Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
Today the christian faith(or parts of them) are urging everyone not to abstain from voting for the fear of letting in parties such as the BNP
On being questioned the reply was that the BNP should not be allowed to gain seats/credibility in the Euro elections, and theres a real fear this could happen.
Is it right for the christians to make such a stand?
Why is it that people are more readily accepting the BNP? I'm sure the present scandals havn';t heped, but is that a reason to accept such a radical BNP?
Even unions are now accepting that its the BNP under freedom of speech has a right, something that wouldn't have been thought of a few years ago.
Then the garden party and the BNP attending.
Hiow the world is changing,
Any thoughts?
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Keef you beat me to it with this story as I was just about to write about the very same thing. Great minds(!!) think alike eh!?
Yes the two leaders of the Anglican Church have urged people not to vote BNP. The general current disillusion with our ungodly parliamentarians could send the populace the way of the BNP at forthcoming elections. But should the Church be getting involved in this way in Elections and what is behind it?
Last week the BNP brought out a poster exclaiming loudly that
"Jesus would vote BNP right now" or words to that effect.
I havent seen any reasoning from the BNP as to why they think this might be the case. Are they rationalising that all the current parliamentarians are akin to Scribes and Pharisees, wheeling and dealing, in the temple. Christ banished them all with the help of a whip. Perhaps thats the link...could be. And who knows, our parliamentarian politicians might be described in such a way currently.
Perhaps this almost blasphemous BNP attempt to rope Jesus into their campaign upset the Church more than they let on, and they have retaliated hoping to make an impact and hurt the BNP in the ballot box.
Whatever the Church says though...the general feeling is that the fringe parties like BNP and UKIP will do well because of the mass anger with standard politicians. The Mackays and Kirkbrides of this world have a lot to answer for.
Certainly UKIP, who have been described on more than one occasion as the political wing of the BNP, have money behind them and seem well financed. I have been leafleted by them much more than the Labour Party and almost as much as the Conservatives. Labour just one leaflet. Many from the opposition ( maybe Labour have written off all Gateway voters as consumate Tories!?)
Terry Nunn
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,302
Driving home from Canterbury on Friday I listened to Radio 4's Newsquiz. The running joke was that BNP members all looked and acted like nazis. Perhaps I wouldn't go that far but they do have a resemblance to bouncers, i.e. mostly muscle and little brain.
Having said that I'm not sure that the church should get involved in politics.
Equally, whatever his name is (and that shows how much interest I have in the BNP) should be allowed to attend the garden party, after all he is the leader of of a legitimate organisation. If he is stopped then it should also apply to, for example, the Socialist Labour Party, a group that until the other day I never knew existed.
Church and politics should be kept apart otherwise we will be back in the days of Henry VIII.
If you have a political conviction then stick to it, tactical voting is a minefield.
Terry
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
couldn;t agree more about the church sticking their nose into politics.
experience shows that it causes more problems than it solves.
why they think that they have this great influence is beyond me.
when they get more people through their doors, then they can give an opinion.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
This is a serious problem and one created by our politicians. As well as the obvious corrupt claims of elected members of parliament, there is the added feeling that there is really very little difference between the two major parties. Sadly this disenfranchisement with political parties leads to people losing faith in what democratic powers we have. As a result many will vote tactically, not vote at all or in the worst case scenario vote for extreme groups.
Let them have their stand (albeit with their diluted facade) but let the church and all the rest of us make our views known as well. Rattle on about freedom of speech and the right to stand but let's be clear that ignorant supremacist attitude is actually in conflict with what makes this country great. The incorporation of other cultures, languages, and customs is what has made us British, not insulation and bigotry. I saw a member of the 'Youth BNP' (a bit too close to the 'Hitler Youth' for me!) bang on about being 'Anglo-Saxon'. He clearly didn't realise the significance of the hyphen or the fact that neither where indigenous to this island!
Allow them to operate and express their ignorance, better this than force them underground. But we should all strive to keep extreme views them in their place (that place being ignorance and intolerance). I think the BNP used this ad campaign with Jesus to get back at the church. It's just plain stupid "what would Jesus do?" Well firstly I don't think he's on the voting register and secondly, I don't think he'd be voting BNP.
The Church is already caught up in politics! Church and State are closely interwovern. But - big but - it sends shivers down the spine when I recall the old priests telling the humbled and supine parishioners in Ireland which way to vote, and the tales of the priests in Italy during the communist days. In theory priests should stay away from party politics, but politics is about life and values, so it seems natural for priests to be included!! I guess it is the party politics bit that causes unease, rather than broad "politics". And if the BNP are claiming jesus as a disciple (I had missed that one!) then indeed clerics need to jump in and re-claim Him!!
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
the question is SHOULD we listen to these people who preach doom and gloom?.but if we are individuels we should vote as indieviduels.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
Church maybe then should have an opinion, I think they just warned of the tactical vote, or BNP vote, as they and all thre political parties have agreed, no one wants to see the BNP get in anywhere.
The BNP usually does well at times like these.
But everyone can weigh up the pro's and cons of all the people and make a decision. thats our wonderful democratic way.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
keith
you say that no one wants the bnp to get in anywhere.
so why do they get elected to council seats.
