Main      Site Guide    
Message Forum
Re: New uses for old acronyms.
Posted By: Grishny, on host 12.29.132.98
Date: Friday, August 17, 2001, at 09:08:43
In Reply To: Re: New uses for old acronyms. posted by Stephen on Friday, August 17, 2001, at 08:26:56:

> Can you cite an example where you feel
such interaction is a good thing?
>
> Stephen

Yes, I can, and from personal experience. I go
to a church where the pastor is very adamant
about his congregation voting. Whenever there
is any kind of government election, he urges
us to get out to the polls and vote. He doesn't
endorse political candidates, but does urge
us to make informed decisions. If our church
was completely free from any sort of political
thought, then our pastor certainly wouldn't be
doing this.

Every election, there are many who do not
exercise their right and privilege to vote. How
many more *do* vote, because a religious
leader urged them to do so?

Looking on the other side of things (religion in
politics as opposed to politics in religion) I
think I agree with you that important
governmental decisions shouldn't be made
based solely upon religious views. These
views should be one factor among many, all
carefully weighed and balanced to come to a
good decision.

Ideally, all of our public officials would always
make decisions based on what is best for our
country. But power corrupts, and so we have
corrupt politicians who make corrupt
decisions based on whether or not it will
make their power base happy or not. I would
like to think that religious politicians who
believe in accountablity to a higher authority
(whatever god they worship) would tend to
make better decisions, based on that
absolute system of right vs. wrong rather than
on pleasing the masses.

Replies To This Message