Ship of Fools: The role of christianity in the UK general election

Thread: The role of christianity in the UK general election Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028858

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

The general election campaign is well under way with parties and their leaders sniping away at one another in yet another unwholesome display of arrogance, name-calling and accusations.

Yesterday, the Evangelical Alliance, along with Christians in Politics and a few other organisations launched their Show Up campaign to encourage christians to get voting. Today, the Church of England joined in with John Sentamu launching a new book of essays in which he warns of the dangers of income inequality, which has come in for some sneering from the pro-inequality side of the political spectrum.

So what do shipmates think the role of christianity should be in the forthcoming election, now just over 100 days away?

Does your faith lead you towards a particular political stance? If you support a party, does that party hold some values or policies that you think are at odds with your faith?

Or are you of the view that the Church should keep its nose out of politics altogether?

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :

I used to vote Labour but feel that I can't anymore as they support so many things that I can't condone,such as abortion even on babies that could survive at 24 weeks. I think the Covservatives have done ok with the economy, but they have passed the gay marriage law.. I wouldn't even consider the Liberals. All of the parties seem to approve of things that as a Christian I can not vote for with a clear conscience. So what can a Christian do. I have had to spoil my paper for the last few elections, a thing that I do not like to do. I know friends ofmine that manage to vote even when they have the same views as myself,but I don't know how.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Pick the least worst option ?

(Also, do you really want to live in a theocracy ?)

[ 15. January 2015, 19:25: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

There are some political positions that I feel can't be reconciled with Christianity when also acted on at the individual level.
However the range where they can be held in a "I detest what you say but I'll die for your right to say it sense" could well be (and I believe is) much broader. That is in some cases it be 'anti-christian' to (try to) enforce the 'christian' view.

And of course there are a myriad steps in-between, and most parties are a mix (illustrated in the quip about parties wanting god in/out of the boardroom/bedroom). And things get chaotic...and...

One example of this would be rich people trying to cut any safety net without planning themselves to give a roughly similar amount to do the same private.
But if they sincerely think they can take the burden themselves more efficiently and more comprehensively without the contribution of the not-quite so needy poor (or uncaring rich), then that's a different position to take, similarly with poor people deciding they don't want the safety net. I think they're factually wrong, but that's a different matter.
And there are comments you see that suggest (of course I might be wrong) that the speakers hold the first intention rather than the second.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

On this subject, some might find this article by Harry Phibbs of interest.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Of course our faith should inform how and whom we vote for. The Church has a role in that too, informing the faithful as to their responsibilities regarding that faith. Even if you happen to strongly believe in secular democracy, both have a place.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Our faith should inform each of us about a range of important political issues. They include questions of world trade, of welfare, international relations, education, personal morality, economics, and loads else beside. We will all put slightly different emphases on these issues. And, probably the different emphases and priorities of all the parties will coincide to differing extents to the different priorities of each of us. Which is a way of saying that I don't think any political party is more Christian than another, nor less Christian (though, exceptions to that could be made for those who advocate policies of deliberate hatred to others - I'm looking at you BNP, and possibly others). As Christians we need to examine our own beliefs and the proposed policies of the different candidates and put our cross by the name that comes closest to what we believe to be important. And, then to pray that whoever is elected will act wisely and justly so that the Kingdom may come that little bit closer.

The Church should be there to help people (Christians and others) consider how they vote in the light of Christian priorities. That isn't the same as telling people how to vote - indeed that's about the last thing the Church should be doing. We should, in various ways, be providing space for people to discuss issues and make up their own mind how to vote.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I don't think I have ever attended a church or supported a political party with which I agree entirely. Nor do I agree with all my Trade Union's policies and objectives or those of my employer.

Despite all that I still vote, go to church, have a job and pay my union fees. Voting especially isn't a "perfect fit", just the least unfavourable option, and possibly a utilitarian one to prevent a particularly offensive candidate being elected.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I don't think that religion should be kept out of politics. I would like to think that someone representing me would share the same Christian values as I do.

However, in real life people are not always honest: they may say what we want to hear, especially when touting for votes, and then get on with their own agenda once in power.

There would also undoubtedly be issues on which we would hold different views whether or not they were Christian, as once applied to real life circumstances interpretation will vary.

