My Dearest Cousin Peter,
Your great article the other day about whether Religion and Politics should be allowed to mix together (Can religion and politics mix-and-match?) opened with the following four quotes, each one of which I am confident you deliberately selected just to make my flesh crawl:
1. "Religion and politics are two sides of the same coin. Here in [Eastern society], you cannot separate them," asserted K.J. John, a Catholic writer. [sic]
2. The former civil servant and now an online media columnist said that, "Jesus was the first politician. Jesus intervened at a particular place and time, and that is already a political intervention."
3. "What we need today is public theology, which is a Christian faith that can interact in the public arena, to speak for goodness, righteousness and truth, and to live by these," said John.
4. "The Church must engage in politics for the benefit of society, say Church people as Malaysia readies itself for a by-election in a Christian-majority constituency." [Originally the first quote.]
Well, I am certain that you too know what a lot of utter nonsense there is in the above four statements. The last statement was from a source other than K.J. John, identified as "Church people" (perhaps of the frocked variety, but maybe not), although the sentiment expressed certainly seems to be where K.J. John was headed.
Frankly, I find there is so much muddled thinking and brainwashing going on with the first three statements that it makes it very difficult to know where to start the demolition work. However, the last sentence is just plain frightening to me and should be to all right thinking people. Thus, in view of that, I decided I really needed to put my thoughts down on paper, even if they are a little late in coming to you. I am e-mailing you simply because my thoughts are far too long for a blog comment, so I couldn’t possibly post them on MT! Of course, if you think otherwise, then I'll happily post them there.
Anyway, for now, please allow me to jump in at the beginning.
The first quote ("Religion and politics are two sides of the same coin. Here in Eastern society you cannot separate them”) is meaningless. Of course it is possible to separate religion and politics, and you can do it in any location in the world. For starters, each element (religion and politics) has its own distinctly different dictionary definition, wherein neither of the definitions refers to the other element.
I cannot deny that people make up the numbers in both religious and political parties, but that does not mean that people are therefore unable to separate their personal religious beliefs from their politics. Undeniably, a personal religious belief will influence each individual's character, and that would then flow into the way they view the political scene. However, I will never be convinced that an ideal political solution for any given society would not be capable of satisfying Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Jew alike. Thus religion for the sake of religion is redundant within politics.
Please note that my comment is not at all the same as me saying that religiously motivated people with the wider community's interests at heart should not get involved in politics. Such people most certainly should get involved in politics, but they can quite easily espouse the principles in which they believe without any reference to religion. In fact, I truly squirm whenever I hear a politician making a religious reference to score a point, especially some of the utterances of George Bush (e.g. "America was founded on Christian principles").
As for the second quote, what on earth is the meaning of the words "Jesus was the first politician...Jesus intervened at a particular place and time, and that is already a political intervention"? Apart from the fact that this statement almost (but not quite) "begs the question", which "political" party did Jesus actually claim to represent? I certainly can't remember the "Late Night Supper-With-Special-Friends Party" being mentioned in the good book.
Next, what was the supposed intervention? Jesus stood up against corrupt religious leaders; he certainly is not recorded as having taken up physical arms against Rome (it was good old Peter - your namesake - who lopped off the centurion's ear). And look what happened to Jerusalem after Jesus departed! Great work there, Jesus!
And, lastly, the fact that Jesus is being claimed as the "first" politician is laughable! King David, from which line Jesus supposedly sprang many centuries later, has to rank as one of the foremost politicians from the past! And I'm sure there were many other real politicians preceding Jesus, not least the Pharaohs of Egypt. But my biggest point by far is that if anybody had accused Jesus to his face of being a politician, I think Jesus would have choked to death on the spot!
In the third quote, the true message may have been lost because of the awful grammar and bad sentence structure employed. So let me restate what K.J. John is saying: “What we need today is for the Christian faith, along with its particular theology, to step into the public arena and speak up for goodness, righteousness and truth, and for people to be encouraged to live by those Christian principles".
