the middleman.
Im atheist, and I’d say that separating religion from politics is a very good idea, but I think if a politician is making policies that have nothing to do with their faith but rather for the good of people, what’s the issue with them being religious? It’s not so much a question of politicians being religious or not as whether the politicians should enforce that religion on others, which is in all cases wrong. The state should be secular but the people running it can be whatever they like
@@dannyeleternity7390 For me, the problem is that a British politician is highly unlikely to admit that their faith is part of the reason for their policy. Taking gay mariage as an example - the arguments were about the stability of the family unit, the sanctity of marriage, the 'indoctrination of children'. Arguments that headlined faith were for the most part sidelined - but it would be very dishonest to say the individual faiths of politicians concerned didn't play a massive role in delaying making the right decision.
@@segue2ant395 yes, I understand that and do agree with you that ofc most politicians won’t admit whether or not theyre making legislation based on religion, and ofc legislation, as I said before, should not be based on it. Look to the Middle East and see how badly theocracy is doing them. But at the same time, how much better is forcing everyone to strip themselves of their religion than forcing everyone to adopt one religion? I’d argue it’s two sides of the same shit-smothered coin.
I think we both agree that religion and politics should be separated, but I don’t think that people in parliament who are religious should have their faith ripped from them if they’re not using it to attack the masses. let’s not rip people of their freedom of thought.
@@dannyeleternity7390 I think that's fair. For my part - I would suggest some sort of official statement designed to reinforce the separation, in the Oath of Office for example. Not to denounce their faith, but just to publicly affirm that it won't affect their lawmaking. It will - of course - but I'd rather they at least had a pause for thought first.
This man represents why very few people are interested in this nonsense. What damned difference do they really make - zero.
To have someone in a position of power who thinks they take orders from a higher power that exists in their mind is beyond dangerous. If someone has faith, that cannot be seperated from their politics. It's completely insidious as a foundation in that person's psyche.
Many of the original founders of unions and the Labor party were religious and did not think their religion separated their values for the working class. In fact it spurred them on in fighting for the working class (in Australia our Labor refers to trying to reach 'The light on the hill' which has Christian origins).
The suggestion that you can choose when or when you aren’t religious is completely ridiculous. If you are a person of faith it informs everything about your actions. Democracy has to include everyone or else it isn’t really democracy.
I disagree- and I'm a Christian- I know that's what the church teaches but it's just not true-
If you try to can pull apart dogma
I agree - you choose everything you ever do, including following some made up rubbish used to control people.
💯 NO NO NO let’s not go backwards ffs 🙄
Hehehe touching cloth 🤣🤣🤣
Ikr?!! 😅
(Is Fergus too young to know, is it a regional thing, class?)
Athesists see the irony.
Lots of people saying elected representatives should be allowed to be religious in private but not bring it into their role at work. Isn't that kind of like saying they can have a strong set of morals and a way they think the world or society should be in private but they shouldn't bring that into their job? I e. Socialism, conservatism, etc.
Like the reverend said, if you have a faith or religion you're committed to, that is a fundamental part of who you are as a human, you can't really just turn it off. If they're elected on the understanding that that is who they are and what they stand for, surely that's sort of an expression of consent to that set of morals from the majority of their constituents, no?
Just a thought.
If we truly believed in a God we would be horrified at what is happening politically. But we don't think about what responsibilities are part of following a religion. Meanwhile look at the way politicians use religion to manipulate people into believing their ideas are the correct ones.
@15:00 very interesting articulation.
NO NO NO NEVER ,NO PINK RABBIT WORSHIP. no preast holes no cults for that is what ALL of them are
Not having a funeral (ie the pandemic) is completely different to just having a ceremony that doesn't involve the church, but Fergus glosses over this to support his position that the Church has to be the middleman. The same is true for weddings. The church doesn't need to offer some additional "required" meaning to the ceremonies of human tradition that already make a lot of sense, even just at face value. We mourn our dead, and celebrate marriage, hopefully together with our loved ones.
Hatch, Match, Dispatch. - hahahaha - Best description of the Churches role in society ever! xD
When rulers move to subjective morality, then morality becomes a whim of opinion, a fertile ground for atrocity, history has taught us that, and future will also show us the same, and most people here will cheerlead the atrocity against others.