It is also true to say that people of no religion or of other religions may hold to values not far from mine.

When voting for a person rather than a party therefore, looking for signs of integrity and willingness to serve and genuine concern to do what they can for the good of all, if there were any way of doing so, may help me to decide.

I am disillusioned with all political parties, and so if I do vote, I think it must be for the person rather than for the party.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I know friends ofmine that manage to vote even when they have the same views as myself,but I don't know how.

Maybe they think that trying to get help to heal the sick, feed the hungry and clothe the naked is more important than trying to use the state to force people to conform to your moral views?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
There would also undoubtedly be issues on which we would hold different views whether or not they were Christian, as once applied to real life circumstances interpretation will vary.

It is also true to say that people of no religion or of other religions may hold to values not far from mine.

I would also go with issues, rather than labels. I have developed a set of values that I consider important. Those values have inevitably been informed by my faith, and have been arrived at prayerfully. In my experience, politicians who identify as Christians often hold views diametrically opposed to mine, and quite often make a stand on those issues as though they're the most important things for Christians to concern themselves with when it comes to voting. The current hot issue would be people standing for election on a "Christian" platform opposed to marriage equality (even though they'd be trying to shut the stable door long after the horse has disappeared over the hill), whereas I'm strongly in favour of marriage equality - although it's fairly long down my list of political priorities below things like international trade justice, support for the poor and disadvantaged, the environment etc.

I'd much rather vote for someone else who shares similar views to me on what I consider important than someone who doesn't just because they happen to identify as Christian.

quote:
I am disillusioned with all political parties, and so if I do vote, I think it must be for the person rather than for the party.

We have a system of government that relies on political parties, unfortunately. Following the election, whoever is the leader of the party with the most elected members will almost certainly be Prime Minister and form a government (possibly with the help of a coalition partner). Which means we have a strange dilemma at the polling station where we're combining voting for our local representative with voting for the Prime Minister, and the two may be in conflict.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:

Yesterday, the Evangelical Alliance, along with Christians in Politics and a few other organisations launched their Show Up campaign to encourage christians to get voting.

Is there any particular sign that Christians in general or evangelicals in particular need encouragement to vote? I thought that Christians were more likely to vote than non-religious people in any case.

As for myself, I like the process and excitement of elections and voting, but I don't choose or reject a party on the basis of its 'Christian agenda', or the religiosity of its leader. It doesn't seem to be a reasonable thing to do in our culture. Maybe I would if there was a party or leader that really impressed me in that sense, but I doubt that that would ever be the case.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Never thought I'd say this but the idea of a campaign to get people to bother to go and vote is admirable and hats off to the EA for doing it.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Yesterday, the Evangelical Alliance, along with Christians in Politics and a few other organisations launched their Show Up campaign to encourage christians to get voting.
Is there any particular sign that Christians in general or evangelicals in particular need encouragement to vote? I thought that Christians were more likely to vote than non-religious people in any case.

It might depend more on area and ethnicity. Where I live in south London, one of the big concerns is the relative lack of turnout amongst those from a West African background. Those that go to church tend to populate some of the larger pentecostal churches which are members of the Evangelical Alliance. It's noticeable that my local Green Party candidate, rather than advocate any particular policies or downplay other parties has campaigned on purely racial grounds with the slogan "vote black, get Green".

It's also been quite heavily driven by Andy Flanagan who is a director of both Christians on the Left (formerly the Christian Socialist Movement) and the wider group, Christians in Politics.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Ah, so it's mostly about getting the black vote out in London. That's interesting.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
It's noticeable that my local Green Party candidate, rather than advocate any particular policies or downplay other parties has campaigned on purely racial grounds with the slogan "vote black, get Green".

I'm struggling a little to understand what the slogan is driving at. Is the candidate black?

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
It's noticeable that my local Green Party candidate, rather than advocate any particular policies or downplay other parties has campaigned on purely racial grounds with the slogan "vote black, get Green".
I'm struggling a little to understand what the slogan is driving at. Is the candidate black?