First off, since "Christian faith" is not a person, it won't be stepping into anything or saying anything; it is a belief system. However, the implication here is that if the Christian faith is firstly not thrust into politics and secondly not embraced by everyone, then any alternative political system will be second rate at best. KJJ should be implored to give us all a break here! Politicians are people who hunger after the power to dictate what is best for the rest of us as only they see it, so they all seem to be of a certain breed and from the same mould. Many of them in the West openly call themselves Christians (which, to all intents and purposes, they could well be), although they are not overtly "of the Church".
So who does KJJ suggest should replace these people – men of the cloth? Well, it would be very interesting to see the Catholics and the Protestants trying to share political power together when today they can't even share a place of worship, and when they disagree over such vital issues as the need for celibacy, absolution and even the "true" meaning of the sacrament! Need I say more?
And finally I get to that last quote: "The Church must engage in politics for the benefit of society, say Church people as Malaysia readies itself for a by-election in a Christian-majority constituency."
Of course, the acid test would be for the Christian Church to start up a political party of its own, using the word "Christian" in the official title, and then see what voters think of the idea. However, I would have to advise them that the Church was in "political" control throughout most places in Europe for about 600 years, and it did such a good job that, after power was finally wrested from the Church, the populace has never bothered to invite the Church back into political power although some 500 years has since passed. I wonder why?
Seriously though, great care must be taken in any multi-cultural society to ensure that one man's different religion is not thrust down another man's throat. Not only that, but it should not even be hinted by a religious group that it considers that it somehow has the right to wrest political control from the others. To do otherwise would only cause untold problems.
Specifically, if one religious group truly decides that it is superior in any way to other religious groups and pursues such a line vigorously, then bloodshed will be just round the corner. Such thinking must be smothered at birth, because if it is nurtured and allowed to develop, it will eat up and spit out many good people in its wake –and that may include your children and mine.
So, please, let's just keep our religion in our hearts and minds, where it belongs. Good people of whatever persuasion who seek public office must then demonstrate to the world through their deeds what good people they are and why they should be elected to represent the populace as a whole (and not just the people of one religion, which is exactly what many will suspect if anyone tries to assume power in the name of a particular religion).
As I keep saying, it really is that simple. Religion and State should never mate………because the almost guaranteed outcome is a totally unmanageable bastard.
There! That's off my chest now.
Warmest regards,
Wally
Your great article the other day about whether Religion and Politics should be allowed to mix together (Can religion and politics mix-and-match?) opened with the following four quotes, each one of which I am confident you deliberately selected just to make my flesh crawl:
1. "Religion and politics are two sides of the same coin. Here in [Eastern society], you cannot separate them," asserted K.J. John, a Catholic writer. [sic]
2. The former civil servant and now an online media columnist said that, "Jesus was the first politician. Jesus intervened at a particular place and time, and that is already a political intervention."
3. "What we need today is public theology, which is a Christian faith that can interact in the public arena, to speak for goodness, righteousness and truth, and to live by these," said John.
4. "The Church must engage in politics for the benefit of society, say Church people as Malaysia readies itself for a by-election in a Christian-majority constituency." [Originally the first quote.]
Well, I am certain that you too know what a lot of utter nonsense there is in the above four statements. The last statement was from a source other than K.J. John, identified as "Church people" (perhaps of the frocked variety, but maybe not), although the sentiment expressed certainly seems to be where K.J. John was headed.
Frankly, I find there is so much muddled thinking and brainwashing going on with the first three statements that it makes it very difficult to know where to start the demolition work. However, the last sentence is just plain frightening to me and should be to all right thinking people. Thus, in view of that, I decided I really needed to put my thoughts down on paper, even if they are a little late in coming to you. I am e-mailing you simply because my thoughts are far too long for a blog comment, so I couldn’t possibly post them on MT! Of course, if you think otherwise, then I'll happily post them there.
Anyway, for now, please allow me to jump in at the beginning.
The first quote ("Religion and politics are two sides of the same coin. Here in Eastern society you cannot separate them”) is meaningless. Of course it is possible to separate religion and politics, and you can do it in any location in the world. For starters, each element (religion and politics) has its own distinctly different dictionary definition, wherein neither of the definitions refers to the other element.
I cannot deny that people make up the numbers in both religious and political parties, but that does not mean that people are therefore unable to separate their personal religious beliefs from their politics. Undeniably, a personal religious belief will influence each individual's character, and that would then flow into the way they view the political scene. However, I will never be convinced that an ideal political solution for any given society would not be capable of satisfying Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Jew alike. Thus religion for the sake of religion is redundant within politics.
