Cha bu choir dha a bhith cho duilich creideamh is poileataigs a mheasgachadh

Shaoileadh tu gum biodh an deasbad mu thimcheall poileataigs na h-Alba connspaideach gu leòr gun chreideamh a chur na mheasg; mar gum biodh tu a' cur an tuilleadh lasaidh ri teine a tha na smàl mar-thà.

A bheil àite gu leòr air a bhith aig muinntir na h-eaglaise anns an deasbad phoileataigeach?

[English-language version below]

Ach, am bu chòir dha cùisean a bhith mar sin? Tha e na amas aig a h-uile creideamh, tha fhios, sìth is cofhartachd a thoirt dha mac an duine, ged, glè thric, as e an t-olc a tha sinn a’ faicinn ga dhèanamh na ainm.

‘S cha leig sinn a leas smaoineachadh gum buin sin dha àitichean fad às. Anns an 17mh linn, chaidh tòireachadh oifigeil leis an stàit a dhèanamh air na Caitligich ann an seo agus sheas an dìleab sin suas gu o chionn ghoirid.

Dha-rìiribh, canaidh cuid gu bheil e fhathast ann, ma choimheadas tu, agus chan ann dìreach am measg nan glaoicean as miosa a bhios a’ leantainn sgiobaidhean ball-coise Ghlaschu.

Tha an ceangal eadar poileataigs is creideamh ann an Alba, a-rèisd, duilich is toinnte, ged a tha mòran an-diugh aig nach eil creideamh idir ‘s nach eil gam faicinn fhèin le buntainn ri eaglais sam bith. Chan eil iad a’ creids' idir ann an Dia.

‘S ann anns a' cho-theas seo a tha pròiseact a’ dol air adhart le eòlaichean bho dh'Oilthigh Ghlaschu is iad a’ cur air dòigh sreath de thachartasan fon ainm “Creideamh ann am Bun-reachd na h-Alba”.

Tha iadsan air cùlaibh a’ phròiseict airson a dhèanamh soilleir nach buin seo do dh'aon eaglais, seach eaglais eile, agus nach eil iad a’ taobhachadh ri aon taobh air a’ bhun-reachd seach taobh eile nas motha.

‘S e a tha anns an amas aca ach brosnachadh a thoirt dhaibh-san aig a bheil creideamh agus a tha nam ball de dh’eaglaisean a dhol an sàs anns an deasbad mu na tha fa-near dha poileataigs na h-Alba, gu sònraichte mu thimcheall na bun-reachd. Ged a tha sin air sàmhachadh gu ìre, tha fhios gum beòthaich e a-rithist aig àm air choireigin.

Bhiodh e iomchaidh cùis Ceit Fhoirbheis a thoirt a-steach dhan ghnothach aig an ìre-sa. Nuair a chaidh a càineadh gu làidir airson a bhith na Crìosdaidh, ‘s i a’ seasamh airson ceannardas an SNP an-uiridh, bha e a’ daingneachadh an fhaireachdainne a th’ aig mòran Chrìosdaidhean gur iadsan a tha air an tòireachadh san là a th’ ann, seach buidheann sam bith eile.

Mar eisimpleir, bha mòran aca a’ ceisneachadh carson a chaidh an uimhir a dhèanamh mu chreideamh Ceit Fhoirbheis anns na meadhanan, ach nach deach mu Humza Yousaf, a tha na Mhuslamach.

Mas e dìreach gun robh aon aca nas soilleire is nas cinntiche mu dheidhinn a' chreideimh aca na bha am fear eile, nach eil sin dìreach a’ sealltainn gur e iadsan aig a bheil creideamh a tha a’ fulang fo thàir ‘s an là a th’ ann.

‘S dòcha gur e sin an dearbh adhbhar a tha feum air iomairt shònraiche nàiseanta airson muinntir na h-eaglaise a bhrosnachadh a dhol an sàs anns an deasbad phoileataigeach, fiù ‘s ged a tha e a’ fàs gu math teth aig amanan. Nuair a chì thu cho domhainn ‘s a tha na lotan poileataigeach air fàs, cha chanadh tu gu bheil e air mòran a dhèanamh dhan dùthaich, gu bheil iad air fuireach ro bhalbh.

English-language version:

On the face of it, Scotland’s political landscape may appear febrile enough as it is without adding religion into the mix, a case of fuelling the flames of rancour, division and intemperance. But should it really be so? The central purpose of all religions, surely, is to bring peace and comfort to humankind, although what we witness too often is the worst of evils being perpetrated in its name: the ugly face of radicalism.

There is no need to go to shores well beyond our own either. The psychological legacy of the 17th century’s state-sponsored persecution of Catholics was visible up until living memory and many would argue that it still exists today beneath the surface, even beyond the more moronic elements of the Old Firm.

So Scotland’s relationship with politics and religion is highly complicated and, while society seems to be on a march towards secularism, it is no less the case today. But, as a significant community, shouldn’t those of faith have more to contribute? It is in this context that the academics from the University of Glasgow are hosting a series of events country-wide entitled “Faith in Scotland’s Constitutional Future”.

Given the potential for controversy, though, it is a brave concept, and so those behind the project are keen to stress that they are “ecumenical, non-partisan and neutral on the constitutional question” and also ”bound by a strict code of ethics regarding impartiality and accurate representation”. The broad intention is to explore how people of faith can play more of a role in the political discussion surrounding Scotland’s constitutional future and aims to engage with church members to encourage them to reflect on the key question.

The case of Kate Forbes – seen by many as a Christian cheerleader – in all this can hardly be seen in isolation. When targeted for being a member of the Free Church of Scotland while seeking the leadership of the SNP last year, it reinforced the sense for many Christian Protestants that they are the ones who are being persecuted in Scotland today, that their beliefs (and therefore they themselves) no longer count in the eyes of the public. Why, for example, many of them point out, was Kate Forbes’s religious background scrutinised so vociferously when the faith of Humza Yousaf, a Muslim, was not? If it is simply the degrees to which each of them practise their religion, then that would point to a sense that secularism is now what’s fast becoming the intolerant.

Perhaps it is for this very reason that there is indeed a need for a concerted effort to encourage people of faith to enter the debate on Scotland’s constitution. If the secular voice has been the dominant one so far, as it has, the country has been none the better for it, as the lasting wounds of division so ably demonstrate.