Yes.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Ah, that makes sense now. Thanks.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I used to vote Labour but feel that I can't anymore as they support so many things that I can't condone,such as abortion even on babies that could survive at 24 weeks. I think the Covservatives have done ok with the economy, but they have passed the gay marriage law.. I wouldn't even consider the Liberals. All of the parties seem to approve of things that as a Christian I can not vote for with a clear conscience. So what can a Christian do. I have had to spoil my paper for the last few elections, a thing that I do not like to do. I know friends ofmine that manage to vote even when they have the same views as myself,but I don't know how.

I agree with you on the abstention issue, but for almost exactly opposite reasons. I believe that national politics in the UK is almost irretrievably corrupt and unfit for purpose. The Tories, I believe, are interested only in the wealthy. Labour under Blair was in some ways to the right of the Tories and has never recovered from that. The LibDems will go sniffing after any party that'll give them fifteen minutes of fame. The Greens seem fine in some ways, but I believe that until they swallow their pride and say 'yes' to nuclear power, their energy policy is unsustainable. And as for the other lot...

I seriously think that one of the most important electoral reforms that could be made in this country would be to add an 'abstain' box to the ballot paper. At the moment your only options are to spoil your paper, or not vote at all. If you spoil your paper, you get included with the numpties who couldn't even get their cross in a box, and if you don't vote you get included with the increasing proportion of the population who can't get off their sofas. We need a way of saying "I do not approve of this system."

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I know friends ofmine that manage to vote even when they have the same views as myself,but I don't know how.
Maybe they think that trying to get help to heal the sick, feed the hungry and clothe the naked is more important than trying to use the state to force people to conform to your moral views?

Erm....isn't voting in order to get the sick healed, hungry fed, and naked clothed also hoping to use the state to force people to conform to your moral views?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I know friends ofmine that manage to vote even when they have the same views as myself,but I don't know how.
Maybe they think that trying to get help to heal the sick, feed the hungry and clothe the naked is more important than trying to use the state to force people to conform to your moral views?
Erm....isn't voting in order to get the sick healed, hungry fed, and naked clothed also hoping to use the state to force people to conform to your moral views?

No. Not wanting to pay tax is not a matter or morality. If I was advocating mandatory community service in soup kitchens, clothing banks and hospitals you'd have a point.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

I am sorry but not wanting to pay tax is about morality. There are a number of ways. Taxes pay for things that we desire. There are hospitals, roads, military etc. We could of course all pay none and then have none of them. If you want other people to pay and not you that seems to me selfish, now that is a good code for moral decision.

Then there is the fact that taxes are one of the ways we actually redistribute wealth. Wealth redistribution is one of the ways we build a more equitable society. That is important because it has been shown to build a happier more contented society. One that has more trust and more openness. People who pay taxes happily are thus contributing to the overall happiness of society. That seems to me a good way of caring for your brother and sister in the abstract.

Paying taxes is a profoundly moral action. It is time we got used to that. It has moral consequences that affect our fellow man.

Actually taxes involve money. If you want to know someone's morals today look how they spend their money. Not what they campaign for, what stickers they wear, what sentiments they utter but where they put there money. Someone once said that you cannot love God and money didn't they? The same person said something along the lines of where your money is there will be your heart also.

So the question when paying taxes is do you want your money in your pocket or in the society as a whole. Each time we say "my pocket" we make the choice for self over the general well being. That is a moral decision.

Jengie

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I know friends ofmine that manage to vote even when they have the same views as myself,but I don't know how.
Maybe they think that trying to get help to heal the sick, feed the hungry and clothe the naked is more important than trying to use the state to force people to conform to your moral views?
Erm....isn't voting in order to get the sick healed, hungry fed, and naked clothed also hoping to use the state to force people to conform to your moral views?
No. Not wanting to pay tax is not a matter or morality. If I was advocating mandatory community service in soup kitchens, clothing banks and hospitals you'd have a point.

Who said anything about paying taxes? You and barrea have different views about the most moral things for the state to be doing. That's the only difference.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I know friends ofmine that manage to vote even when they have the same views as myself,but I don't know how.
Maybe they think that trying to get help to heal the sick, feed the hungry and clothe the naked is more important than trying to use the state to force people to conform to your moral views?
Erm....isn't voting in order to get the sick healed, hungry fed, and naked clothed also hoping to use the state to force people to conform to your moral views?
No. Not wanting to pay tax is not a matter or morality. If I was advocating mandatory community service in soup kitchens, clothing banks and hospitals you'd have a point.
Who said anything about paying taxes? You and barrea have different views about the most moral things for the state to be doing. That's the only difference.

