Politics, Religion and the “Truth”.

Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty focused on telling the “truth” during his recent annoucement.  Certainly, that is a noble thought. Good for him if he actually does this.

This word, “truth”, must be an appealing one just now because a religious columnist immediately latched on to it.  We need “truth” in religion as well, he wrote, instead of the falsehoods being sold by the emerging church.

The falsehood he referred to is the emerging church’s reluctance to declare that sinners go to hell.  The “truth”, wrote this fellow,  is that hell is a real place and sinners will really go there.

That hell is real certainly is a belief, but to put it in the category of “truth” is quite another matter. No one has ever seen hell or heaven.  Someone telling the “truth” should say he believes there is a hell, not that he knows it exists.

It is easy to let things we believe to true to become really true to us.  One recent place where politics and religion combined to make people believe something was true that was not was the issue of marriage between gays.

It was said over and over again that gay marriage is a threat to straight marriage. No evidence was ever provided for this. But, gay marriage was voted down in state after state.

Tim Pawlenty gave some examples of issues that he said needed to be addressed truthfully, regardless of the political consequences.  They involved the federal budget.

It would have been refreshing if he had said, “Gay marriage does not harm straight marriage.”

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Politics, Religion and the “Truth”.

  1. Dan says:

    Regarding the existence of heaven and hell. We’ll all find out whether or not they exist someday. Regarding gay marriage, it all has to do with dependents decared on your tax forms. If a guy can claim another guy and a girl a girl then why shouldn’t someone be able to declare 2 wifes or 2 husbands. How about 3…do I hear 4. Where is the line ever to be drawn? Do we aboloish marriage all together? Most people would do better on their tax returns if they file as single with dependents.

  2. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

    Dan good point.

    Under current law, the stipulation appears to be that only couples that adhere to a specific religious point of view are allowed to purchase that license and enjoy the legal and tax benefits.

    Once equality is granted to all human couples purchasing this contract, we can then debate the legality of goats, cows and multiple individuals purchasing this license.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>