PROMISES,PROMISES.

I watched the debate between the potential future Governors of Massachusetts last night. Apart from the usual rhetoric and put-downs what did we learn about the possible future leader of this commonwealth. In an almost civilized way they were at each others throats over various issues. Many topics hit the road of contention from the MCAS to crime to the number of police needed, the raising of taxes (no wonder this state is called taxachusetts)---and of course the one great and important question that is rarely ever answered by any politicians, "Who will pay and how will the costs be met."

Today as I was driving along one of the radio talk/call in show-hosts listed at least 6 lies that he alleged Deval Patrick made last night! He also said having two of the candidates on the platform was a complete waste of time and money-Ms Ross and Mr. Mihos. He feels that as neither has a chance of winning then the debate should only be between Ms. Healey and Mr. Patrick.

My point is that no matter what configuration of speakers are put up for a debate, from whatever political view-point, it will be promises, promises and little in the way of concrete solutions and above all costs!

Let's be generous and say 'they all mean well, and have the commonwealth's best interests at heart', nonetheless they will all fail miserably: why? Politicians have for multiple years used slogans and promises to obtain an office. They pander to the public and many times produce contradictory statements, because their real motive is one of power, influence and money and not genuine public service or providing solutions and telling us how it will all be paid for.

Brian McGrory, writing in today's Boston Globe began in classic fashion, "You can take the candidates away from their porous stump speeches and out of their onslaught of attack ads. You can put them in the regal environs of Faneuil Hall, where so much history has been made over so many years. And nothing changes, nothing at all."

When the promises fail, then come the excuses. Mankind knows no differently. It's the same the world over.

Does mankind have any alternative? The answer is yes he does.

It's too bad that President Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists when he quoted that the legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Did Jefferson believe that the wall should be so high and impregnable that the true meaning of the metaphor was lost? We are now at a point where it is almost totally wrong to mention religion in the same breath as politics. In my opinion this isn't what Jefferson wanted or intended.

Mankind must involve God if he is going to govern with integrity and not reduce himself to lies and miss-statements and promises that he probably knows he cannot fulfill.

Thankfully there is coming a government that will be perfect and flawless. That is the government of God that the book of Acts tells us will be brought to this earth at the return of Christ (See Acts 3:19-21).

Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world, so you and I as Christians can pray for the leaders and hope that they will do a good job, but in our hearts we await the true form of government that will bring peace,happiness and a truly constructive way of life; and God knows how it will be paid for!