A broken tainted species that only a few people can see.
Religion , royalty and personal wealth have no place in politics
Why not. MPs are supposed to be from the people and many people have religions so why not?
Humza Yousaf did make clear he would have voted for Gay Marriage, and would do now if it were in parliament. He didn't get to vote because he was in essential and urgent diplomatic talks with Iran about getting a Scottish Citizen returned.
Separating religion from humanity might be a more beneficial aim.
If you whisper to a make believe dude with a beard who lives in a cloud for help then you shouldn't be making policy decisions
Annoyingly people learning to teach must attend church through out there education . No opt out and that is totally wrong
The problem comes when religious people want to use their ancient texts to justify modern laws. We aren't a theocracy, so any argument that a law should be enacted because it says in the (religious text of choice). They tend to cherry pick the bits that reinforce their personal choices and ignore the stuff that would be inconvenient to them
You can be guided by religion in your choices and decisions that effect yourself-
But the moment you try to use religion as an exuse to exclude, demonise and otherharm minority groups or use ot as a supsoed reason why you can control the kives and bodies of others.
Then you go over the line to theocracy.
NO.
They shouldn't bring it in to the chamber with them, but you'd do well to think about what you're actually saying if your answer is a blanket "no."
Then do not take your values into the chamber.
Sure they can be, but it should not guide their political decisions.
literally impossible
@@Sr68720 Then they need to not take decisions and excuse themselves in those situations or issues where their religious beliefs are guiding them.
Again, not possible. If you require that of religious people then you ought not to bring your moral presuppositions whether based on the writings of Burke, Kant, Marx, Mill or Rousseau et al.
@@jonathandnicholson again a bundle of false equivalence
Why not? Even "non religious people" have their world views, morals and ethics guide their political decisions. Why does it matter if their morals and ethics are taken from a recognised "religion" or not?
I respect that people have a belief n a faith and I also respect that others have no faith.
If Bishops and Rabbi’s are allowed to sit in the House of Lords,
Why is there no Imam, Swamis, a Buddhist Monk, Pagan, Satanist or a Atheist representation in the House of Lords?
I’ve been watching the Lords/Baroness’ in action = they are doing a great job, however, there are still large groups of people not represented in the House of Lords
Only bishops are allowed in the House of Lords as the Lords Spiritual and is to do with the establishment of the Church of England. Rabbis and others are allowed to sit in the House of Lords as part of the lords temporal.
@@jonathandnicholson There is a Rabbi ( • Sir Jonathan Sacks) is sitting in the House of Lords so why are not other Religious leader such a most Senior Imam included?
@@andrewdavis2511 Er, Lord Sacks. Mere knights are not lords. Lord Sacks was a member of the lords temporal, but was not in that chamber because he was Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - a member of the great and good because the established Church is the Church of England (hence the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England are referred to as the Lords Spiritual).
@@jonathandnicholson I feel that all Temporal Lords & Ladies of the house no matter which Domination is a good thing, however, as a part of No representation as secularist I feel House of Lords is not diverse enough
@@andrewdavis2511 That statement makes no sense. About halfway through you lose any sense of coherence. However, if you mean as a secularist you think the lords spiritual should sit in the House of Lords... Well, that is not an illegal opinion, but one I disagree with.
The only way to make the HoL truly diverse and representative would be to have every person sitting in the HoL, but then what happens to the House of Commons? Would the maintenance of the HoC give some people two votes and/or would the HoL be able to assert primacy? What would happen to elections?
Any derivation from everyone requires an acceptance that the HoL is not going to be truly diverse or representative unless you think diversity and representation are mere tokens or a nice ideal which would be at odds with your problem that the HoL is not so.
Come back to me with a plan, a proper thought out plan and not just a string of buzzwords.
Damn few of them have a modicum of humanity so why would they believe in a God, any God.
🤠💜
Religion has no place in politics. All politicians need to keep their personal and religious beliefs at home like in every place of work. We are a secular society.