No, the difference is one of us wants the state to prevent other people who do not share our morality doing something.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
No, the difference is one of us wants the state to prevent other people who do not share our morality doing something.

Everybody wants this don't they? The role of the state is to enforce morality on people who don't accept it? Hence prisons?

Anyway, the issue is that I think your division between "moral" issues and other issues is one that plagues Christian approaches to politics. All issues are moral.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
No, the difference is one of us wants the state to prevent other people who do not share our morality doing something.
Everybody wants this don't they? The role of the state is to enforce morality on people who don't accept it? Hence prisons?

Anyway, the issue is that I think your division between "moral" issues and other issues is one that plagues Christian approaches to politics. All issues are moral.

Let's say all issues have a moral dimension. Few are entirely moral and when the moral dimension is the only one to be considered you would firstly have to decide which moral basis to use. Heck, Christians can't decide on that, as your average church, let alone this website, can demonstrate.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would also go with issues, rather than labels. I have developed a set of values that I consider important. Those values have inevitably been informed by my faith, and have been arrived at prayerfully ... things like international trade justice, support for the poor and disadvantaged, the environment etc.

I'd much rather vote for someone else who shares similar views to me on what I consider important than someone who doesn't just because they happen to identify as Christian.

I agree. One year I prayed publicly (in church) before an election, asking that values such as justice, equality and humanity should be upheld - and was then accused of having promulgated a manifesto for the Labour Party in the guise of prayer! In fact I thought these were issues on which all Christians would agree (and still do).

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
No, the difference is one of us wants the state to prevent other people who do not share our morality doing something.
Everybody wants this don't they? The role of the state is to enforce morality on people who don't accept it? Hence prisons?

Anyway, the issue is that I think your division between "moral" issues and other issues is one that plagues Christian approaches to politics. All issues are moral.

But some are a matter of personal morality - i.e. the matter is between and your own conscience - whilst others affect everyone. You can argue the toss on that as far as abortion is concerned, but it's pretty damn difficult to make a case for banning equal marriage from anything other than "I think it's wrong so other people shouldn't be allowed to do it". The latter is what I mean by imposing personal morality.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I am sorry but not wanting to pay tax is about morality. ...

Sorry, I can't agree there. That's a sort of high minded supererogation, and demanding a level of virtue to which few attain.

'Not wanting to pay tax' is normal. Not paying your taxes is a sin. That doesn't make paying your taxes a virtue, any more than eating your dinner is one. St Paul says that God loves a cheerful giver, but he wasn't talking about taxes. That is about giving to those in need, the church's work etc. generously and voluntarily. Paying what you have to pay isn't giving. It's a sort of subscription to the country you live in.

quote:
... Paying taxes is a profoundly moral action. It is time we got used to that. It has moral consequences that affect our fellow man.

Actually taxes involve money. If you want to know someone's morals today look how they spend their money. Not what they campaign for, what stickers they wear, what sentiments they utter but where they put there money. Someone once said that you cannot love God and money didn't they? The same person said something along the lines of where your money is there will be your heart also.

So the question when paying taxes is do you want your money in your pocket or in the society as a whole. Each time we say "my pocket" we make the choice for self over the general well being. That is a moral decision. ...

Not entirely. It only becomes a moral decision if either you fiddle your taxes (bad), or according to how much you are in ethical sympathy with the state you live in. It's a tenable argument in most liberal democracies. But I don't think we can insist that our fellow believers are under any sort of obligation to sympathise with the state they live in, particularly not some of the states they actually do live in.

And whatever the ethical theory of the thing, we have to say that in return for collecting our money off us, a state has an obligation to us to spend that money for our general well being.

For most of us, there will be a few areas, different ones depending on who we are, where we don't feel we're getting that quid pro quo. Usually, though, we can't claim private judgement on this with integrity. Nevertheless, there comes a point with some states, where the state falls so far short across the board on this one that I would find it difficult to condemn some people for being rather less co-operative with its money extraction activities. Then, it becomes, 'I pay because the physical consequences for me and mine are too bad to risk'.

