A Quote by Elizabeth Joan Smith

When religious leaders get involved in elections, it is usually with a reactionary social agenda. — © Elizabeth Joan Smith
When religious leaders get involved in elections, it is usually with a reactionary social agenda.
This democracy... The elections in Iraq were held despite the American opposition. It was the will of the Iraqi people and the religious authorities. [The elections] were the result of pressure by Ayatollah Sistani, by the Iraqi religious authorities, and by the fighting forces in Iraq on America. They left the US no choice but to allow the elections.
Religion that is imposed upon its recipients turns out to engender either indifference or resentment. Most American religious leaders have recognized that persuasion is far more powerful than coercion when it comes to promoting one's religious views. . . . Not surprisingly, then, large numbers of religious leaders have supported the Supreme Court in its prayer decisions.
Good leaders need a positive agenda, not just an agenda of dealing with crisis.
The Body thinks it has an agenda that is important. And the Mind imagines that its agenda is vital to your survival. But the older you get the more you realize that it is the Soul's agenda, and only the Soul's agenda, that matters.
Foresight has been a distinguishing characteristic of all truly great political, religious, and social betterment leaders.
Time to time I get together with the rabbis, with religious leaders, leaders of congregations, and I talk to them, and wherever a need arises, we do everything we can to meet those needs.
We brought the religious leaders and the secular development workers together in one room. We asked the religious leaders what are your reservations about development workers? And we asked the development workers, what are your reservations about religious leaders? It turns out that most of the problems are not really problems at all, but rather misunderstandings, misconceptions, and mis-communications.
From the beginning, there have been some religious leaders who greeted the funding of faith-based social services by government with ambivalence.
[Barack] Obama won two elections but certainly the first one not because people wanted that agenda of his. He never told them what his agenda was. Not as it played out. Obama was something other.
'Elections have consequences,' President Obama said, setting his new policy agenda just three days after taking office in 2009. Three elections later, the president's party has lost 70 House seats and 14 Senate seats. The job of Republicans now is to govern with the confidence that elections do have consequences, promptly passing the conservative reform the voters have demanded.
Most leaders are indispensable, but to produce a major social change, many ordinary people must also be involved.
I am an apolitical Prime Minister. Apart from elections, I don't get involved into politics ever.
But it's more an up-versus-down issue because the research has shown that opinion leaders, whether they're elected officials, journalists, business leaders - it's academics, religious leaders - they have dramatically different views on immigration. A
What is frustrating people, me included, is that democratic action affects elections but what we get then from political leaders is greenwash.
The way you get leaders to care about issues of conscience is to apply political pressure. It's less a question of persuading leaders directly and more trying to build a social movement that holds their feet to the fire.
I've been involved in social activism my entire life, and I would argue that many people involved in social activist movements have done very little work on themselves.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!