I think you need to learn what being a secular society really means. It doesn't mean leave your religion at home. It just means that religious rules aren't automatically deemed law. It doesn't mean it's illegal or wrong to practice ones religion openly. Or to voice and start a discussion about religion whether in politics or otherwise. Things don't become law until they have passed the democratic process anyway. We are in a democratic liberal society not a fascists bigoted one, which means people are free to have their religion openly.
Ministers can be religious but should not influence politics. I don’t get involved in abortion because of my faith and it’s not fair to put my views on women’s lives.
Oh, so you do not believe in willing the good of the other?!
@@jonathandnicholson I don’t get what you mean
@@jlewis2890 Well, presumably you do not agree with legalising murder. However, that refusal to legalise murder is an imposition. I think to legalise murder would be to will the bad of the other, so criminalising murder is to will the good of the other. The act of aborting a foetus is also an imposition on the foetus, so the option is what not whether: the good, the just, the righteous or the bad, the unjust, the wrong.
@Jonathan Nicholson there are already many legalised taking of life.
I resent your premise that what abortion is and I don't agree with it. But your reasoning is flawed even if I done reject your premise
@@Aarenby What do you disagree with?
I want to believe this reasonable guy represents a reasonable civic group, but the Catholic church's whipping up of abortion as a culture war issue through student organisation means he doesn't.
He's an Anglican cleric.
Sky fairies and ghosties?
Haddaway and shite man.
Religion should be separate from humanity.
Why do people cling to religion? - it is all about believing and not about what is actuality! There is no god - period - forget about Father Christmas.
We need to have a complete separation of church and state with religious organizations to pay taxes. We have an unelected House of Lords with place filled by 26 Bishops for no other reason than being part of the Church of England.
I'm an agnostic atheist, agnosticism is without knowledge of a god & atheism is without belief in a god.
The priest continually engages in logical fallacies with strawman statements, appeals to tradition, appeals to emotion, and there is zero pushback from the interviewer in what feels like a puff piece for the Church.
Awww, poor you. What is wrong with emotion or tradition?
@@jonathandnicholson logical fallacies?
I'm not a christian but bishops represent the interests, faith, and for loss of a better word, "the hobby" of religious church attendees/ christians. In a similar way other community leaders represent their respective communities. Business tycoons in the lords represent the interests of business people, academics in the lords represent the interests of academics and so on and so forth. For many people whats important to them in life is religion just as bussines and making money is important to others, so why shouldn't they have those people who represent them and stand up for what is important to them in the Lords?
@@jonathandnicholson what you've just said is a strawman fallacy - perhaps you should learn about them before you comment fallaciously about fallacies! See, I can match your condescension!
@@doctorfunkshock How did I misrepresent the view(s) of the original commenter?
Caveat/mistake.
Agnosticism is a form of atheism.
Saying atheism is going down is a bit like saying car use is going down when you're specifically talking about Austin.
No it's not. You can be an agnostic theist if you practice a religion but do not claim to know it's beliefs to be true.
@@Jay_Johnson you can also have agnostic or gnostic atheists, my point was more you can't exactly say atheism is on the decline because agnosticism is gaining popularity as shorthand for agnostic atheism
"Religion is part of the wholeness of the person" just flung out as some immutable axiom basically invalidates anything that gets said after it, at least as far as you wield it as an excuse to make political decisions based on religious doctrine,
Religion is a personal thing, and rightly should be free from condemnation. By the exact same token, it has no place in a benevolent political machine.
First time I've ever commented on UA-cam but as a former militant atheist and now Christian for 5 years, the comments are full of people that don't know what religion even is (I've been there). If it weren't for Christianity in Europe we would still have rulers boasting about committing genocide with everyone cheering along. If you're left wing (as I am) or even interested in politics, truth etc. you need to wise up on religion, its not smart being dismissive, it's tragically anti intellectual.
Except that in the name of Christianity we still have genocide being justified. If you want an example, the AIDS epedemic was actively ignored until it effected straight people because it was unofficial policy to be a divine punishment and a solution to the Thatcher and Regan government's "gay problem". Right now Christian Nationalism in the US is what pushes for Muslim bans and the destruction of civil rights. Even using faith to justify the eradication of trans people. The same is being done in Eastern European nations such as Poland and Hungary in the name of Christian faith.