The fact that the BNP is doing well at the moment should not surprise anyone. The reasons go far beyond the current expenses scandal; they can be traced back to the perceived "Islamification" of the UK, the perceived rule from unelected Euro-officials, the PC-friendly doctrines that see Xmas carol concerts banned in case it offends other faiths, that sort of thing. The expenses scandal is simply one more extra nail in the coffin.
As for the church having a say - sure, why not? I probably have less respect for any religion or religious authority than I do the BNP (don't mistake that comment as me being a BNP supporter - I am not) but the church should have the right to a point of view. They are probably just as concerned about the harm being done to our democracy as anyone and they are probably as concerned about the rise of a very obvious fascist group in the UK.
It's daft to suggest that religion shouldn't get involved in politics. The two are cosy bedmates, one often leads the other, and there are even religious political parties out there such as the Conservative Christian Fellowship. There's nothing really wrong with any religious group expressing views about politics; it goes wrong when religious groups try to affect social change with the religious doctrine as the major agenda rather than the good of the people. For example the introduction of Sharia Law or the outlawing of abortion on purely Catholic reasoning would not be suitable, but the right to express the argument should not be hindered.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
totally disagree, religion is there to support spiritual needs of people.
politics is for attending to the practical day to day things.
would any of us want to see politicians telling the churches, mosques, temples or synagogues how to go about their business.?
We already see that very thing Howard - for example government passes laws which make it illegal to prejudice a job applicant because they may be gay - something very at odds with the highly homophobic Catholic church. Similarly we see examples where religious interests are protected by political forces, such as is seen by the number of religious parties out there. Just a couple of things that spring to mind.
Religion and faith are different entities, sadly - Rick is right, religion and politics are strapped together like a splint and a broken limb. And there are good reasons for that historically, but also philosophically: proper religion is concerned with the welfare of the faithful so should indeed be involved. Unfortunately it is more about the welfare of the Church these days. Jesus (for those Christians among us) was straight in there with the politics: he did, after all, smash up the moneymarket and pour scorn on the politicians of the day and wasn't shy about challenging the received wisdoms of his time.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
bern,if its to be belived that the chap you mentiond excisted at all.did these deeds as the story gose.is there any concrete evidance apart from what it says in the bible any bible that is.
The chap is a historical fact and exists in the records, the rest is up for debate. Whether or not the miracles happened, the virgin brth etc etc is a matter of faith, but the actions and existence are agreed as documented. 2,000 years is such a piffling amount of time, historically, and it is possible to establish some facts and the existence of individuals and tribes/groups/whatever. I am rather interested at the moment in the evidence that indicates that Jesus had at least one brother, possibly other siblings. All rather exciting. Maybe that's just me........! Years ago I taught myself Hebrew (just a bit...) in order to better understand some of the nuances of the language at that time, because there is potential for confusion as a result of misunderstanding the language. Fascinating stuff. relevant to today as well, as there is potential for the same misunderstanding between cultures now.
A real-life anecdote for you (no names being used) with an interesting conclusion -
Someone I am good friends with is Catholic, and wants to get married to someone who is secular and was divorced from a previous marriage some years ago. Legally, that marriage is over, and both individuals are free to re-marry. The "politics" ensured that the laws were in place to allow the marriage to end properly so that each individual could move on.
Now then, my poor Catholic friend loves this individual tremendously and they both feel the same and can't wait to get married. But, despite the fact that the "secular" person is legally divorced, the Catholic church will not allow the wedding to proceed in a Catholic church because, according to the Church, this person's previous marriage was final and binding and despite the "legal" divorce, any attempt to remarry will actually be a sinful act of adultery in the eyes of the Catholic Church. In other words, the political laws that have been devised to allow marriages to end meaningfully mean nothing to Catholic "laws", which act outside of normal law and render the divorce meaningless.
The result is that the secular individual must convert to Catholicism (which they have agreed to do in order to marry) and go through a very lengthy and somewhat humiliating religious annulment in order to render the previous marriage "finished". This is proving to be an extremely upsetting and traumatic experience for both individuals, both of whom are very nice people and do not deserve this sad treatment. So much for religious support to loyal and faithful followers eh?
Anyway the point of this being that this situation is highly political in terms of the religious viewpoint. Politics isn't just about economy, health, and education. In its true meaning it is a process by which groups make decisions, usually under the influence of a central authority. My friend's current situation is very political, being played out against the backdrop of a rather harsh Church, and proves that politics and religion are really twisted together so tightly that to attempt to separate them is futile.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
surely your catholic friend could convert to the same realigon as the other person.
Guest 656- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,262
Why not have a civil ceremony and a blessing in the Catholic church if they wish, this option has worked for a lot of Catholics.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Yes I think this rule was always in place but I thought or hoped that perhaps recently it may have been updated/modernised. The story did bring to mind though the situation of Mr and Mrs Blair, former Prime Minister and wife. Not quite sure how it worked for them. I cant see them nipping down to the local registry office behind the Labour Exchange.
Mr Blair became a Catholic after he stepped down from office, but all along they lived the 'catholic' life. Not sure how they got married or is it one rule for them and another rule for us the proletariat. In other words did they do it in Church in the first place.
Rather like the expenses business isnt it. If me and you made claims/fiddles along the lines of some we would be doing hard time!