This is a bit of a tangent as regards who to vote for next May, but it's indirectly quite important. There's nothing inherently virtuous in the state collecting more taxes off people than it has to. Indeed, there's quite a good argument for saying it should set itself to collect as little as it actually needs to do its basic job. The argument then becomes, what is and is not part of that job, and which optional parts of it do we think are worth paying for?

[ 16. January 2015, 21:23: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I know friends ofmine that manage to vote even when they have the same views as myself,but I don't know how.
Maybe they think that trying to get help to heal the sick, feed the hungry and clothe the naked is more important than trying to use the state to force people to conform to your moral views?
Erm....isn't voting in order to get the sick healed, hungry fed, and naked clothed also hoping to use the state to force people to conform to your moral views?
No. Not wanting to pay tax is not a matter or morality. If I was advocating mandatory community service in soup kitchens, clothing banks and hospitals you'd have a point.
Who said anything about paying taxes? You and barrea have different views about the most moral things for the state to be doing. That's the only difference.
No, the difference is one of us wants the state to prevent other people who do not share our morality doing something.

Why bother having politicians? This argument is developing into exactly what two politicians would say in order to avoid doing anything.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
'Not wanting to pay tax' is normal. Not paying your taxes is a sin.

But the question isn't one of whether or not you want to pay taxes. The question is one of when it comes to vote how do you want government to set taxes. And, that's a moral issue because it isn't something that only affects you, you are electing representatives who will decide the taxes everyone pays, and how those taxes are spent. You could vote for people who advocate policies that minimise your personal tax bill and/or increase the benefits you personally receive from how those taxes are spent. Or, you could vote for people who advocate policies that maximise the benefit to the poor and vulnerable and minimize the burden on those least able to pay.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
'Not wanting to pay tax' is normal. Not paying your taxes is a sin. That doesn't make paying your taxes a virtue, any more than eating your dinner is one.

I don't think you're responding to Jengie's point.

You're talking about what is or isn't moral to do, once the level of taxes has been settled by a lawful government.
Jengie is talking about what a voter should take into account in trying to affect where the government settles the level of taxes.

The level of taxes is a matter of distributive justice, a moral virtue to be exercised by those who rule the country, which in the case of a democracy is the people.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

For me this election is clear cut. We have a government which is deliberately and cynically dismantling our public services for the benefit of its rich cronies. The opposition can't get traction because of the malign legacy of New Labour and because of the "Labour caused the recession" myth which the right wing media carefully feeds.

Sorry to crash on your finely calibrated philosophy but this thread is about a specific election, not the theoretical relationship between politics and morality or whatever the last dozen posts were about.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Church should be there to help people (Christians and others) consider how they vote in the light of Christian priorities. That isn't the same as telling people how to vote - indeed that's about the last thing the Church should be doing. We should, in various ways, be providing space for people to discuss issues and make up their own mind how to vote.

Here in the US, AIUI, a sermon directing people how to vote puts the religious group in danger of losing its tax-exempt status.

(Peering from across the Pond...) Does having an established church affect politics? How and why?

Thanks.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

(Peering from across the Pond...) Does having an established church affect politics? How and why?

It does give a certain additional moral clout when they release reports like this:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/15/archbishops-inequality-book-extracts
because there is still a perception that the CofE is, as well as being the established church, the church of the establishment, so when it turns round and savages that establishment it gets noticed.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Here in the US, AIUI, a sermon directing people how to vote puts the religious group in danger of losing its tax-exempt status.

Although, I thought I'd been clear that I don't think the church should be saying who to vote for. The church should be telling people to think about what they consider to be most important in terms of political issues (rather than just follow what the media and politicians tell us are the issues) and how different candidates view those issues. And, that would include space to let people discuss those issues - because in getting involved in discussion of issues is how we work out our priorities.

Although I consider there may be times when certain issues are so important that the church would be right to risk, even lose, tax benefits and make a stand to say that some options on the voting form are incompatible with Christian faith and belief.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
But some are a matter of personal morality - i.e. the matter is between and your own conscience - whilst others affect everyone. You can argue the toss on that as far as abortion is concerned, but it's pretty damn difficult to make a case for banning equal marriage from anything other than "I think it's wrong so other people shouldn't be allowed to do it". The latter is what I mean by imposing personal morality.

I'm not sure that distinction holds up. Can the government make laws protecting animal rights?

