John Swinney praises Kate Forbes for ignoring her beliefs.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 тра 2024
- Join the SFP: scottishfamily.org/get-involved
Newsletter sign-up: eepurl.com/darmH9
Facebook: @scottishfamily
Instagram: scottishfamilyparty
X: @scotfamparty
Email: contact@scottishfamily.org
Shop: scottish-family-party.mysprea...
I've no interest in her religious views or he other views, what I find disingenuous is her lack of backbone and doing the right thing for the people of Scotland, seems looking after No.1 is the SNP way of life.
She’s clearly not going to clean up the mess created by Sturgeon and the genius Humza , no politician worth their salt would be so silly as to resolve the issues created by others particularly in issues that were not in their beliefs or values. Why is it no one has challenged Swinney ?
@@county8815 "Why is it no one has challenged Swinney ?", did you not answer your own question?, look at the brownie points she'd have amassed for herself and the SNP if she did take over and clean up the mess.
The SNP's notion of diversity seems to revolve solely around their distorted narrative.
God has said, them that honour Me, i will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed, God is not mocked. Kate Forbes is in the wrong job, if she is staying silent on these issues. That's why we're in a mess.
Brilliant analysis as always by Richard Lucas. You have changed my opinion on Kate Forbes.
Kate speaks from both sides of her mouth, sadly.
Independence is toast for at least 15-20 years (if ever) thanks to the total lack of preparation in the last 17 years. Scotland now has a £ 20 + BILLION budget deficit which has to be funded, no real improvement in both internal and export infrastructures, declining education, health and local services. No coherent 'pathway to Independence' has been articulated to the electorate, only a number of very expensive, high-level, glossy brochures full of word soup and totally lacking credibility - promises of taking 100,000 children out of poverty, FREE bikes and laptops. Many assume Scotland will keep the GBP, but when I've asked the SNP how the currency will transition to a Scottish Pound - NO REPLIES - there is no detail, nor is there for other costly matters such as borders with the RUK, export tariffs, fisheries protection vessels. The list is endless because NOTHING has been done.
She can never be trusted.
Kate Forbes recently voted in favour of suppressing free speech near places where abortion are carried out. Such a vote is also a vote against offering pregnant women an alternnative to abortion. Kate Forbes has two simple questions to answer. Which is more important, her nationalism or her Christianity? To whom does she give her supreme allegiance: Jesus Christ or the Leader of the Scottish National Party? (PS. Since the Protestant Reformation people have been able to call themselves Christian and hold any views they want to,)
In name only?
I am pretty sure believing in the god of the bible is just about the one and only thing any two Christians hold in common regarding their religious beliefs. If you are going to play the "you are not a TRUE Christian" game, you should be aware that there will be millions of christians who think you are not a true Christian.
I'd put her priorities as:
1. Personal career
2. Personal prestige in the world
3. Personal prestige among naive Christians
4. Prosperity, for the successful/fortunate
5. Christianity, possibly
6. Nationalism/good of Scotland
So not a nationalist any more than she's a consistent Christian.
@@louisehogg8472 Does such a thing as a "consistent Christian" exist?
@@eoghangoudie7170 not really. But it IS possible for a Christian to have Christ as first priority a fair bit of the time, and second or third priority a lot of the rest AND to be fairly honest ABOUT that being the case.
Once again the leader of the SNP is Patrick Harvie of the GREENS - the old adage of 'once you have them by the ⚽⚾🥎🏀🏐🏈🏉🏏🏑 their hearts and minds will follow !'
A very good appraisal of current affairs , and politician profiles. Richard did not spare the punches. Nowhere for bland politicians to hide, when Richard is about.
Diversity means more immigration
A vote would show how many members they have could she be taking one for team SNP?
So she is possibly lying
Forbes is a politician. Politicians do what politicians do. Number one springs to mind.
So, Scotland remains under condemnation until it repents and returns to Christ. No surprise.
she has lost a lot off trust with voters.
💯 agree with your analysis of the present state of governance in Scotland. Disappointed in Kate Forbes now....
