Do I have a right to vote?

The BBC website today has an article on the effect of religious issues on people's voting.  While I thought the article itself  stated the situation pretty fairly, one of the comments by a member of the public below it struck me.

"Religion has no place in politics. If religion (of any kind) influences your vote, you should have your right to vote revoked."

Well then, my right to vote would have to be revoked.  But why should this be the case?  Other commentors cited examples of far-right American politics and the Middle East as examples of why religion and politics should be kept separate.  I can understand that.  And indeed the idea of people who vote one way or another just because they're told to, without considering for themselves, is something I intensely dislike.  Or voting for a candidate just because he or she professes faith, whether or not that's visible in their policies. 

But my beliefs do influence my vote.  Don't everybody's?  Whether you believe in a God or not, in deciding to vote for candidate A or party B in any election you decide based on your beliefs.  That might be something like believing that students shouldn't have to pay for tuition fees, that banning people from B&B's because of their sexuality is wrong, that people shouldn't be detained without trial. 

My political beliefs are influenced by my religious beliefs.  For example, there's plenty in the bible about caring for the stranger within your country, about helping the poor and families in distress.  So when I look at who to vote for I look at which candidate or party best reflects these teachings.  There's no one party in mainstream British politics at the moment who I agree with on every issue, but I prayerfully consider which I feel is closest to how I believe God would want people to live and the country to be run. 

That means Christians have to engage in politics, reading about and listening to candidates, asking questions, trying to see through the spin and publicity on all sides to what the party really believes, what their values are.  One of the saddest things I feel about politics is when parties seem to be willing to say or do anything to anything to get themselves elected, rather than standing for principals on an issue. 

Of course not all Christians agree on which party best reflects Christian values, because different Christian traditions see different parts of Christian teaching as more important than others and focus on those.  For example, one party might loose support from some Christians for focusing on helping people whatever their marital state or sexual orientation, while other Christians will support it for showing Christ's sacrificial, unconditional love to the community.  That's a matter of individual choice.

So yes, my faith does influence the way I vote.  But I don't see what's wrong with that, since I would hope that everyone votes on the basis of what they believe in (even if it's just that they believe 'the other lot' are wrong).  If you were to say that letting your belief affect your vote disqualifies you from voting, you'd be undermining the whole principal of democracy, surely?

PS I wrote on a similar subject last year, if you're interested. 

Growing up

It appears I am actually, despite all appearances, (and some people's opinions) growing up.  Recently I was getting worried that I might be turning into my father, since I'd noticed some of his traits and temprament in myself.  Not a good thing.  I'm hoping some recent events were mostly a biproduct of being stressed and not an actual trend towards getting angry when things didn't go right. 

And yet now it seems I was wrong.  I actually appear to be turning into my mother.  Sometimes I sound like her, talk about the same things, laugh like her, even sometimes look like her or use her expressions.  For ages it's been a joke amongst some of my friends that I'm something of a parent (ever since I started counting people when we were in Edinburgh a few years ago...).  It probably has something to do with me almost invariably being the one who notices when the house is low on toilet roll, or a bill needs paying; and always having a tissue or safety pin.

For the last two or three years I've been going through what my friends and I call 'the marriage phase' where pretty much everyone I knew at uni or from church was getting married.  Nowadays I struggle to think of couples among my friends who've been together more than a couple of months and who aren't married or engaged.  Not that this is a bad thing at all, it's just one of those phases.

But it seems this phase is beginning to come to an end.  So far there's only four or so weddings of couples I know happening this year.  It's moving on.  The 'baby phase' is beginning.  Several couples, mostly two or three years older than me but including one where the wife is younger than me, are having or have had their first child this year.

It's interesting to observe.  It's even more interesting to see on Facebook that people from my year at secondary school have children  who are now several years old.  And yet at least one friend is still surprised by the youth of the brides/grooms/parents who are a year or two older than me.  Is there an 'average' age for these things?  My circle of friends is affected by the number of Christians (especially of the evangelical, no sex outside marriage, sort) and perhaps this distorts the numbers in favour of early marriage.  But the age of the couple leaving full time education seems to affect this too, as many of those I knew who left school at 16 or 18 are already parents compared to those who I know from university. 

Perceptions of the family, and therefore the ages of each stage have changed throughout history.  What 'family' can be said to mean now is an endless debate.  I was amused to realise that according to official surveys and suchlike, I would probably be considered the head of my 'household' as the main income earner.  Is that why I seem to be taking on the role of a parent?  I doubt it- I think it's just the curse of being well organised!

So do I mind that I'm turning into my mother?  Not really.  It seems I'm destined to 'mother' the people around me, to care about them and worry about them, to try to help and look after them.  But it could be worse!

Easter responses: Thomas

It's my blog's second birthday!  So to celebrate, another post in my series on responses to Easter, this time thinking about the apostle Thomas.

Thomas is known as 'the doubter,' but is this really fair?  Although on several occassions in the gospels he is recorded as being cautious and possible sceptical about whether something really can or has happened he also makes one of the braver statements that came out of the apostles: "Let us go also, that we may die with him" (John 11, v16).  Jesus, against the advice and warnings of his friends that the religious establishment were out to get him, was determined to set out for Jerusalem and Bethany, knowing what was eventually in store for him and determined to obey his father's will.  Thomas is the one who voices the disciples' intention to stay with their teacher through thick and thin.  Perhaps it shows his trust that Jesus is the one who will save them. 

Of course, it didn't happen, and the disciples were scattered, frightened and ashamed.  The first news of the resurrection must have just confused them more, adding to the uncertainty they felt.  What were they to do now?  Were they safe?  Was they journey Jesus had led them on over?  Had he failed?

Then he appeared to them, and they believed.  He had not failed, he had risen.  Their doubts and fear were swallowed up in joy- for now.  But Thomas was not there, he missed it.  He remained sceptical.  Understandably, really.  How hard do you find it to believe that someone you have seen killed has risen from the dead?  Even if your friends tell you it's true?  If you are a Christian, think how hard you would find it to believe this if you weren't, and maybe you'll be a bit closer to understanding how hard some people find it to comprehend the resurrection.

"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."  We often think this reprove applies only to Thomas.  Yet the other disciples also believed because they had seen.  Surely it applies to them as much as to him. 

But Thomas and his doubt perhaps can help us see how Jesus responds today to those who have real doubts.   Perhaps those of us who already believe forget quite how hard it can be to accept the truth about Jesus for the first time.  Jesus sees that Thomas wants to believe, sees what is in the way of this belief- presumably his logical thinking that no one who was dead could be walking around alive*- and reaches out to him with a personal, even physical, response. 

Today a lot of people still struggle to accept that the gospel account of Jesus' death and resurrection can be true, struggle with thinking that it's not logical, that it doesn't make sense, that it is against reason.  And it is, except for one thing; that this is God we're dealing with, and God doesn't obey the same natural laws as the rest of us. But often- perhaps always- the only way for people to realise this, to overcome their logical reasons, is for God to step down into our world, as he did with Thomas, and meet them.  Maybe not a physical encounter like with Thomas, maybe through a sense, a feeling, an experience.  Maybe through a friend, a church service, a book, or a song.  Something that makes you realise God is there, and that he's real.  Perhaps you won't understand how it's real, but you'll know it is.



*Even though Thomas had presumable seen Lazarus raised from the dead.  The disciples seem to have had quite short memories- but then would you or I do any better in the trust stakes?  I don't think I would!