(I'd be pretty judgemental about someone decides their vote on the basis that they think marriage equality is wrong. But that's because I think their position is morally wrong, not because I think it's politically wrong. For that matter, I think giving any kind of marriage legal privileges is already the law expressing private moral opinions.)

[ 17. January 2015, 12:28: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... (I'd be pretty judgemental about someone decides their vote on the basis that they think marriage equality is wrong....)

I'm not sure I could respect a person who treated a candidate's position either way on this subject as the single-issue golden ticket decider upon which to choose who to vote for.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think giving any kind of marriage legal privileges is already the law expressing private moral opinions.

One could argue, though, that marriage has social consequences, and so isn't just a private matter.

On a practical level, someone who voted primarily to vent their disapproval of SSM would have to vote for a very minor party, and would hence have no impact on the outcome of a general election. None of the major parties offer any hope to anyone who'd like to row back on the liberalisation of Dead Horse matters.

I'd guess that most people who were seriously upset about these matters might simply not bother to vote. But that doesn't seem to include the majority of British Christians.

[ 17. January 2015, 20:30: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I just can't imagine a situation where, no matter how bad you consider gay marriage to be, it overrides providing help to people who need it. If one were asking the question "how would Jesus vote?" then I just can't imagine a situation where the answer would be a party that cuts help for people who are sick and/or poor.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I suppose some people might say that the all the mainstream parties these days attempt to help people in need, and that the differences between them in this regard (as in others?) are small. Therefore, rather than choosing a party based on some small variation in policy, one might as well cast a protest vote elsewhere over something that one is really passionate about. Or just not bother voting.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I used to vote Labour but feel that I can't anymore as they support so many things that I can't condone,such as abortion even on babies that could survive at 24 weeks. I think the Covservatives have done ok with the economy, but they have passed the gay marriage law.. I wouldn't even consider the Liberals. All of the parties seem to approve of things that as a Christian I can not vote for with a clear conscience. So what can a Christian do. I have had to spoil my paper for the last few elections, a thing that I do not like to do. I know friends ofmine that manage to vote even when they have the same views as myself,but I don't know how.

Firstly, it's the Liberal Democrats, not the Liberals, because it's 2015 not 1905.

Secondly as a Christian, perhaps you should be more concerned with poverty, income inequality and blaming the poor and disabled for being poor and disabled. Sorry, my Bible for some reason is rather more concerned with those things than not punishing women with pregnancy and allowing people of the same gender who are in love to marry legally. Sorry if you've got some kind of dodgy misprint there.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think giving any kind of marriage legal privileges is already the law expressing private moral opinions.
One could argue, though, that marriage has social consequences, and so isn't just a private matter.

Almost everything has some sort of social consequence if you look at it widely enough. Certainly legislating about anything imports social consequences into it.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I think the argument goes that marriage strengthens families, families strengthen tribes, and tribes strengthen nations.

OTOH, in a culture like ours where marriages and families are so fragile, and where there's disagreement about what marriage is for, some might say it's time to separate the legal aspects of marriage from the state. I think that's a very interesting idea, but I don't think 'Christian voters' would go for it at this point in time. People will be voting on other issues at the general election.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I have no doubt in my mind that even a 10% improvement in the general standard of marital fidelity and commitment would do more for social good even at the most material and materialistic level that any amount of social programmes are ever likely to achieve.

However, I've equally no doubt in my mind that this isn't the sort of thing that any political party can achieve or even influence, not even were one of them to say that was what they stood for.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think the argument goes that marriage strengthens families, families strengthen tribes, and tribes strengthen nations.

It is the definition of family that is the problem, not who is allowed to marry.
----------
One-issue voters madden me. The myopic pretense of a moral high-ground whilst allowing others to be thrown into the raging flood.
----------
Not voting = actively making things worse. Full stop.
----------
Religion should not be part of the State. The very few benefits are massively outweighed by the problems.
----------
Morality in voting is difficult. But ISTM, not rocket surgery. Moral voting is that which benefits the most, immoral voting is that which restricts the most. Granted, however, that this is not always completely straight-forward.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I have no doubt in my mind that even a 10% improvement in the general standard of marital fidelity and commitment would do more for social good even at the most material and materialistic level that any amount of social programmes are ever likely to achieve.

