Here's my reply to a recent G&M blogger. Thank you for your anti-religious tirade. You seem to have a lot of emotions invested in hating persons of religious faith. You might want to look into that. As for your question, "(What happen to seperation between church and state)", you'll find the following carved in stone above our Parliament Buildings, "He shall have dominion from sea to sea". The influence of the Christian faith has been an integral part of Canada since its inception. Our school systems, hospitals and public healthcare all grew out of Canada's religious vision. I know of no formal law or statute that prescribes the separation you think desirable. And, while there ought not to be an organizational relationship between any religious body and the apparatus of government, surely you would not want to rule out the full democratic contribution of religious persons, because all persons have an equal right to participate in public life and to bring their views and values into it.
Religious values offer a lot to society. "Do no harm". Honesty. Compassion towards other human beings. Compassion towards animals. Children born and raised within stable families consisting of both a mom and a dad. Children's lives spared from the nullification of abortion. A high view of humanity. Love for one's neighbour, including those like you who cannot tolerate them.
If the Liberal Party was ruled by religious values instead of Liberal ones, it would not be corrupt. The prohibition against stealing, a distinctly religious precept, clearly has no place within the Party. Indeed, the de-shackled, liberated Liberals probably view honesty in government as a violation of the wall of separation of church and state. There can simply be no place for religious beliefs or values in government. If there were, there's no telling where it might lead. Why, the whole moral climate of the country might be raised, and we simply can't have that.
Persons who bring a Christian perspective to public life have nothing to apologize for.
5 comments:
I think we watch too much US TV.
The concept of separation of church and state is supposed to be one of their principles.
I'm not sure that even that is true. The idea was that there would be no state religion like that of the Church of England.
Anyone could follow whatever religion they wanted. As a matter of fact it was assumed that most people would come from some form of religious background.
I suspect the founding fathers of the Great Republic to the South would be horrified at the distortion of their intent.
I agree. The original intent was to allow the free flourishing of religion among the states. Maryland, for example, was a Catholic state -- Mary-land. They were specifically addressing the Church of England's status in their original homeland; the idea that religious values and practices would be banned from government and society would have been absurd to them.
I agree. The original intent was to allow the free flourishing of religion among the states. Maryland, for example, was a Catholic state -- Mary-land. They were specifically addressing the Church of England's status in their original homeland; the idea that religious values and practices would be banned from government and society would have been absurd to them.
RKB - please stop repeating yourself.
So a rigid separation of church and state, or, at least, the divorcing of Christian morals from public laws and life, would be a bit of an absurdity.
It was simply unthinkable, even to the great Protestant Reformers, that a nation could be anything but united by a single faith. And that is why nations "chose", either to remain Catholic, or become a Protestant state.
It was this dual-role, of being head of church and state, that the founding fathers in the US were addressing in what has been popularly reduced to "separation of church and state". The actual words being something closer to the idea that Congress would establish no religion as the official religion of the USA.
Post a Comment