Are you going to vote tactically?

[clv101]

Not what I meant. (Since God has overall control of the universe anyway, He doesn't need and cannot be voted in or out by definition). What I meant was (very human) candidates who I know are going to honour God rather than following the same old corrupt path, or seeking to follow moral viewpoints &c. which are purely the result of human thinking without reference to divine revelation. Usually that would have to imply saved, born-again believers.

"God has overall control of the universe"
"candidates who I know are going to honour God"
"divine revelation"

Urm... what's all that about then? Doesn't sound like any way to make decisions, allocate resources etc. What stories some people choose to frame their lives with should have no bearing on politics.

[the_lyniezian]

"God has overall control of the universe"
"candidates who I know are going to honour God"
"divine revelation"

Urm... what's all that about then? Doesn't sound like any way to make decisions, allocate resources etc. What stories some people choose to frame their lives with should have no bearing on politics.

Well put it this way, you may choose to believe that, but I don't. I believe both that there is a God who is not mere myth, and that He knows intimately what is best for mankind. So I am more likely to want to vote for someone who recognises that. Moreover, as recent events have shown, it is quite clear that the vast majority of politicians seem more likely to have their own interests at heart, and I would expect at least if someone is a commited Christian, they will not be so much like that.

Of course it may be that just because someone is a professing Christian, however genuine, that they are always the best people to cope with the responsibility of politics. But I doubt you can get far worse than the lot in power at the moment.

EDIT: Frankly what you choose to base your vote on is your business, and what I choose to base my vote on is my business. We are each free to believe what we like and decide how it affects our actions within reason, last I checked.

[2 As and a B]

And I believe there is a pub down the road that sells excellent beer. And I'm just off to test my belief against my judgement.

[Aurora]

I believe both that there is a God who is not mere myth, and that He knows intimately what is best for mankind. So I am more likely to want to vote for someone who recognises that. Moreover, as recent events have shown, it is quite clear that the vast majority of politicians seem more likely to have their own interests at heart, and I would expect at least if someone is a commited Christian, they will not be so much like that.

Of course it may be that just because someone is a professing Christian, however genuine, that they are always the best people to cope with the responsibility of politics. But I doubt you can get far worse than the lot in power at the moment.

Give us all a break Lyniezian. You really should try to get out more.

Christians are as corruptible as the rest of the population. In the US, far-right Christians are inseparably linked to far-right politics and have historically supported every 'hawk' that comes to power with inevitably disastrous results.

Trust Christians to do the 'right' thing? You've got to be joking!

The current shenanigans within the Catholic church have demonstrated to most folk with half a braincell that power corrupts and that those who should have provided a moral lead were ultimately as corruptible as the rest of us.

Frankly, I find your pious tone rather naive and frankly, disgusting.

[snow hope]

Regarding the recent revelations of peadophilia (sp?) in the Catholic church, it begs the question why the heck are there so many priests and catholic heirachy who abuse young boys and girls? It is horrendous to hear what has gone on and the cover ups that various Bishops have felt appropriate to conceal.

And they were the very ones that people turned to for hope and trust with their children. It is absolutley disgusting and still they will not own up to their deep wrong-doing.

This deeply shocking problem deserves to bring the Catholic church to its knees in my eyes. And now we hear even the Pope was involved in cover-up.....

If ever there was a time to doubt the religous zealots it is now I am afraid. Sorry the_Lyniezian I know you will not like this post and my disrespect is not aimed at you, but at the corrupt people who call themselves priests and teachers of God.

[biffvernon]

Very true, but it pales into insignificance behind the way people of each of the Abrahamic religions have broken their own commandment "Thou shalt not kill".

[snow hope]

I would just like to add that there are many good, decent people with religous faith who I respect completely, albeit I might disagree with their religous views. I am simply trying to make the point that the deep wrong-doing by more than just the odd one or two is very disturbing and makes one question the whole religous situation.

[UndercoverElephant]

I would just like to add that there are many good, decent people with religous faith who I respect completely, albeit I might disagree with their religous views. I am simply trying to make the point that the deep wrong-doing by more than just the odd one or two is very disturbing and makes one question the whole religous situation.

I think that is going too far. For me, it undermines the argument Lynazien was making i.e. that religious people are more likely to be trustworthy, reliable politicians than non-religious people. But it doesn't actually undermine the whole of religion any more than a few fraudulent scientists undermine the whole business of science.

[PS_RalphW]

I've just finished reading Terry Jones' Medieval Lives.

It has more than a thing or two to say about the (then Catholic) church in the UK. A constant theme is the corruption of ideals as sect after sect cashed in on the piety and fear of hell of the ruling class of the day.

It puts the very strange land ownership set up in this country in a clear context of the history of the power struggles between church and state (or kings, as was then, the state as we know it barely existed).

Also, the church's attitudes towards women are seen as putting back women's striving for equality by at least 500 years.