However, I've equally no doubt in my mind that this isn't the sort of thing that any political party can achieve or even influence, not even were one of them to say that was what they stood for.

I'm not so sure. I think funding free marriage preparation for the non-religious would help, as would funding and promoting counselling for couples having problems. I also suspect better support for parents would help keep marriages happier and hence more stable.

There is also evidence to suggest a strong correlation between poverty and family breakdown (as in poor couples are more likely to split up than rich ones, rather than the more obvious single parent families tending to be skint).

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Well, look how 'good' it has been for both the GOP and evangelical Christianity in the US to seek to mobilise Christians behind a particular set of issues. I reckon it's damaged both and hasn't done a lot of good to the Great Commission either.

Christianity as a world view embraces both personal and social responsibility so it is bound to transcend the politics of both left and right. I think it is good to encourage people to vote and get involved with politics. It's disastrous to encourage polarisation and party spirit.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I disagree. I think the problem was the choice of issues, not the idea itself. If the choice were actually founded on Gospel principles, rather than on what could be used to allow ConEvos to be useful idiots who could be relied upon to go to the polls to support an ideology of "greed is good" so long as the politicians mouthed the right anti-abortion and anti-gay platitudes, then a politically active Christianity is not just desirable but essential. Take, for example, the Jubilee 2000 debt campaign - deeply rooted in Christian principles but also clearly of the political left. Economically there is huge overlap between the two.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think the argument goes that marriage strengthens families, families strengthen tribes, and tribes strengthen nations.

It is the definition of family that is the problem, not who is allowed to marry.
----------
One-issue voters madden me. The myopic pretense of a moral high-ground whilst allowing others to be thrown into the raging flood.
----------
Not voting = actively making things worse. Full stop.
----------
Religion should not be part of the State. The very few benefits are massively outweighed by the problems.
----------
Morality in voting is difficult. But ISTM, not rocket surgery. Moral voting is that which benefits the most, immoral voting is that which restricts the most. Granted, however, that this is not always completely straight-forward.

I'm not sure how all these points relate to the quote you've posted above. Regarding marriage, I sort of feel that in the UK it's now more of a multi-purpose symbol than something of serious practical importance. I think the practical advantages may be more important in the USA.

Otherwise, I'm not really a political animal, and I can't say that how or why other people vote 'maddens' me too much. In one sense, this is a good sign: it means that the British political system is unlikely to throw up too many surprises. It's a bad thing in that this 'even keel' doesn't really encourage a high degree of participation in elections.

I agree that we probably ought to disestablish the CofE in England, but the moderate Anglicans on this forum largely disagree. It would be a divisive issue for our politicians to tackle, and they wouldn't gain much by pursuing it at the moment.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If the choice were actually founded on Gospel principles, rather than on what could be used to allow ConEvos to be useful idiots who could be relied upon to go to the polls to support an ideology of "greed is good" so long as the politicians mouthed the right anti-abortion and anti-gay platitudes, then a politically active Christianity is not just desirable but essential. Take, for example, the Jubilee 2000 debt campaign - deeply rooted in Christian principles but also clearly of the political left. Economically there is huge overlap between the two.

This.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Religion should not be part of the State. The very few benefits are massively outweighed by the problems.

That's fine, as long as you don't think any secular moral code or ideology, such as humanism, should be part of the State. That seems to raise problems.

quote:
Morality in voting is difficult. But ISTM, not rocket surgery. Moral voting is that which benefits the most, immoral voting is that which restricts the most. Granted, however, that this is not always completely straight-forward.

I think that last sentence is something of an understatement.

One question is what counts as a 'benefit' or a 'restriction'. (Is 'restricts' really the antonym of 'benefits'?)
But also, discrimination in favour of a majority arguably benefits the most. That doesn't make it moral necessarily. If you believe people should have rights, you believe that there are some things that ought not to be voted for even if they benefit the most people.
Strict utilitarianism, Rawlsian maximin(*) and even strict equality of distribution all have claims to benefit the most. Arguments between them are ongoing.

(*) Rawlsian maximin is the theory that you find out under which proposed distribution of welfare and rights the least well-off person is best off, and pick that distribution. You judge a society by how rich the poorest person in it is.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0