I’ve usually taken the position that Church and State shouldbe kept separate. In an age where societies are becoming more multicultural and
more multiethnic, church and state should be kept separate. When you mix
religion and politics, the combination is usually pretty ungodly. I look back
to the constant arguments on the repeal of 377A (the act which prohibits “unnatural”
sex between two men) in Singapore and the repeated position of rational people,
which is – there is a difference between what we do not approve off and what
should be criminal.
However, I believe that Church and State should be kept separate,
I wonder if there is a case for “church being inside statesmen?” I remember His
Holiness the Dalai Lama telling ap politician that it was more important for a
politician to have morality than a monk. His argument was simple – a monk’s
decisions affected only himself, whereas the politician’s affected many people.
Generally speaking, the concept of being a “good man” in
politics tends to be a fluid. However, good people can and so exist in what is
essentially a dirty and ugly game. How does one define good? I suppose it’s
what my mother would call “having the heart in the right place.” We’re talking about
politicians who somehow do things that they believe to be right rather than
what benefits them.
The examples of this, funnily enough, come from the USA. The
late Senator John McCain, for example, showed himself to be a decent man, even
when it wasn’t beneficial for him. One of the most prominent examples was in
2008 when he defended his opponent as “A decent man, who I happen to disagree
with.” A clip of that video can be seen at:
You could argue that John McCain wasn’t playing to win and
should have mobilized millions of voters based on a “conspiracy” theory that
his opponent was a closet Muslim terrorist. However, while his act of decency
may have prevented him from winning (there is also no proof that he would have
won had he played the “crazies”), it ensured that the system didn’t get
infected by doubts and it enabled to the country to be somewhat united with the
result.
McCain was also most famous for thumbs down in the Trump
Administration’s attempts to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act, or “Obamacare.”
The act put him in the crosshairs of the Occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue but
it also showed him that he was an independent mind who put what he believed was
in the interest of his country over the interest of his party and president.
The more John McCain annoyed the President, the more it
became clear to normal people (and I use this word sparingly when it comes to
Americans of the White Variety), that the Arizona Senator was everything that the
Occupant was not – namely courageous and principled.
With the demise of the late Senator McCain, the Republican
Party has been saved by another Senator. The Senator in question is Mitt
Romeny, the Senator from the State of Utah, who was also the losing
Presidential Candidate in 2012. Mr. Romney made history when he became the
first senator from any party to break party lines and vote against a president
from his own party in an impeachment trial (of which this was only the third
one ever). Mr. Romney is by no means the picture perfect “Never Trumper.” His voting
record in the Senate would suggests that he does agree with Donald Trump on the
majority of issues.
However, in the case of the Impeachment Trial, Mr. Romeny
made the point that he felt that the evidence against the Occupant was so
overwhelming that he could not in good conscience or be true to himself and his
God to vote for anything other than a conviction.
As predicted, the Occupant and its supporters were having
none of it and have started painting Mr. Romney as an “agent of the far left,”
and a “sore loser” who was jealous of the Occupant for having gotten the job
that he had failed to get. The descriptions on the predictable attacks can be
found at:
The attacks against Mr. Romney are to be expected. In his
speech outlining the reasons for his vote, Mr. Romney states that he was
expecting the reprisals. Yet, despite this, he still felt that it was “wrong”
to vote for anything other than a conviction because it would be against his conscience.
While the verdict of the Occupant’s impeachment trial was
never in doubt, Mr. Romney may have succeeded in doing something very important
-reminding people that higher ideals exists. The impeachment trial made no pretense
of being a trial with the Republican majority refusing to call witnesses,
particularly when there was a credible witness. As Mr. Romney argued the
evidence against the Occupant was there and yet, it was ignored. A transcript
of Mr. Romeny’s speech can be found at:
Mr. Romney declared himself to be a religious man who owed
an allegiance to the Almighty. Thankfully Mr. Romney showed what it meant to
believe in God and voted according to his conscience rather than for his convenience.
When you look at Mr. Romeny’s actions, it becomes clear that
while Church and State should be separate as institutions, its OK when men who are
guided by the principles of the Church serve the State.
No comments:
Post a Comment