The former First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond MP, has stated in the Scottish Parliament that he prefers ‘people of faith to people of no faith or people who have lost their faith’. He also wrongly implied that religious people have a special claim to doing good works in their community over non-religious people.
The British Humanist Association (BHA) has condemned these remarks as being deeply inappropriate for any senior politician.
In his statement, Mr Salmond said:
Mr Salmond’s comments echo those of other UK politicians, such as David Cameron, Baroness Warsi, or Eric Pickles MP, who have all at one time or another made special claims for the superiority of religious groups over non-religious people. In 2014, David Cameron signalled his intent to infuse British politics with an ‘evangelical’ spirit about promoting Christianity, while prior to the election, Communities Secretary Pickles announced a scheme to pump Government money into helping places of worship grow while excluding secular community organisations from receiving equivalent funds.‘I am biased of course because I am a Church of Scotland adherent and I prefer people of faith to people of no faith or people who have lost their faith.
‘All denominations have a key role to play in society and we are very fortunate in Scotland because we have a tremendous ability, among religions and denominations, to come together and support good causes.’
Responding to Mr Salmond’s statement, BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson said:
‘It is always sad to see senior politicians denigrating those of us with non-religious worldviews. Despite the fact that non-religious people in Scotland make up a larger group than either Catholics or Protestants, not to mention half the population of the UK as a whole, Mr Salmond feels he is justified in expressing open disdain for people who are atheist or agnostic.
‘His remarks will hit particularly hard at people who have struggled to find acceptance from family and friends after becoming open about having no religion. Ex-Muslims in Scotland and across the UK, for example, face a particularly challenging time when they come out as non-religious.’
INFORMATION
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
Alex Salmond and atheists
Alex Salmond and atheists
Alex Salmond MP: ‘I prefer people of faith to people of no faith’
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: Alex Salmond and atheists
They don't seem to realise the alienation such statements cause.
Re: Alex Salmond and atheists
Since when were politicians in the business of reconciliation (as an action rather than rhetoric).?Altfish wrote:They don't seem to realise the alienation such statements cause.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: Alex Salmond and atheists
Alex Salmond is someone for whom I have a lot of respect. That respect's a bit dented now. I feel rather let down.
Carpe diem. Savour every moment.
Re: Alex Salmond and atheists
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: Alex Salmond and atheists
Wouldn't any UK 'Politician' Say the same if pressed? They (politicians) Think (wrongly) That the UK population gives a fuck about 'religion' Look at this sanctimonious offering today from "the most reverend" Welby guy.
Welby urges MPs: reject right-to-die bill that ‘crosses the Rubicon
They wonder why they are going down the plughole?
The "most reverend" Welby should maybe suffer a bit of what my brother and youngest sister suffered in the months prior to their release from pain, then I might listen to him, but probably not, he's an arse.
When the doctors and nursing staff can't cope with a patients suffering any longer and give the fatal dose of morphine, as was the case with my father in law and his cousin, is that assisted suicide? Were do you draw the line? Not that I think there should be a line.
Welby urges MPs: reject right-to-die bill that ‘crosses the Rubicon
They wonder why they are going down the plughole?
The "most reverend" Welby should maybe suffer a bit of what my brother and youngest sister suffered in the months prior to their release from pain, then I might listen to him, but probably not, he's an arse.
When the doctors and nursing staff can't cope with a patients suffering any longer and give the fatal dose of morphine, as was the case with my father in law and his cousin, is that assisted suicide? Were do you draw the line? Not that I think there should be a line.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.
Re: Alex Salmond and atheists
I am not that bothered that Alex Salmond likes faith people more than others (maybe he counts humanists as among the faithful - who knows) but now that Alan has mentioned Welby and the right to die, this is a very disappointing, reactionary and obnoxious viewpoint from a prelate who seemed fairly enlightenedAlan C. wrote:Wouldn't any UK 'Politician' Say the same if pressed? They (politicians) Think (wrongly) That the UK population gives a fuck about 'religion' Look at this sanctimonious offering today from "the most reverend" Welby guy.
