Monday, October 01, 2007

Separation of Church and State?

Someone asks, "Correct me but... Canada's initial players did have the express intention to be secular, because of fear of the 'Roman' French. Yes?"

My response --

I doubt if the the word "secular" was even part of their vocabulary.

* Parliament began until very recently with prayer in Jesus' name.

* The Parliament Buildings have Bible verses carved in stone, where it's difficult for secularists to get their hands on them, testifying to the reign of the Messiah.

* Canada's motto "from sea to sea" is an allusion to the coming Messiah's reign.

* Marriage, in keeping with judeo-christian beliefs, was rooted in human biology and the presumptive rights of children, to be born, and raised in a two-parent family consisting of one mother and one father.

* Supreme Court judges to this day invoke God's aid in fulfilling their mandate.

The doctrine of separation of church and state simply means that the Church, as an organization, should not run the state, and, importantly, vica-versa. It does not mean that a state cannot be suffused with values that derive from the religious values and beliefs of its citizens.

If, however, Canada wants to have strict separation of Church and state, then for starters we can

-- abolish all laws against stealing

-- abolish all laws that require persons to make truthful statements (such as tax forms)

-- abolish all laws against murder

-- abolish all laws that contribute to the idea that we are our "brother's keeper" and that we ought to take care of one another

-- abolish all notions that humans have intrinsic worth and dignity -- a particular contribution of judeo-christian thought based on being created in the image of God.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

PS -- I'm in Essex Junction, Vermont tonight, and I discovered that there's an Uno's Pizzeria in Burlington, VT. I'm a happy guy!


Mark said...

Another lesser known fact is found in the history of Dominion Day, which was not founded to celebrate our existence or history as a British dominion. To quote Andrew Cohen, "The Unfinished Canadian", p.90, regarding the doing away of Dominion Day:

It took all of five minutes. The Senate approved it three months later. In the debate, our lawmakers saw "dominion" as too British, an imperial imposition. They seems to regard "dominion" as an emblem of colonialism.... In truth, "dominion" was not suggested by the British, but by Sir Leonard Tilley of New Brunswick, who took it from the eighth verse of the seventy-second psalm of the bible, which says, "He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth." It's roots or reason didn't matter to the high priests who sat in the House of Commons that lazy summer afternoon.... It was... a renunciation of the past, a misreading of history, laden with political correctness and historical ignorance.

RkBall said...

I like people who have quotes like this at their finger-tips.

Thanks, Mark.

"It was... a renunciation of the past, a misreading of history, laden with political correctness and historical ignorance."

Perhaps also laced with a bit of anti-Christian sentiment as well for those who may have understood its origins.

Patrick Roberts said...

interesting... an unintended, genius aspect of democracy is that the state of the government will represent the state of the people. We needn't impose any particular religion on our government. Whether or not our government is morally stable will reflect the moral stability of us, the people. So how are we doing?

RkBall said...

How are we doing?

I would say "not well". Secularists have seized on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of separation of Church and State (which has no legal basis in Canada) to remove moral thinking from public discourse.

Morality-based thinking has been replaced with rights-based thinking.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"