« Bad Diary | Main | Faithless - Bombs »

25 October 2006





There is no end of things to be said about politics.
Christ lived in a poltically corrupt society. What did he do?
To me it seems that he tried to change individual peoples hearts toward God, I can't find any evidence where he tried to change the system en masse.
Anyway people who have not outgrown 'Idealism' by age 21 should not be entrusted with public office.

A Tait

Politically we do live in interesting times with more potential for a breakthrough by a newer or minor party than I think there has been for a generation or more. The tired old-gang parties do not inspire many these days and voter apathy plays a large part in maintaining the status quo.

Can a religiously orientated party make that breakthrough? Only time will tell but I think that we can immediately see the uphill struggle that they will face in a society such as we live in in these days where religious knowledge and observance has declined at an alarming rate. But often adversity can provide opportunity and in these uncertain times people could turn to a party with solid values when indeed the calibre of their candidates shines out over the drab, grasping and careerist politicians of the main parties.

We shall see!


So, in no particular order, why I won't be wasting my vote on them any lifetime soon:

a) missing apostrophe in their own *name*
b) talking about a "democratic" way to "replace unbelief with belief" is an utter nonsense. Democracy reflects the people's wishes, not the other way around.
c) there is talk about "the values of the Christian Gospel" and "principles are derived first from the Bible" without saying what translation or interpretation will be used. At best this is meaningless, more likely it will be close-minded, and at worst it will bring respectful reading of Scripture into disrepute.
d) "We, as Christians, believe that human life is sacred from conception to natural death, making abortion and euthanasia wrong practices." Kindly disassociate me, as a Christian, from such inaccurate ill-thought-out blanket drivel statements. Abortion, to take one example, is neither "right" nor "wrong" but something to be performed with thoughtful consideration, weighing up the situation and will of the parents; you can't have that if the law just says "it's wrong". I strongly doubt they'll make any impact.
e) "The public have been misled about these matters". Figs grow on fig-trees, news is to be found in newspapers, expert opinion is to be found from experts, and ill-founded partisan accusations are to be found in politicians.
f) "In God's eyes all are equal" For sure. But what translation or interpretation of the Bible are they going to use to back this up and how do we know it's correct, when the bible has historically been used to justify slavery, hatred, violence and war, which we now consider incorrect?


What jimmy said. :)


A Scottish Socialist Party member mentioned to me this evening that "The SCPA has stolen our manifesto!"

Kelvin Holdsworth

Having made my own little forays into the world of politics, my observation is that generally I found mainstream politicians to be more truthful than people in the churches.

My own view is that the best hope for a peaceful society lies in a secular state, and for that reason alone, I would find any religious party difficult to support. In any case I would disagree with the moral stance of the SCPA anyway - a very particular and rather narrow view of Christian ethical ideas.

As it happens, I also think that a secular state is the best environment for church growth, Christian mission and evangelism.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

GadgetVicar serves with: