by Harry Lacey

Created on: November 21, 2007

The idea of faith, unfounded, unreliable and superstitious, influencing global geopolitics is such an awful thought it turns my stomach.

Those who decide who to vote for based on notions on faith and/or religion are surely allowing personal reflections on life to stand in the way of important issues; quite often, religious believers demonstrate to the world just how blind and narrow-minded their belief systems can lead them to be. The classic example for me has always been the Vatican condemning the use of condoms in the developing world, despite soaring levels of AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections. The idea that this message, unbelievably irresponsible that it is, is based on the laughable notion that the Pope somehow has a direct link to God and is using this influence to convince people to make important decisions on family planning and contraception is just abhorrent. For me, this is an example of the outdated nature of many world religions; the Christian right in America stands firmly against socially progressive policies such as allowing same-sex marriage and abortion - I understand their wish to stand against such policies on moral grounds in their own way, but their views should never influence politics. That much was laid out in the US constitution, the great legal document that has influenced our understanding of the code of laws.

Religious voting practices are also overly-reactionary. By simply following laid-out doctrine, believers fail to take into consideration the real implication for policy; nothing, it seems, is properly considered anymore. Many voting believers are so staunch in their opinions as to be immovable - and they see this as a virtue. It is, in reality, a failing. Democracy requires that everybody remains open-minded about all things.

Religion also essentially damages social progression - this is the main reason why Marxists opposed it. The concept of the afterlife has, arguably, led many to discard notions of improving the conditions of their mortal life and instead begin preparations for the transition into death. The generally accepted Christian code of ethics should take into consideration social conditions, but under the deeply religious leadership of George Bush the US has seen soaring levels of poverty, poor health-care provision, poor educational management and a tendency toward providing simply for the super-rich. For a man who claims to be following the word of God, Bush does not seem particularly concerned with looking after his children.

Looking to examples of religious leadership throughout, I can pick out few examples of people who have successfully made a difference (positive, that is) to the lives of their believers.

In conclusion, voting should never, ever influence political decisions. Something as unsubstantiated as religion cannot be allowed to hold sway over social, cultural or national moral and ethical decisions. That much is clear.

Learn more about this author, Harry Lacey.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.