Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Apolitical?

Entry 832, on 2008-08-13 at 21:22:33 (Rating 3, Politics)

Should churches be apolitical? According to a recent poll in the New Zealand Herald, most people think that they should be, but I disagree. I don't have a lot of confidence in the ability of churches to make sensible decisions and to offer good advice to their followers but I still think they should have a political voice.

This may seem strange when I rubbish the role fundamentalist churches have in the US when trying to influence education and science, but that is different. To make a useful contribution to scientific debates an organisation needs some basic scientific skills, such as knowing how to analyse the truth of a theory. Creationists clearly don't have this ability so they should keep out.

But politics is about everyone, or at least it should be. Everyone should have a say because there isn't the same rigorous methodology in politics like there is in science. So I think the churches should have a political voice. Chances are that voice will disagree with just about everything a scientifically minded liberal like me would believe but that's not the point.

In fact if the Catholic Church (for example) announced that its members should support one party because of an issue like the civil union bill that would tell voters something that might cause them to think about their own vote - and possibly vote for someone else. I know that it shouldn't be a factor but when I see a party is supported by a conservative organisation like a church I tend to be less likely to vote for that party.

The Church isn't telling people who to vote for directly, but they are making it fairly clear that some policies belonging to certain parties aren't acceptable to them. So they might as well just come out and say which party they support because its obvious anyway. By doing it this indirect way they get the best of both worlds though because they make it obvious to their followers who they want them to vote for without specifically mentioning that party and possibly scaring other people off.

One suggestion is "to put into Parliament people of personal integrity and values". Well we all want that but who's to say whether someone who wants gays to be allowed civil unions has more integrity than someone who doesn't want them to? I would personally say that the person trying to stop someone else's personal freedom because of a belief they have themselves has less integrity. Of course the church has always believed its had a monopoly on morals when the opposite could be easily argued.

The Catholic Church has been skillfully dabbling in politics for 2000 years now so they should be good at it by now. Fair enough too because politics isn't really about fair play or being totally honest. Its about getting your agenda acted on and this seems to be an effective way to do it.

Comment 1 (1532) by SBFL on 2008-08-22 at 20:21:15:

"The Church isn't telling people who to vote for directly, but they are making it fairly clear that some policies belonging to certain parties aren't acceptable to them. So they might as well just come out and say which party they support because its obvious anyway."

How so OJB? You know if they disagree with some policies then it probably follows that they agree with others....? Hence this is probably one reason why they DON'T come out and say which party they support - simply because there isn't one in particular.

Try not to see everything in black and white. Take Labour for instance. It is well known the Church disagree with the civil unions act, but they may agree with the social justice aspects. It just ain't as straightforward as you think it is.

Comment 2 (1537) by OJB on 2008-08-23 at 14:06:34:

You may be right but I got the impression, reading between the lines, that they had a particular political party in mind. We would never expect an individual or organisation to agree with absolutely everything a party supports but that doesn't mean they can't make a decision based on overall political philosophy or ideology.

Comment 3 (1542) by SBFL on 2008-08-23 at 15:05:39:

I genuinely don't think they have an official preference, I'm a member so I would have some sort of idea if it existed. They really don't get that involved with political views, just the occasional letter from the bishop to be read at mass and even then that is pretty basic.

Comment 4 (1545) by OJB on 2008-08-24 at 11:51:56:

They made a specific public announcement stating issues and philosophies which voters should be concerned about. Those issues pointed to a particular party without specifically mentioning it. The ex-leader and important behind the scenes strategist for that party is well-known as a Catholic.

Comment 5 (1550) by SBFL on 2008-08-24 at 23:16:37:

Yes stating issues to be considered comes out from time to time. So what? Are you scared? Do you fear their influence? This does seem to be case because now you demonstrate paranoia with your conspiracy suspicions and refusal to come out and say what you really mean.

It's negativity from people like you that causes divisions. You need to grow up.

Comment 6 (1551) by OJB on 2008-08-25 at 05:51:31:

Unlike many other people (according to the poll at the Herald) I support the right of the church to make political statements (did you read the original blog entry?) I don't want to see an overly conservative government elected but that's unlikely in the immediate future anyway. I don't see any conspiracy here. Maybe you read more into what I was saying than I really meant to be there.

Comment 7 (1554) by SBFL on 2008-08-25 at 15:58:01:

I was referring to your previous comment, that's normally how conversations go. Speak up and name ("Those issues pointed to a particular party without specifically mentioning it. The ex-leader and important behind the scenes strategist for that party is well-known as a Catholic.") and don't divert by mentioning stuff already discussed (or not discussed beyond the post but not disagreed with either - "I support the right of the church to make political statements").

Comment 8 (1557) by OJB on 2008-08-25 at 21:26:16:

Well I'm obviously referring to issues like abortion, genetic engineering, etc. And the party is National, of course. And the person is Bill English. This is all obvious, isn't it?

Comment 9 (1558) by SBFL on 2008-08-27 at 22:36:51:

No, not really. National has an anti-abortion policy? I don't think so. Bill English is "behind the scenes"? I thought he was deputy leader. I couldn't find any mention of GE in the statement. Let's look at the Herald article on the media release: They say "It calls for compassion in policies on refugees and international aid and for a softer approach to prisons." and "The statement also canvasses broader policy areas, including how employment laws affect family life and how parties will address poverty."

Now does this sound like the statement has "issues pointed to a particular party without specifically mentioning it?" [later revealed by OJB to mean National] ???

Now there are issues, social issues, raised that don't align with Labour but does that mean they necessarily align with National? Hardly - on many of the law passings, National allowed a conscience vote.

And the Herald points out that minor parties should not be ruled out either "However, it concedes that supporters might want to vote for a smaller party - saying strategic voting with a mind to potential coalition deals may be considered "to put into Parliament people of personal integrity and values"."

So no, OJB, it is not obvious. Wasn't I saying something about your negativity 'issues' on another thread?

Comment 10 (1563) by OJB on 2008-08-28 at 19:22:40:

OK, I accept that maybe I was trying to push a conspiracy theory here. The article you reference gives a completely different picture to what I saw. Just to prove that I will admit when my theory looks a bit shaky I will retract the allegation that the Catholic Church supports the Nats, at least until further evidence is forthcoming.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.