politics
Posted by greglarson in news, quotes at 7:51 am | 
Permanent Link
I used to be much more into politics. I read the Wall Street Journal editorial page ‘religiously’ for years, followed the Supreme Court rulings, knew how many Senators voted on many different bills, etc. etc.
I don’t know if I have grown more cynical over the years, or more wise 
, or maybe I feel like I have much more important things to occupy my time with… — but it does not hold a ton of interest for me these days.
I did come across an interesting quote the other day about politics in general by Thomas Merton.
According to Wikipedia — Merton was was one of the most influential Catholic authors of the 20th century. A Trappist monk of the Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani, in the American state of Kentucky, Merton was an acclaimed Catholic theologian, poet, author and social activist.
Anyway here is the quote…
I believe the basis for valid political action can only be the recognition that the true solution to our problems is not accessible to any one isolated party or nation but that all must arrive at it by working together. - Thomas Merton
21st of May, 2007 at 1:09 pm
I frequently hear this line of reasoning from those who are either tired of, cynical about, or confused by politics.
But wouldn’t this be a compelling reason to stay informed on the issue? Politics gets people excited, but most people (including many Christians) are profoundly ignorant.
Given that Christians are associated with politics anyway, isn’t it good to be part of the conversation, so that we can engage the issue and work together to forge solutions?
23rd of May, 2007 at 8:09 am
Kevin - good question. Let me clarify what I said earlier. Relating to politics, I still am informed — but it does not hold the same kind of interest in me. I still read the WSJ, NYT, etc — to know what is going on (to not be ignorant), but I do not feel the same kind of passion that politics is going to change the world, or that ‘my politics’ is the correct one, & everybody else’s is wacked.
I read an interesting article in the NYT the other day entitled: “Emphasis Shifts for New Breed of Evangelicals” ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/us/21evangelical.html?pagewanted=all ) Here is an excerpt…
“In a separate survey in 2004, John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, however, placed evangelicals into three camps  traditionalist, centrist and modernist  based on the how rigidly they adhered to their beliefs and their willingness to adapt them to a changing world. The traditionalists are evangelicals who are usually labeled as the Christian right, while the centrists might be represented by the newer breed of evangelical leaders, who remain socially and theologically quite conservative but have mostly sought to avoid politics. The two camps are roughly the same size, each representing 40 to 50 percent of the total.
Experts agree, though, that the centrist camp is growing. Estimates of the number of evangelicals nationwide vary, depending on how they are counted and how the term is defined, but Mr. Green put it at 26.3 percent of Americans.”
I guess I would call myself (as much as I hate labels) — a centrist. (one who has — remain(ed) socially and theologically quite conservative but have mostly sought to avoid politics.)