Please note that my comment is not at all the same as me saying that religiously motivated people with the wider community's interests at heart should not get involved in politics. Such people most certainly should get involved in politics, but they can quite easily espouse the principles in which they believe without any reference to religion. In fact, I truly squirm whenever I hear a politician making a religious reference to score a point, especially some of the utterances of George Bush (e.g. "America was founded on Christian principles").
As for the second quote, what on earth is the meaning of the words "Jesus was the first politician...Jesus intervened at a particular place and time, and that is already a political intervention"? Apart from the fact that this statement almost (but not quite) "begs the question", which "political" party did Jesus actually claim to represent? I certainly can't remember the "Late Night Supper-With-Special-Friends Party" being mentioned in the good book.
Next, what was the supposed intervention? Jesus stood up against corrupt religious leaders; he certainly is not recorded as having taken up physical arms against Rome (it was good old Peter - your namesake - who lopped off the centurion's ear). And look what happened to Jerusalem after Jesus departed! Great work there, Jesus!
And, lastly, the fact that Jesus is being claimed as the "first" politician is laughable! King David, from which line Jesus supposedly sprang many centuries later, has to rank as one of the foremost politicians from the past! And I'm sure there were many other real politicians preceding Jesus, not least the Pharaohs of Egypt. But my biggest point by far is that if anybody had accused Jesus to his face of being a politician, I think Jesus would have choked to death on the spot!
In the third quote, the true message may have been lost because of the awful grammar and bad sentence structure employed. So let me restate what K.J. John is saying: “What we need today is for the Christian faith, along with its particular theology, to step into the public arena and speak up for goodness, righteousness and truth, and for people to be encouraged to live by those Christian principles".
First off, since "Christian faith" is not a person, it won't be stepping into anything or saying anything; it is a belief system. However, the implication here is that if the Christian faith is firstly not thrust into politics and secondly not embraced by everyone, then any alternative political system will be second rate at best. KJJ should be implored to give us all a break here! Politicians are people who hunger after the power to dictate what is best for the rest of us as only they see it, so they all seem to be of a certain breed and from the same mould. Many of them in the West openly call themselves Christians (which, to all intents and purposes, they could well be), although they are not overtly "of the Church".
So who does KJJ suggest should replace these people – men of the cloth? Well, it would be very interesting to see the Catholics and the Protestants trying to share political power together when today they can't even share a place of worship, and when they disagree over such vital issues as the need for celibacy, absolution and even the "true" meaning of the sacrament! Need I say more?
And finally I get to that last quote: "The Church must engage in politics for the benefit of society, say Church people as Malaysia readies itself for a by-election in a Christian-majority constituency."
Of course, the acid test would be for the Christian Church to start up a political party of its own, using the word "Christian" in the official title, and then see what voters think of the idea. However, I would have to advise them that the Church was in "political" control throughout most places in Europe for about 600 years, and it did such a good job that, after power was finally wrested from the Church, the populace has never bothered to invite the Church back into political power although some 500 years has since passed. I wonder why?
Seriously though, great care must be taken in any multi-cultural society to ensure that one man's different religion is not thrust down another man's throat. Not only that, but it should not even be hinted by a religious group that it considers that it somehow has the right to wrest political control from the others. To do otherwise would only cause untold problems.
Specifically, if one religious group truly decides that it is superior in any way to other religious groups and pursues such a line vigorously, then bloodshed will be just round the corner. Such thinking must be smothered at birth, because if it is nurtured and allowed to develop, it will eat up and spit out many good people in its wake –and that may include your children and mine.
So, please, let's just keep our religion in our hearts and minds, where it belongs. Good people of whatever persuasion who seek public office must then demonstrate to the world through their deeds what good people they are and why they should be elected to represent the populace as a whole (and not just the people of one religion, which is exactly what many will suspect if anyone tries to assume power in the name of a particular religion).
As I keep saying, it really is that simple. Religion and State should never mate………because the almost guaranteed outcome is a totally unmanageable bastard.
There! That's off my chest now.
Warmest regards,
Wally
No comments:
Post a Comment