Hypocrisy in action: Democracy

There are people do not want “religious evangelists” and preachers imposing their belief on them or others. Those same people will vote for a political party to become the government in order to impose on everyone else what they think best.It’s essentially this “I can’t control you but I’ll make sure someone I choose controls you!”

Doesn’t that seem a bit hypocritical?



  1. The fundamental confusion facing American Christianity today. Christianity is not designed for ruling but for saving, government is designed for ruling- that’s kind of it’s purpose.

    • What christianity was meant to do is irrelevant to this topic. What government is meant to do is irrelevant to the issue. To avoid one certain dispute, I’ll not comment on the christianity issue, since there is enough on my blog to show my views on that. The only issue here is the hypocrisy of those who claim to want to be left alone and not have someone’s views forced on them, and with the next breath, they support someone else or another group imposing their views on the whole population. That’s the issue.

      • And yet you see no hypocrisy in asking the same thing for yourself.

      • Show me the place where I asked for that. It’ll help for you to point it out since I never wrote it. There’s a vast difference between “stick to the point and say what is relevant” and “leave me alone”. i said the first, not the second

      • You are saying -in your post not you comments- that you’d like the government to leave alone the religious evangelists, yes? That is what I am referring to. You are correct you said no such thing in your comments. I;m not aiming to be hostile. I just find it fascinating that you feel that the religious evangelists should be left alone, but that the government then shouldn’t be. If you are saying that they should be looked at as interchangeable (which I don’t think that their roles are as I said) then what you say in your post should work in reverse. I feel it doesn’t.

      • Hi there. Unfortunately, you’ve misunderstood the post. All the post says is that it is hypocritical for people to not want views imposed on them, and then vote for someone (a political party or candidate for ruler) to impose their views on others in the democratic process of electing governments. That’s all it says. Nothing in it says “leave evangelists alone”. it just points to the hypocrisy of some voters. That’s how far it goes.

      • I understand. But the reverse is that those evangelists will be imposing their beliefs on others. So in reverse not voting to be left alone, would be voting to be left alone. Either the government or the evangelists will be imposing in the scenario where they are equally treated as imposable. So voting one way or the other is imposing in one way or another.

        If that makes sense though I feel we are misunderstanding each other.

      • Yes, there is a misunderstanding. The focus of the post is not whether evangelists impose their views. The focus of the post isn’t voting on whether evangelists can impose their views or not. The focus of the post isn’t about voting to be left alone. The focus of this post is simply this – I’ll use an analogy. There is a person called Derek who has no interest in religion. One day, on the way to the market, he sees a stranger on the street corner shouting out a religious message (it could be any religion, islam, buddhism, xtianity, whichever). Derek complains to himself that it is wrong for this stranger to try to impose this religious view on others. Derek doesn’t want to listen to the message. A few days later, it is voting day, and Derek has his favorite/preferred candidate for prime minister or president. And he has a political party that he wants to run the country. So he goes to the polling station or the voting office and votes for his preferred candidate and his political party to run the country. What Derek has done by voting is that he has supported someone else or a group of people to have power over others, to impose their ideas of what is right on other people. So what Derek has done is hypocritical. He will complain when he thinks one person (the stranger on the street corner) is imposing his views on others, and then Derek will then give his support to someone else, the political candidate or political party, in order for these people to impose their views on everyone in the country. That is the hypocrisy that I am pointing out in my post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: