Re: New uses for old acronyms.
Grishny, on host 12.29.132.98
Friday, August 17, 2001, at 09:08:43
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.
|