Says Royal Academy of English Language the political is any activity that the city developed to intervene in public affairs , politics is also the struggle to determine what is a public issue and what is not, as you showed us the feminist movement with its slogan "the private is political" or show us many social movements today when trying to enter the public agenda in their demands. Policy is to establish frameworks for language, playing fields where discussed. Policy
means controversy, criticism and discussion . Although opinion and policy are now reviled and disliked terms, means the management of common.
means controversy, criticism and discussion . Although opinion and policy are now reviled and disliked terms, means the management of common.
For this and other reasons, certain economic trends pretending to be dominant today presented as apolitical and scientific, religious and pseudo spaces, free of controversy, and certain interpretations of religion have, themselves, as unique, doctrinal and apolitical.
But neither science free policy or the economy may be without policy that is played inside, and their interaction with public space, in the political arena. Nor does religion, when trying to influence the field usually is free of politics, nor can or should be, and would do well to recognize.
Nor are out of this field forms are organized religions themselves -church- that, just to give an example, despite sharing Christianity does not share the same role for women within it, or the role of celibacy, either now or in the past.
Religious beliefs are respected individual, can not argue with them from the right. But when religion is used to try to influence the common rules, it is becoming policy and is, therefore, that subject to the rules of politics that today we are in democratic societies. Should be subject to debate, criticism, and can not be cheating, as is unfortunately too often pose for example, who does not share his view, partial interpretation of religion is destroying the religion, family and pursuing the religious. policy is intended to do without saying, without acknowledgment, without appearing to, since the beginning adulterated, trapping, introducing moral principles of authority to try to impose their own view, his own interpretation of reality and how to regulate it.
There are laws on which you can comment, of course, but i inequality of treatment that any actor in the public arena. should respect the basic principles of political democracy, subject to criticism, being under the umbrella of the law without hiding crimes as despicable and condemnable as pedophilia in purely amoral behavior or, as in the past , embezzlement and economic excesses of the banking Catholic as mere sins.
is not the same, without doubt, the interpretation and contribution they make to public life, faith-based communities and liberation theology of the Roman curia. They do not live as well, with the same consistency and the same conditions. Some are closer to the merchants from the temple to which Jesus began at the time as false worshipers and speculators, the others are committed to poverty and struggle to build another world is possible and necessary. That the Catholic hierarchy from high pomp and wealth make assessments and contributions out of place at this time -like condemnation of condom use- or retrograde -like attempt to defend a single family model valid and real (and at the time, according to the data, almost nonexistent in our societies and rich multi-family models) - not serve to raise alleged persecution
.
No one is independent of politics, nobody is apolitical. Even the intended defined as such, is not more than letting others decide for him is an idiot in Greek terms. No one can, for example, say you belong to an organization if the organization is apolitical religious. This is a false debate tremendously Manichaean and wrong, because religion, and especially its interpretation mediated by the churches, is in the public arena to defend their model of society, its way of ordering public life, their proposals, all respectable, all questionable, all as others come from other lands, necessarily discussed and chosen or not under the sole and supreme principle that every man worth a vote.
No one is independent of politics, nobody is apolitical. Even the intended defined as such, is not more than letting others decide for him is an idiot in Greek terms. No one can, for example, say you belong to an organization if the organization is apolitical religious. This is a false debate tremendously Manichaean and wrong, because religion, and especially its interpretation mediated by the churches, is in the public arena to defend their model of society, its way of ordering public life, their proposals, all respectable, all questionable, all as others come from other lands, necessarily discussed and chosen or not under the sole and supreme principle that every man worth a vote.
Trying legitimate to question laws and principles such as abortion, marriage, equality or sexual freedom from parameters that seek to escape the political logic, posing as higher as apolitical, as supreme, is not seeking to exercise a government of public dictatorial, authoritarian, corrupted in its terms, cheat on their principles. Trying to defend beyond any scientific evidence that abortion is, for example, murder, or defend creationism is again trying to impose standards from different viewpoints. Religion is politics, it was always in history, was used by politicians and political position with one or other, churches and make policy did today, but often have you believe that theirs is nothing Another field, another topic. not even in the same religion, same church, interpretations of something as respectable and as incontrovertible as individual faith, like belief, are equal, or we reach the same conclusions for public management.
