I was reading the news on MTV3 and discovered that the Orthodox pastor Father Mitro has apparently been planning on running for a seat in the soon to be held EU-elections. However his church recently held a meeting during which it criticised Mitro's actions and will decide whether or not to let him go for it in the near future. In the interview, he confessed how shocked he was about this criticism and that he really couldn't understand it.
For those of you who do not know him, Father Mitro is a very public figure of the orthodox church and is often quoted in matters of religion and social issues. I have actually met him once at a christening and have always thought that he was a very warm and pleasant man.
Despite of that, I now have to confess myself, that I was shocked to hear him going for it in the first place. Yes, he is someone who has been influencing a lot of the religious life in Finland. He is most likely a good and honest man. But there is a conflict between what he represents now and what he would like to represent in the future. He stands before such ridiculous values (those of his church's) which I and a whole lot of other freedom loving Finns would not like to enforce.
Again, I have a lot of faith (no pun intended :)) in his abilities to do the job. With a lot of issues he might be solving, he would probably do a good job. But he is a man who devoted his life to religion, and frankly to something that makes very little sense. He will obviously be influenced by these beliefs that he holds. It will interfere with his decision-making.
Now why can't a christian person run for a seat then? Of course they can and have done. But father Mitro is a priest of a minority church. I have no objection to, say a muslim running for the same seat but I would not approve of him trying to enforce the Sharia law when he is holding a seat of a country in which it is not the will of the majority. Same thing with Mitro. He would take advantage of his celebrity image and probably win a seat but if he was just an average orthodox man, he would probably not be elected due to people not sharing his values!
And in the end, as much as I can feel his desire to make a difference, by getting into politics, he is sacraficing his duties as a churchman to his people and even though I personally don't think his guidance is needed, he devoted his life to this sort of thing and unless he decides to leave the church, he has no business in the elections.
Posts
4 comments:
Thank God for democracy!
I'd find it outrageous, if people would be required to represent a certain religion (or none), to take part in politics.. That would just be.. Wrong!! :O
Basically what I wanted to point out here was that I am against religious leaders running for a seat, not ordinary religious people in general. Politics and religion, IMHO should be kept separate. And indeed the likes of Mitro have certain amount of political power already.
Also the other thing I mentioned is that he represents certain values which are not necessarily main stream, but because he is such a public figure he would probably get elected due to the celebrity factor. This, I think, is no good.
Also, I really don't understand the "shock" he experienced when the orthodox board voiced their criticism. If I decided to run for a seat which would most likely interfere with my work commitments, I would not be surprised if my boss did not like it.
Hello,
Just found your blog through the web. Had to make a comment. You are saying that "he represents certain values which are not necessarily main stream" and that you think that this is "no good". That only his celebrity gets him a seat.
I'm sorry, but that is lame. So you only approve of people getting elected if they are mainstream? You don't think that popular politicians get elected because they are well-known? That people simply vote on the issues?
Come on! And logically speaking, if he is so famous and well-known you have to wonder why. Perhaps he is more mainstream than you think? Don't be so narrowminded and bigoted. Democracy is meaningless if only "mainstream" (whoever defines that!) gets elected. Why vote?
Thanks,
Andreas
Hey Andreas and thanks for your comment.
"I'm sorry, but that is lame. So you only approve of people getting elected if they are mainstream? You don't think that popular politicians get elected because they are well-known? That people simply vote on the issues?"
I have no problem of having not so mainstream people entering politics but what I do have a problem with is someone riding on their status and unfortunately blinding people from the real agenda. A lot of well-known politicians get elected because they are famous but unlike Mitro, they don't try to turn the country into a homophobic, matrimonial mess. Unfortunately people often ignore the actual issues and vote for the person, often not even realising what sort of values these candidates are supporting.
"Come on! And logically speaking, if he is so famous and well-known you have to wonder why. Perhaps he is more mainstream than you think? Don't be so narrowminded and bigoted. Democracy is meaningless if only "mainstream" (whoever defines that!) gets elected. Why vote?"
He is famous and well-known because he likes to be on TV. As I pointed out earlier, he's probably a good priest but I personally think he has no business in politics as he is (was) a religious leader. People who are not familiar of what his religion stands for, might vote for him because they have seen him on TV. That unfortunately is the downside of that democracy.
Mitro has since left his church duties in order to pursue his political career which makes it a little easier for me to swallow.
You can call me narrowminded but at least I know one person who is even more narrowminded than me, this be Father Mitro.
Post a Comment