Doesn't mention children much.

[Blue Peter]

It puts the very strange land ownership set up in this country in a clear context of the history of the power struggles between church and state (or kings, as was then, the state as we know it barely existed).

Could you expand on that a bit, please? I had assumed that the Church basically bribed/blackmailed landowners* to give them land to save their souls. But is that what you mean by "strange"?


Peter.

*Of course, their landownership is also mired in crime, I suspect.

[PS_RalphW]

Well, to be honest the book covers 500 years in 200 pages, so coverage is patchy and anecdotal.

Basically, the ruling classes were the Normans, who in turn were descended from viking invaders. They ran the country as an occupied nation for hundreds of years. England was the private property of the king, and his noble classes leased and ran estates for him, paying with military service of themselves and their peasant tenants. The only land owned outright was that held by the various branches of the church. They were routinely gifted land by landowners who feared the ten commandments would catch up with them, and once they got it they never gave it back. Some branches were quite ruthless buying up land or simply evicting the peasant occupants. Sometimes they would remove nobility as well. Because land owned by the nobility passed to the elder son only, younger sons had limited career options, being soldier, the church, or outlaw. Sometimes they became all three.

Each of the major sects started out with good intentions, of living in poverty and seclusion, and spending a lot of time praying and the simple life. The poorer they were, the more they were showered with gifts of money and land by the wealthy to get their slate clean with God.

After the black death had depopulated much of the country, the church ended up owning most of the best agricultural land and many towns throughout the country. Bury St Edmunds was entirely owned by the Abbey. The church imposed heavy taxes.

By the time Henry VIII reclaimed their wealth, they were incredibly rich and corrupt.

[Blue Peter]

Cheers.

I suppose that there is a question as to whether the church made good use of the land and thus was a benefit, but I tend to view them as being rather unmerited landowners,


Peter.

[PS_RalphW]

From the limited source I have read, I would say some and some. Some would have made Tony Blair proud, being ruthlessly Thatcherite. Buying or simply invading low productivity land, recruiting the dispossessed peasants as 'Lay brothers' or cheap labour, and building major local industries and even whole towns. However, once sheep farming became more profitable for the wool trade, the peasants were simply evicted.

Others simply sat around by got rich by frightening the wealthy and taxing the poor.

[goslow]

sorry to drag back to OT. I am now trying the tactical voting trick of pairing up with someone in another marginal constituency who could make my "real vote" on my behalf in exchange for me voting for who they want. Though at the moment its just a facebook page "Voting Buddies" which does not seem to be very elaborate, hard to search for what you particularly want.

[the_lyniezian]

I believe both that there is a God who is not mere myth, and that He knows intimately what is best for mankind. So I am more likely to want to vote for someone who recognises that. Moreover, as recent events have shown, it is quite clear that the vast majority of politicians seem more likely to have their own interests at heart, and I would expect at least if someone is a commited Christian, they will not be so much like that.

Of course it may be that just because someone is a professing Christian, however genuine, that they are always the best people to cope with the responsibility of politics. But I doubt you can get far worse than the lot in power at the moment.

Give us all a break Lyniezian. You really should try to get out more.

Well that much is certain, sadly...

Christians are as corruptible as the rest of the population. In the US, far-right Christians are inseparably linked to far-right politics and have historically supported every 'hawk' that comes to power with inevitably disastrous results.

Trust Christians to do the 'right' thing? You've got to be joking!

The current shenanigans within the Catholic church have demonstrated to most folk with half a braincell that power corrupts and that those who should have provided a moral lead were ultimately as corruptible as the rest of us.

Frankly, I find your pious tone rather naive and frankly, disgusting.

I don't doubt that some at least nominally Christian types are open to corruption and abuse. I thought I made that obvious in my last post, with the caveat that it's hardly like one can trust non-Christians either.

Before making any comments about the Catholic church, remember I'm a Protestant (not quite anything like the Irish sort, your hardline Ian Paisley type) and don't necessarily think I can expect much out of a tradition that has already proved itself rotten over centuries past anyway. (I am generalising here, not accusing genuine Catholic individuals).

I also am pretty certain that the American 'Religious Right' tradition is also pretty suspect, perhaps that can be put down to religion being more part of the cultual landscape than anything genuine. (EDIt: Sometimes, at least. Of course much of it seems to be throwing in their lot with the interests of corporate greed, the military-industrial complex, general materialism and so on...)

But yes, people can be corrupted. I guess this is what hapened post-Cinstantine when the church became established and got itself entangled with 'the affairs of the world'- the usual political entanglements and becoming just another facet of society, rather than something radically different.

But I hope there are a few genuine people, and if I know someone who I can reasonably trust to be so (I happen to) I am quite willing to vote for them. Most people would suggest I put my cross in some box on the voting paper than none, so it's worth a try... (as long as it isn't BNP).