Religion and politics have been linked for too long, to the detriment of both. A Christian, by definition, follows the teaching of Christ, summarised in the Lord’s Prayer and he Beatitudes. Both contradict much of the Old Testament (about conceit and revenge), and much of the advice the media give the public (about wealth and the economy).
Christianity is based on universal love and unconditional forgiveness. The present law of the land allows the rich to exploit the poor, the poor to be overworked and underpaid, the state to punish offenders instead of reforming them, and society to be divided into enemy factions, which compete and fight each other. There is not much love in that.
The media present the sharing of wealth as un-British – whereas it was recommended in the Gospels and Paul’s letters, and was implemented in the Acts of the Apostles.
The only role Christianity is entitled to play in an election is this: if there is a discrepancy between the common good on the one hand, and the wishes and perceived interest of voters on the other, voters’ faith should enable them to choose the former.
Simone Crawley, Sheffield
In your editorial “Scottish factor is key on 7 May” (11 April 2015) you say “The cards seem to be slowly stacking up against another Tory Government. But the idea of Ed Miliband in 10 Downing Street could still provoke a reaction the other way.”
Exactly why do you think this is the case? I would rather see a serious, thoughtful, compassionate person like Miliband in Downing Street, than the axe men of the Conservative Party.
Bernard Brance, Sheffield
Loading ...