Welby urges MPs: reject right-to-die bill that ‘crosses the Rubicon
They wonder why they are going down the plughole?
The "most reverend" Welby should maybe suffer a bit of what my brother and youngest sister suffered in the months prior to their release from pain, then I might listen to him, but probably not, he's an arse.
When the doctors and nursing staff can't cope with a patients suffering any longer and give the fatal dose of morphine, as was the case with my father in law and his cousin, is that assisted suicide? Were do you draw the line? Not that I think there should be a line.
-
- Posts: 694
- Joined: July 16th, 2010, 12:48 pm
Re: Alex Salmond and atheists
Scottish politicians are again asserting their religious affiliations. I've never liked Nicola Sturgeon and this article hasn't improved things.
https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2 ... -divisions
Is she just searching for the block vote? What other possible motive could she have for praising Catholic schools?
https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2 ... -divisions
Is she just searching for the block vote? What other possible motive could she have for praising Catholic schools?
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." - From the film "Top Gun"
Re: Alex Salmond and atheists
You could be right - religion is gaining all sorts of privileges down here in terms of schools, so a canny, but unprincipled politician might want to curry favour with religionists.stevenw888 wrote:Scottish politicians are again asserting their religious affiliations. I've never liked Nicola Sturgeon and this article hasn't improved things.
https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2 ... -divisions
Is she just searching for the block vote? What other possible motive could she have for praising Catholic schools?
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
- Posts: 596
- Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am
Re: Alex Salmond and atheists
When Alex Salmond says that he "prefers people of faith to people of no faith" he is farting into the wind! What do you mean by "Faith"? Is Boko Haram, ISIS, Taliban etc. a "Faith"? If not, then you are a bigot. If so, then go join them!
Re: Alex Salmond and atheists
I think the distinction should be made between faith based on reason and evidence, such as a bridge will support its traffic and religious faith. I think it is simply wrong to have religious faith. That is essentially either following instincts or outright superstition.
Beliefs should only be held to the extent they are supported by reason and evidence. Unfortunately, people see "having faith" as positive, not negative.
Sometimes it feels like the "Scottish Enlightenment" never happened.
Beliefs should only be held to the extent they are supported by reason and evidence. Unfortunately, people see "having faith" as positive, not negative.
Sometimes it feels like the "Scottish Enlightenment" never happened.
Re: Alex Salmond and atheists
in the case of a bridge, does "faith" really add much to reason and evidence? To say "I have faith in this bridge" might in fact suggest a bit of unease about its safety. And of course, bridges, like all human endeavours, are only designed to work within certain assumptions. The Twin Towers, unless you believe in some conspiracy theory, were worthy of "faith" in their soundness, but they did not survive an event which the designers could never have imagined would take placeZeff wrote:I think the distinction should be made between faith based on reason and evidence, such as a bridge will support its traffic and religious faith. I think it is simply wrong to have religious faith. That is essentially either following instincts or outright superstition.
Beliefs should only be held to the extent they are supported by reason and evidence. Unfortunately, people see "having faith" as positive, not negative.
Sometimes it feels like the "Scottish Enlightenment" never happened.
Re: Alex Salmond and atheists
"special claim to doing good works in their community over non-religious people."
I often hear this sort of argument here in the US, and then I remember that the mass majority of the prison population is that of people of faith while Christian. I then remember how their religion is used to justify their crimes or to give them light sentences for things like rape, murder, and assault of women and even children!. I then remember when they use their religion as an excuse to put rip migrant children away from their parents and put them into concentration camps..., a direct violation of basic human rights. I am then reminded of all the clergy raping children while their religious institutions work hard to protect them from prosecution or exposure. The dishonest fallacy of proclaiming that faith or religion makes people better people is a common one, and most certainly professed maliciously to dehumanize anyone not of their religion or of faith.
