Dos and Don'ts, all we need to know is the Bible; however, not all is covered explicitly. Discuss how Christians should act or what they should do when facing divorce, smoking, and other issues.

Using religion by block voting in elections

First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Using religion by block voting in elections

    There is a Christian sect in the Philippines which has their tradition of block voting in elections, that is the church issues the list of candidates to be voted on from president down to the lowest elective position. Members of that sect are proud to say that they follow their church so they vote using the provided list of candidates. However, there are times that their church would endorse a candidate with no moral values. In 1998, that sect had openly supported a presidential candidate who is a chronic gambler and womanizer. The only reason I see is because that candidate was leading in the survey. And after winning, it is obvious that the church would be asking favors from the new president.

    What is your opinion on this - supporting a candidate with a bad personality just because he is likely to win the election?

    Pretty sure there should be a separation between church and state when it comes to stuff like this. But who am I to complain, it's not like I am one of those who are being demanded to vote for a certain person during these times of election. Let them worry about it, it's going to be their government they are planning, the government for their children. It's their choice if they can't even do a basic human right - which is to vote freely without harassment or pressure.

      The murky world where politics and religion blend together...

      Personally, if my religion said I should vote a certain way as part of my faith, even if it went against my own opinion on a subject then I would. Your faith and religious belief is, or should be a part of you but a political party or politician is just another human being, so in that respect I think staying true to your belief and faith is more important than what another person is saying to try and convince you otherwise.

        In this kind of situation it really is incumbent upon the leaders of the church to choose the party(s) they are going to support if they are going to "suggest" to their congregation for whom they will vote to make sure that party(s) align with the views and beliefs of their organization. Otherwise they are just perpetuating corruption and cronyism that is really doing this world no good.


          Personal vices aside, would the candidate make a good member of office? Do they push for things that are good things to push for? Smear campaigns and slur attacks are common place by the media, you really have to look past some of them and see what the candidate stand for. If they're appear to not stand for the right things, and it is the case that the church is to benefit, then this is shameful and they have no right considering themselves Christian.

            I do think sometimes you'll look at an organisation and wonder why a certain religion is pushing their congregation toward it, only to find that there is a deal that's been done that benefits both.

            I've no doubt that these shady deals are also occurring when it comes to politicians also. A church as no money to fix the roof, suddenly it then starts to tell the parishioners to vote for this certain candidate in a local election. The candidate wins the vote and all of a sudden the roof gets fixed...coincidence?

              I do not think in any way that churches or religious organization should really have a word in any kind of political decision of their people.
              It seems to me as a manipulation, preaching values and laws that are worthy of God can teach the people how to chose in the case of voting, but to directly say something like this to them is just too much.

                Originally posted by tris93 View Post
                I do not think in any way that churches or religious organization should really have a word in any kind of political decision of their people
                The prophets often spoke to the political leaders and urged them to follow God's commands.
                Clyde Herrin's Blog

                  As always I am a K.I.S.S. type of person. (Keep it simple Saint!) We live In a free society, so I do not mind if a particular body in the Church decides to *recommend* it's favorite person to be politically appointed.

                  With that said I will not stand for any particular sect which maintains authority over it's body to such an extent as to make it manditory for their members to vote for the pastoral favorite politician, no matter the reasoning. If it isn't in the doctrinal statement nor constitution of that body it is not a pertinent detail which I would observe.
                  Goodness, if such things "were" in the statements I would not hesitate to walk out the very doors I walked into.

                  If we refer to Romans 13:1-3 and state that the heads of a particular church family has authority over us in all matters then I would do something that is rarely looked at. The verses (to paraphrase) state that all authority is placed there by God and we must submit to that authority but it does NOT say that we cannot choose who that authority is.

                  To keep it simple...........I would choose to submit to another authority who understands that preaching and teaching Christ crucified and resurrected is the job of the church and not to lord over their church following in every detail of life.

                    I do believe in a separation of the church and the state. I am okay though with my religious leaders promoting or suggesting a certain candidate to us. Luckily though, the Catholic Church here doesn't meddle much in these issues. Yes, they express their opinions and advice us to vote the leader who represents best a moral and religious stand, but they don't directly tell us to vote for this or vote for that. And we certainly don't have that list we have to follow whenever we're voting.

                    The least that that religious sect leaders could do is promote a leader that satisfies their religion's standards. And promoting a leader that has vices and won't be doing anything good for the country, that isn't worthy of being promoted, let alone voted by these voters.

                    Anyway, it's up to that religious leaders though, if their consciences can take that they're promoting someone unfit to the candidacy. However, for me, I would still exercise my right and choose the candidate that would do good for the country and is a firm believer in God.

                      A recommendation is exactly that though, it's not something that you have to do, but merely something that your church and relgion wants you to do.

                      I'd imagine that relgion plays a big part in most of the decisions we make, so I'd expect it to in who we decide to vote for aswell, no matter what our church says.

                        My impression on the system of block voting by a religious denomination is all about opportunity. According to one minister who left the sect, their leaders choose the candidates who are most likely to win regardless of the character of the candidate. In the recent election held last Monday, the candidate for president leading in the survey is Rody Duterte, a trigger-happy guy with his cuss words. He has that conduct unbecoming of a president. Can you imagine him cursing the pope for the traffic caused by the Pope's visit last year? But Duterte emerged a runaway winner. So the block voting is successful in terms of opportunism. The sect's bet for vice president is Bongbong Marcos who is trailing Leni Robredo by just 200k votes. I think the sect fails in this one because the counting is almost over and just waiting for the pronouncement.

                        My question is this - is it immoral to support a candidate who doesn't have good manners and right conduct?

                          When it comes to our leaders, I believe there can be extremes on both sides of the coin.

                          I really would not prefer a Kumbaya leader who depends on God to "intervene" at every corner and in every moment when times are troubled. Note: seeking wisdom on how to row the boat is quite different than merely sitting back and waiting for God to calm the waters.

                          On the other hand, someone who is totally debaucherous and abusive is no pretty picture of leadership either.

                          Roosevelt was that "middle ground" type if leader I would prefer to see. Someone who represents the people, as opposed to staunch fist pounding leadership, and still holds their ground protecting those same people. He was seemingly a pretty quiet type of person but.........his parrot proved everyone wrong.
                          I believe that the parrot is still alive and doing well but children are not allowed to come and visit him because his language; the mimicked language of Roosevelt, is so dirty and vulgar that young ears should not be exposed to it.

                          Just because someone shines with Godliness does not necessarily mean they will be a good leader just as the total opposite might not be good either.

                          Articles - News - SiteMap