3

Read Comments Comments (3)

• YY 9 years ago

  It was not Manama that wanted to sponsor 200 Pastors to Israel. My fellow pastors should concentrate on the great commission of winning souls and avoid subtly campaigning for political parties for selfish reasons.

  It was not Manama that wanted to sponsor 200 Pastors to Israel. My fellow pastors should concentrate on the great commission of winning souls and avoid subtly campaigning for political parties for selfish reasons.

  reply
• Alban Bagbin for President 2020 9 years ago

  Sometimes, we write about religion as if it exists in a vacuum. Practically almost all electorates are church going or worshippers at some kind of shrine. Religion is therefore "US". Yes, our sum total. Once Religion sits o ...
  read full comment

  Sometimes, we write about religion as if it exists in a vacuum. Practically almost all electorates are church going or worshippers at some kind of shrine. Religion is therefore "US". Yes, our sum total. Once Religion sits on the fence, all electorates must equally sit on the fence because our morals are shaped by the Churches we go to apart from what we received in our formative years from home.
  
  It is on record in Africa that erstwhile Mozambique President,Kamunzu Banda and in Ghana former President J.J. Rawlings attempted to ban Jehovah's Witnesses who are noted for their complete abstinence for partisan politics and they teach that as a central doctrine to their members. The knock on effect of their position is "zero" because they do not oppose and they do not support. Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious organisation go a step further in advocating "no blood transfusion" which also becomes problematic for politicians, yet their position is universal.
  
  For Churches and religious shrines that permits their members to vote (which of course what civil society does) the religious orders must teach the truth and must not take sides arbitrarily. The thing with politics is that it is largely regional, albeit tribal lines. It is therefore very difficult to cross the tribal lines as there are areas deemed "STRONGHOLDS"and only few marginal areas. This puts politics in different arena as religion is about truth as perceived by members.
  
  Politics is a very complex animal with two horns. All representatives of various parties in Parliament exists in some kind of utopia where they crack jokes. Dr Nana Akkuffo Addo, the flagbearer of NPP recently called Hon Alban Bagbin, MP for Nawdoli "MY FRIEND" but a lay NPP Supporter rained insults on The honourable MP as if he has poached his wife. On another strand, religion "unifies" whilst politics "divides".
  
  It has therefore been stressed that politics is a personal choice and choices are respected. If a Church or religious Shrine Leader endorses a political party, which by the nature of its existence cannot honour all its promises, it is dividing his/her congregation. The Church Leader is the unifying force in the order, but politics is largely tribal or regional affiliations. In this vein, it is prudent or even mandatory that Church leaders must preach morals and leave choices to members. The Church leader if must profess political affiliation, must be done in personal capacity as a private citizen and never as a leader of an order.
  
  Once a leader of an order elect to exercise the right to participate in politics, all immunity is lost and members of the church are free to dialogue with him/her on equal footing - agreeing and disagreeing with none having the mastery.
  
  On another hand, the order such as Jehovah's Witnesses who are noted worldwide to have no political positions both at the leadership and laity level, it will be plain insanity for the order to be punished and persecuted for not partaking in politics. As the order exists - no amount of torture or persecution can force the order to change their position until the change has come from THE HEADQUARTERS if ever that could ever happen.
  
  It is strongly in error for the top echelon of any religious order to take the entire Church with them as in "The Presbytarian Church is ready to partner a particular political party." This is aggressive statement which assumes all Presbyterians in all the regional divide will follow one party because one leader says so. Therein in my opinion is where the thin line lies.

  reply
• Marie Stopes 9 years ago

  Why talk religion and not quote any 'holy'book? Can you talk law/constituition and not refer to any article? Christians are guided by the Bible. What does the Bible say about Politics? What did Jesus and the first century chr ...
  read full comment

  Why talk religion and not quote any 'holy'book? Can you talk law/constituition and not refer to any article? Christians are guided by the Bible. What does the Bible say about Politics? What did Jesus and the first century christians do? Read John17:14-17.

  reply