I often hear this sort of argument here in the US, and then I remember that the mass majority of the prison population is that of people of faith while Christian. I then remember how their religion is used to justify their crimes or to give them light sentences for things like rape, murder, and assault of women and even children!. I then remember when they use their religion as an excuse to put rip migrant children away from their parents and put them into concentration camps..., a direct violation of basic human rights. I am then reminded of all the clergy raping children while their religious institutions work hard to protect them from prosecution or exposure. The dishonest fallacy of proclaiming that faith or religion makes people better people is a common one, and most certainly professed maliciously to dehumanize anyone not of their religion or of faith.
Re: Alex Salmond and atheists
I think we need to be careful here: it could be that declaring yourself Christian in prison gets you special rights and privileges. What probably matters more is whether they were Christian when they committed the crimes they were incarcerated for but don't know if there are any data on that.TheJackel wrote:I often hear this sort of argument here in the US, and then I remember that the mass majority of the prison population is that of people of faith while Christian.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
- Posts: 3590
- Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am
Re: Alex Salmond and atheists
84% of humanity are religious and this is estimated to increase to 87% by 2060. Islam is predicted to overtake Christianity and become the number one religion on Earth by 2060. The fact is secular people have fewer children than the religious. Religious beliefs can be source of comfort but that doesn't mean that they are true and ethical. Most people don't seem to care about truth and ethics. What feels good often triumphs over what's true and ethical when it comes to human beliefs and words and actions.
Re: Alex Salmond and atheists
Arguments are not to suggest that the majority of people are good or bad. It is a false argument, especially giving the history of said religions, that they make people better than others. They don't. Dominion theologies are inherently immoral as they seek dominion or rulership over all. Though, and thankfully, most of their subscribers do not adhere to this or follow their religions to that level. But with that said, we cannot ignore what dominion theology is, it is authoritarian in nature.Compassionist wrote:84% of humanity are religious and this is estimated to increase to 87% by 2060. Islam is predicted to overtake Christianity and become the number one religion on Earth by 2060. The fact is secular people have fewer children than the religious. Religious beliefs can be source of comfort but that doesn't mean that they are true and ethical. Most people don't seem to care about truth and ethics. What feels good often triumphs over what's true and ethical when it comes to human beliefs and words and actions.
Re: Alex Salmond and atheists
This would seem a bit pleading... Though arguably this could make up a certain percentage, it is unlikely to be a significant one. But to be fair I will cite this source:Alan H wrote:I think we need to be careful here: it could be that declaring yourself Christian in prison gets you special rights and privileges. What probably matters more is whether they were Christian when they committed the crimes they were incarcerated for but don't know if there are any data on that.TheJackel wrote:I often hear this sort of argument here in the US, and then I remember that the mass majority of the prison population is that of people of faith while Christian.
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/st ... rison-than
if the religions were to be argued as a moral high ground, we would see a proportionate number of non-religious people in the prison system by a significant number. We don't even come close to see that, and it is literally the opposite. Yes prisoners will switch affiliations to protect themselves, the evidence still doesn't show non-religious people somehow being morally corrupt in comparison to those of faith. I also cite:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... rimes.html
My basic argument is that it is outright wrong to say the non-religious are morally inferior as they simply are not by any means.
-
- Posts: 3590
- Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am
Re: Alex Salmond and atheists
I agree.TheJackel wrote:Arguments are not to suggest that the majority of people are good or bad. It is a false argument, especially giving the history of said religions, that they make people better than others. They don't. Dominion theologies are inherently immoral as they seek dominion or rulership over all. Though, and thankfully, most of their subscribers do not adhere to this or follow their religions to that level. But with that said, we cannot ignore what dominion theology is, it is authoritarian in nature.Compassionist wrote:84% of humanity are religious and this is estimated to increase to 87% by 2060. Islam is predicted to overtake Christianity and become the number one religion on Earth by 2060. The fact is secular people have fewer children than the religious. Religious beliefs can be source of comfort but that doesn't mean that they are true and ethical. Most people don't seem to care about truth and ethics. What feels good often triumphs over what's true and ethical when it comes to human beliefs and words and actions.