Shabana Mahmood should not impose her religious beliefs on others, says peer

21 comments

1. Obviously, religion and politics should be kept separate.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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”.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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?

9. This is a dumb argument, ever pesons opinions is based on their beliefs. You dont have to agree with their opinions, but to suggest they cant have them becuase you dont like how their oppinions are formed, while you can have that opinion (which is fromed from your beliefs) should be unacceptable to most who want to live in a democratic society.

10. Religion has no place in politics. I do not care whether it is Islam, Christianity or any other religion.

    It should ideally have no impact on decision making but as we see it does unfortunately.

    The only thing that is maybe acceptable is “Conscientious Objection” in medical profession and that is all.

11. The point of a democratic process and a parliament of MPs is that each gets to give their view on any given policy

    You don’t like their view, that’s great, argue against it, that’s great too

12. I completely agree that no religious person should be trying to impose the edicts of that religion on people who don’t share that religion. 

    But…  there’s not a person alive whose perspective on things isn’t influenced by their background, upbringing and experience.  So why would it be unacceptable for someone to be influenced by their religious beliefs, yet acceptable for someone else to be just as influenced by their own (atheist/non-religious) philosophy or world view?  Unless Mahmood concealed her religion from her constituency, she was elected to be a representative as the person she is.

13. As with abortion or anything similar, I will simply make the argument that it is your right to just not take advantage of a thing the law allows. Don’t want assisted suicide? Just don’t use it.

    What you don’t get to do is tell people without your beliefs what to do.

    I understand that to religious people their religion is the truth, it represents the foundational principles of your moral code. The problem is that I don’t care, I don’t care what some old book tells you is the truth and is the way to live, I care about everyone having a choice.

    If it saves one person from rotting to death like my grandmother once breast cancer got ahold of her then it will have been worth it.

14. I remember the day when MPs stood for the will of their constituency not what an imaginary friend might think

15. I watched my mother suffer with heart and kidney failure for two years. She had no quality of life, was bed ridden, incontinent, and frequently lamented that she wanted to go sooner rather than later.

    She even debated spending money to go to Switzerland and end everything quicker, but she wasn’t able to go by herself due to her limitations, and worried about implicating my dad or myself in her plans.

    She finally passed away last year relatively peacefully, but there was no dignity in her passing.

    Everyone should have the right to pass when they want to if they are suffering, and arguing against this is ridiculous.

16. Religious capture is a problem in British politics, they’re overrepresented in parliament because they vote in blocks. Despite non-religious being the majority, and the majority of British people supporting assisted dying, they will vote against it, because they don’t care about your rights.

    All these MPs also think that they’re rich and protected enough that if they ever need it they’ll be able to get an overdose from their family doctor or can just fly to Switzerland. A choice to end suffering early, within 6 months of death, is not an option for the poor.

    If you’ve ever witnessed end of life, and I have a few time, then you know this is the right thing and necessary. You’d have to be a complete monster to be against this, but these people prove that time and time again.

17. Ridiculous. This is essentially saying that religious people should not be allowed to stand for election or be involved in law making. Further, he’s essentially saying that maintaining our current laws is giving into religious dictates (which it isn’t, it’s just maintaining the law) . Finally, it also presupposes there must be pre-defined ideas which cannot be stepped over by law making (which itself is akin to governing according to a religious creed). I know it’s overused, but it’s akin to a dog whistle, frankly

18. When I’m feeling down, I like to paint Shabana with whitewash.

    It lightens Mahmood. 

19. >“I think she’s motivated – and I respect this – by her religious beliefs. They shouldn’t be imposed on everybody else,” Lord Falconer told Sky News.

    Blatantly misleading re-writing of the quote by The Guardian in the headline. Literally changes the subject of the verb ‘impose’.

20. What if their white constituency also has the same beliefs for religious reasons?

    What about a Jewish MP who is pro Israel voting on those issues?

    What about a LGBT MP person who votes for LGBT to be discussed in schools when their constituency is not convinced?

    What about landlord MPs voting on housing issues

    What about the general public voting for religious reasons while the MP isn’t.

    It’s ridiculous to think that people leave their beliefs at the door and represent a poll of their local. The whole point of a voting democracy is no matter your beliefs you get to represent. Similarly an MP is voted in to represent based on who she is. To think she should leave her beliefs at the door like Nick Clegg is ridiculous.

21. How do you separate a religious objection to something and a secular moral objection?  A religious person can have both.

Comments are closed.