Of churches and political parties

Mon, May 12th 2014, 11:30 PM

Dear Editor,
Minister Keith Bell is upset. It seems he is not a fan of convicted sex offender Bishop Earl Randolph Fraser and doesn't think he should be leading another church.
This is fair enough, I don't think much of the good bishop myself.
As to Bell's suggestion that perhaps an outside authority should have the final say on who can and cannot lead religious institutions, I would concur with him here as well. That is, provided he agrees to subject political parties to the same treatment.
After all, are the two entities so very different in this day and age? Let's see if we can tell them apart.
An institution which is supposed to concern itself with the common good, but which is filled to the brim with people who do awfully well for themselves while the people continue to suffer - which is it, church or political party?
An organization that swears it is on the side of everything that is right and good, while its opponents are always the epitome of evil. Church or political party?
Claiming to represent tolerance and inclusion, but really encouraging division and victimization. Church or political party?
Preaching a commitment to education, but actually mired in superstition and thriving on the ignorance and blind obedience of its followers. Church or political party?
Pretending that its popularity is the people's spontaneous reaction to the manifest truth of its message, when in reality the support is often fueled either by the offer of immediate gratification, or the promise of future reward. Church or political party?
And, to Bell's point, an

organization that pretends to be a model of honor and forthrightness, yet which sometimes catapults to senior positions individuals of questionable integrity.
Which is it?
- Phineas Gage

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian

 Sponsored Ads