Obviously, religion and politics should be kept separate.
No_Plate_3164 on
She is the same MP who thinks women can’t be criminals and wants abolish female prisons because they are actually victims.
Say what you like about Starmer but his cabinet is utterly useless.
Reeves promises growth, then comes out with an anti-growth, anti-job budget that’s going to see 2nd worst parliament for living standards in modern British history (the worst being BorisTrussSunak – Covid era). Let’s not even talk about her lying about being an economist.
Then we have Streeting throwing all his toys out the pram because his religion doesn’t agree with assisted dying.
We have Cooper pushing the same unemployed bashing nonsense the Tories spent the last 15 years regurgitating. The reason unemployment is high is simply because there is a lack of jobs in the UK economy.
I voted for a Technocratic government of competent “grown ups” and yet we ended up with the same sorts of charlatans they were supposed to replace.
ViridianDarkness on
I do sometimes find it amusing that irreligious and atheist people simply don’t understand what religion is. They seem to think that it’s a private observance, a set of rituals and traditions that might add a bit of colour to our society but which is really just a personal matter.
Clearly that’s bunkum. A religious person will tell you that their faith is an expression of fundamental truth, and an articulation of moral values which are necessarily (not contingently) right. It makes no sense at all to separate the public from the private; God has sovereignty over both, so those distinctions are fundamentally meaningless.
I have no fondness for Mahmood or her party – and I am a Catholic and not a Muslim – but she is completely in the right here for voicing her principled ethical beliefs as they relate to society. Falconer and his cabal of secularists simply don’t get what faith means.
SpAn12 on
Bit odd to pick on Shabana… When other members of the Cabinet who are voting against (Streeting, Phillipson, Reynolds) are also openly religious.
Now, there is the separate argument about whether they are all arguing in good faith. They all focus on the safeguards when in reality no level of protections would be enough for them to vote in favour anyway.
hitanthrope on
Just over a year ago, I watched my younger sister die from stage 4 breast cancer. She was, sincerely, the strongest person I ever knew. I watched her write books and start projects helping other parents communicate their diagnosis to their young children all while dealing with the horrors of chemo and radio therapy.
At the beginning of her last week, she pulled me close and asked me to “make it stop”. I knew exactly what she meant. I had a private conversation with her doctor who made it clear to me what was and wasn’t possible under the law and, importantly, exactly how sympathetic he was.
Pallative care in these cases *is* something of a dance because everyone knows that at this point the drugs needed to “sooth the transition” also bring it about sooner, but it was important that myself, or my family were the ones demanding the analgesics. It was prescribed on an “as needed” basis but what this really meant was, the medical professionals needed to be able to say, “it was demanded by the family” on the paperwork.
Some of the concerns raised by the opposition to this are valid, but on balance I think we can trust the medical professionals to work with families and patients.
Cases like my sister, where the end result is inevitable, and close, contain precisely zero “grey areas”.
FiddleAndSteel on
Muslims tend to have more coherent ethical beliefs than the average person.
Specific_Future9285 on
Would have been refreshing to see her ask her constituents what they want, rather than assuming her right to object overrides the wishes of those who put her into her highly-paid job.
YaGanache1248 on
Beyond hypocritical of Mahmood. The same freedom of religion that allows her to practice her personal faith, means that the rest of us shouldn’t be impacted by her religion either.
No religious reasoning should be valid for any legislation
Madness_Quotient on
People who hold religious motivations for their political beliefs should renounce holding office and voting. It’s clearly a conflict of interest. If their God’s are real, they will ensure that the non religiously motivated people make the right political choices anyway. It’s real weird that religious people feel like they have to try to influence the process.
9 Comments
Obviously, religion and politics should be kept separate.
She is the same MP who thinks women can’t be criminals and wants abolish female prisons because they are actually victims.
Say what you like about Starmer but his cabinet is utterly useless.
Reeves promises growth, then comes out with an anti-growth, anti-job budget that’s going to see 2nd worst parliament for living standards in modern British history (the worst being BorisTrussSunak – Covid era). Let’s not even talk about her lying about being an economist.
Then we have Streeting throwing all his toys out the pram because his religion doesn’t agree with assisted dying.
We have Cooper pushing the same unemployed bashing nonsense the Tories spent the last 15 years regurgitating. The reason unemployment is high is simply because there is a lack of jobs in the UK economy.
I voted for a Technocratic government of competent “grown ups” and yet we ended up with the same sorts of charlatans they were supposed to replace.
I do sometimes find it amusing that irreligious and atheist people simply don’t understand what religion is. They seem to think that it’s a private observance, a set of rituals and traditions that might add a bit of colour to our society but which is really just a personal matter.
Clearly that’s bunkum. A religious person will tell you that their faith is an expression of fundamental truth, and an articulation of moral values which are necessarily (not contingently) right. It makes no sense at all to separate the public from the private; God has sovereignty over both, so those distinctions are fundamentally meaningless.
I have no fondness for Mahmood or her party – and I am a Catholic and not a Muslim – but she is completely in the right here for voicing her principled ethical beliefs as they relate to society. Falconer and his cabal of secularists simply don’t get what faith means.
Bit odd to pick on Shabana… When other members of the Cabinet who are voting against (Streeting, Phillipson, Reynolds) are also openly religious.
Now, there is the separate argument about whether they are all arguing in good faith. They all focus on the safeguards when in reality no level of protections would be enough for them to vote in favour anyway.
Just over a year ago, I watched my younger sister die from stage 4 breast cancer. She was, sincerely, the strongest person I ever knew. I watched her write books and start projects helping other parents communicate their diagnosis to their young children all while dealing with the horrors of chemo and radio therapy.
At the beginning of her last week, she pulled me close and asked me to “make it stop”. I knew exactly what she meant. I had a private conversation with her doctor who made it clear to me what was and wasn’t possible under the law and, importantly, exactly how sympathetic he was.
Pallative care in these cases *is* something of a dance because everyone knows that at this point the drugs needed to “sooth the transition” also bring it about sooner, but it was important that myself, or my family were the ones demanding the analgesics. It was prescribed on an “as needed” basis but what this really meant was, the medical professionals needed to be able to say, “it was demanded by the family” on the paperwork.
Some of the concerns raised by the opposition to this are valid, but on balance I think we can trust the medical professionals to work with families and patients.
Cases like my sister, where the end result is inevitable, and close, contain precisely zero “grey areas”.
Muslims tend to have more coherent ethical beliefs than the average person.
Would have been refreshing to see her ask her constituents what they want, rather than assuming her right to object overrides the wishes of those who put her into her highly-paid job.
Beyond hypocritical of Mahmood. The same freedom of religion that allows her to practice her personal faith, means that the rest of us shouldn’t be impacted by her religion either.
No religious reasoning should be valid for any legislation
People who hold religious motivations for their political beliefs should renounce holding office and voting. It’s clearly a conflict of interest. If their God’s are real, they will ensure that the non religiously motivated people make the right political choices anyway. It’s real weird that religious people feel like they have to try to influence the process.
Don’t they have any faith?