It's all irrelevant.....the big picture is that separtion from the UK as the world's 7th biggest economy is a recipe for economic and social depravity that would make Scotland as we know it seem like paradise.
Disagree.
Firstly, Scotland wouldn't be separating FROM the UK, we would be DISSOLVING the UK.
Secondly, like any resource colony, Scotland would do better financially, not worse, without our resources being siphoned off by Our Imperial Masters next door.
Thirdly (the one most pertinent to ANY Christian consideration of the Constitutional Question), NOWHERE in the Bible does God express a view. As to which Capital, Nation State, or Government ANY Country or people should be under (apart from Old Testament Israel, BEFORE Christ).
Pictland? Alba? Norse Territory? Scotland? Northumbria? British Empire? American Empire? European Union? Chinese Colony? No absolute, intrinsic reason why God would have a preference. The pros and cons vary with time and circumstances.
HIS only comment is that we should give to God what belongs to God. That is 100% of our lives belong to GOD'S Kingdom.
And we should give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. That the powers that be, are ordained by God. That we should aim to loyally obey whichever government we find ourselves under at a given time, unless we're ordered to conflict with GOD'S Kingdom demands.
The degree to which this second command restricts our ability to campaign for positive changes, within our existing political structure, is often the most soul destroying part. Particularly when Christians abuse their desire to remain clean, as an excuse to walk past on the other side and show no solidarity with the persecuted and voiceless.
It is that willingness to face abuse, including from 'their own' (Christian) side. With a bottomless ocean of compassion for sinners, victims, persecuted, enemies, opponents, twisted, lying colleagues, at home and abroad. THAT makes it possible for God to thread the camel of Christian Faith through the eye of the Politician needle.
Because Love covers a multitude of sins, Jesus commended the doctrinally heretical, ritually unclean Samaritan, who got his hands dirty. Over the Jewish Priest, who didn't. Faith, is sometimes accounted to them as righteousness. And so Hope remains.
I believe a genuine Christian calling to politics is a very, very rare thing. And an unbelievably costly one.
Forbes does not have Christian beliefs ..the only thing she believes in is “ SNP”
Stupidly!
Richard because of Holyrood's most recent legislation, it is now illegal to say what you really think.
You quoted John Swinney as saying "That should silence those who have any doubt about a person's faith influencing their decisions on behalf of the whole country" Although you might technically be right in saying "Kate Forbes is going to vote in a way that is totally contrary to her her Christian principles" that is not the point he is making, he is clearly saying what is good is that she is not making her political decisions based on FAITH. If Forbes voted without relying on her faith and it also happened to align with her "Christian Principles" that would not be an issue. Why can Richard not take what people are saying at face value and instead always have to say "they are basically saying" followed by a false summation?
The issue is not kate forbes acting on or trying to persuade people of her chritian views it is the fact that these views are largely if not wholly based on faith which is never a good reason to hold a belief or make a decision regardless of whether the person is a chritisn a hindu a Muslim or an athesit.
Thing is, I can accept that a genuine Christian, called to politics, can at times BE less vocal than some Christians would like.
For three reasons: They are a representative of their constituents including those who did not vote for them; they are not a preacher but a public servant; there ARE times for being strategic and biding your time on things.
However, that third one in particular, is too easy to use as a comfortable lie, to hide the uncomfortable truth of cowardice.
Note that Daniel and his companions were faced ON DAY ONE, with the question of serve God versus compromise, with starvation or execution possible outcomes if they refused the food offered to idols.
It is VERY difficult for a Christian to progress or remain in elected politics AT ALL, for the reasons explained in this video.
Often, signing up to counter-Christian beliefs or behaviours is a prerequisite of joining a Party, and almost ALWAYS a prerequisite of being a candidate for that Party.
That's all BEFORE, either the electorate OR the media judge you.