If anything you're the one that needs to learn about the way Christianity is being used in Europe and around the world to justify the abuse of human rights and genocidal rhetoric.
We don't have that counter factual-
Appeal to ignorance
Going in at the deep end, then?
Should anyone be religious in 2023?
People should be whatever the flip they want or like, so long as they're not enforcing on anyone else. Whether that's in 2023 or 2123, is irrelevant. My private beliefs are non of your business and vice versa etc.
Edit: grammar, spelling.
@@JHS270694 Two responses to that. Firstly, imposing their views upon anyone else seems to be a frequent pass-time for the religious, the current furor over abortion in the US being an example. That would seem sufficient reason to be concerned about the influence of the more zealous sects upon public policy. Second, you seem to be answering a different question from the one I asked. I'm not questioning whether people should be allowed to believe as they see fit, of course they should. that is a basic human right. I am more asking if we should believe in deities, that is to say, is religious belief really tenable in the modern world. Personally, I don't think it is and I don't think that people should believe in such unsupported superstitions.
@@kallisto9166 Fair enough.
What I'm trying to say is it's the wrong question to ask yourself, since someone out there is inevitably going to believe in something that'll always be divergent to someone else, making the questioning about whether they should or not believe in a deity moot, regardless of your position on what they should or shouldn't, hence my response; it's pointless.
The video itself touches on the question of politicians having religious beliefs is a good or bad thing which is a slightly different thing, since they operate in a secular system and have various implications.
As for the US, I can't give a fair commentary as to what's going on up there since their politics is so much different than our own, though my personal opinion would probably be the same as yours. The Chinese are doing their own thing with the Uighurs there too from the opposite side of the coin, Stalin too persecuted religions under the reason they were backwards etc.
My point is, there has to be compromise down the line. A more practical question is how to coexist with these divergent views, as cliché as it may sound.
Nothing wrong with being religious except that their religion is money and power. 🙄
No one should be religious in 2023. I would hope the world has moved on from primitive superstition by now.
Should politicians be religious in 2023?
No. Not at work. Next…
William Wilberforce might disagree if he were still alive
@@roryhand6650 Well that's bollocks. The people trying to preserve slavery were just as sure they had their god on their side as the Abolitionists. Wilberforce won (eventually, and partially) through the strength of his campaigning, not because he shared an imaginary friend with voters
To quote Hitchens talking about Romney's presidential campaign when he had to admit that the constitution took precedent over Joseph Smith: "The extent to which he is a decent person is the extent to which he is not a Mormon. Secularism is required to civilize these beliefs."
Politicians should not be religious in my opinion, it's not conducive to stability and honesty if you have an adult believing in an all powerful baby murdering cloud daddy.
Nobody with any real power over other peoples lives should believe such despicable things. People should not be given an excuse to believe horrible things simply because they believe them to be virtuous.
The monarchy obviously needs to be abolished, and with it the idea of a national religion of any kind, it should not bear the name of a country or claim to speak for a nation in the 21st century.
The Organisation of islamic Congress, in the UN, is made up of several countries which claim to be muslim majority countries, this is desputed by fact in many instances but even still does not give a mandate for them to claim shaira over their citizens muslim or non Muslim, nor does it give them a mandate to campaign for it in the UN.
People like to think of islam as a timid brown minority in our western democracies who need special permission to practice their barbaric beliefs, but forget that those same brown people we in the west so like to patronise, are the ones also being executed, stoned, raped, have had their votes stolen and been generally mistreated in those so called muslim majority countries.
Apart from the UK only iran has overtly religious people (leaders) in its parliament.
To give tax breaks, grants, funding of any kind via public money to religious organizations in the 21st century is inexcusable. Even more so when you know what theu are doing with the money is an effort to undermine our countries sovereignty, security, peace and order. They lie, rape, intimidate children to convert them to their cause on pain of eternal fire. I can hope that we will come together as a species and not stand for it anymore for mere mortals to tell us that they have some special secret denied to us, and with it, they excuse themselves from being held to account.
Religion is going to be the downfall of humanity…ENTIRELY feelings based, and it creates fanaticism.