Another Perspective
I have come across a site I am considering adding to my list of favorite sites. The Good Democrat is an LDS blogger with some incredible insight. I have commented on a few of his blogs, in part to challenge, and in part to glean a little wisdom. I have already linked to him in a couple of my blogs.
It is rare to meet an LDS Democrat, especially one who can present thought-provoking arguments backed up with research and authorities. I have found him to be a little too idealistic, but still with a few toes touching the ground. Spend a little time over there. But then check back here every now and then.
3 comments:
I read a few of his posts, interesting views, I'll keep giving them a look. One small thing he mentioned in the comment section of his Easter post is that his religion and his politics are two different things, he doesn't think it wise to mix them. I'm not sure I agree. Shouldn't our political views be an extension of our moral/religious views? How can you separate them?
It is an interesting dichotemy. I'll have to take a look at the post you are referring to.
Can we take actions that make sense politically but are in contrast with our religious views? I am reminded, Mindy, of something you said in a talk a looooooooooong time ago that has stuck with me for many years. You were speaking in the context of our priorities, but I think it extends to this as well. You said something to the effect that our "priorities are what we do"; meaning that regardless of how we may list our priorities, what we do manifests our true priorities.
May the same be said of our moral and religious purports, especially in light of those things political? This kind of goes back to some of my earlier posts about religion. Is what we profess meaningless if our actions can speak otherwise? I don't think one can truly separate his political statements from his moral statements, and be sincere in his conduct.
Having said that, sometimes, in the political realm, what is most morally correct is not necessarily the most practical. Idealism is best accomplished where it becomes practicable. Does that mean that if it is not practicable we abandon the ideal? How does one balance two competing viewpoints to accomplish a moral objective? I would think that, depending on the objective, one might have to, at times, accept the more practical approach.
Take national defense, for example. Can it be properly accomplished without some ugly, gritty, undesirable activity?
I don't have an answer to this, because I grapple with balancing idealistic approaches, such as that put forward by thegooddemocrat (in which he reminds us that Captain Moroni sought from God the whereabouts of the enemy, and received it in revelation), with the on-the-ground practical methods of infiltrating techniques, spying, and torture to get the same information. In order to infiltrate the enemy, we sometimes have to condone some pretty shady business by our spies. Obviously, torture requires the degradation of another human being. While these are arguably more practical (thegooddemocrat would disagree with me on torture, and I don't know his view on the spying thing), they involve obvious moral abandonment.
Can we revel in a victory if we got there through unscrupulous, yet practical, means?
This is why I have enjoyed this brother's blog.
Let me clarify something. I do not think that one should claim to be able to separate his political views from his religious views. This is illustrated in my discussion of priorities.
While I do think that approaches should be taken from a "most practical" approach, the practicality must be determined in the context of one's religious/moral standards.
What is justification for the practical approach is the difficult thing to establish, and is where most reasonable minds differ.
Post a Comment