This isn't helped by so many Christians, who should be supporting (personally, not necessarily in all policy areas) a Christian politician, falling into three traps:
1. Idol worship/making a Messiah figure of the politician
2. THEMSELVES preferring a nicely compromised, socially acceptable Christianity/Christian Politician
3. Due to 1 & 2, having not the faintest CLUE of the level of warfare and commitment and support that's required, to help a fellow Christian stay strong under fire. And consequently prone to shoot their own wounded, the instant they prove to be fallible sinners.
Most Christians make these three mistakes just dealing with CHURCH leaders, let alone Christians in politics!
Yes. WIse words. "being less vocal" is very different than denying one's beliefs, of course.
@@ScottishFamilyParty and difficult, when the media and critics repeatedly put all their effort into manipulating you into majoring on one tiny area of your beliefs, that they object to. To make you look judgemental.
A "real Christian " would not be taking part in a political organisation of this world. We are told to not be part of this world, but I am sure people will argue otherwise, even when they can read about the cornerstone being hounded and rejected from village to village and eventually crucified.
Have you read the Book of Kings?
Sweeney because he has a familiar face and because he's no threat to the British government
I love alot of what you guys are doing. But buffer zones outside abortion clinics isn’t reason to doubt Kate Forbes faith or diluting of it. Just like it’s not our job to judge Kate Forbes faith it isn’t our job to judge these poor confused and emotionally hurt women that choose to abort the gift of a baby. Our god respects Human freedom, that doesn’t mean we have to remain silent on such issues, but it also doesn’t mean we should be upsetting people going to these clinics. We should hold them up in prayer, and if our government wants us to do that from a safe distance, then we adhere to that!!
🤪
Comment for the algorithm.
Take religion out of politics its personal and should be practiced in your own time.
I think I disagree, but before I respond to this, could you please help me understand your view?
Could you define what you mean by the two terms, religion and politics
@iilwjcanc your religion is your choice
Politics is the electorates choice
@@charleslouden6600
OK that makes sense - so you're saying that someone gets to choose their own religion... Whereas in politics you think politicians should do what their electorate want only?
But more specifically, what are you actually defining religion as? What does that cover?
If politics and Religion are separate, what do you think politicians will use as an excuse as they stand in front of the great white throne at judgement?
political views are just as personal as religious views. Politicians stand for election as their own person. People vote for them personally. Yes they represent their constituents, but they cannot represent all of them and all of their views on every topic - personal choice is required.
"Kate Forbes has said virtually nothing about her faith since being elected"...I had to turn it off at that point. I don't know of another politician in modern times who has caused more debate or discussion about Christianity and the impact faith in Christ has on society. Her faith has put her on the front page on numerous occasions. And importantly, despite her enemies best efforts, her conduct and personal affairs are second to none and she has responded to insults and abuse graciously and lovingly. You (or I) have no idea how many times she has intervened in parliament at the highest levels to limit the wickedness that we see coming out of Holyrood but I prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt as I have no reason not to. Every time she speaks to a reporter she has to be on her guard for the twisted and loaded questions they throw at her - she can't just give them what they want and it takes great wisdom and discernment to handle this. Of course, she'll get it wrong at times but given the situation she is in, I think it is more than understandable. I am thankful to God that a woman of deep faith has a seat at the table in Scottish parliament and I pray that He will be gracious to our nation by allowing her to remain there for surely this is good for the people of Scotland.
That's a shame. You could have listened to the points made. It is a fact that she has said virtually nothing publicly about her controversial views until asked in the leadership contest. You clearly want to give your view. Might it not have been reasonable to listen to ours?
Why is her parliamentary voting record consistently anti-Christian?
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew-- or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you - until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe - a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
This video is about Scotland 😏 and the degenerate perverts, traitors and leftists of the SNP who run it.
@Xx Bruce.. Dream on you dilapidated bollocks!😊😊😊😊😊!
@@jackmcnally9237 charming.
Bruce if you think politics in the US is a good example for us to emulate then you are living with the fairies 🦄
@@wordforever117I don't, looks like we agree 👍
A very sad mischaracterisation of Kate and the work she does.
So Kate Forbes did the right thing when she voted in favour of throwing pro-life vigil attendees in jail?
Like many politicians Kate F is in it for Kate Forbes.