Expanding on discussion in the comments in the post below, it may be time to remind ourselves there is no such thing as a politician who functions at arm’s length from their personal religious beliefs. Even those who claim to leave their individual religious principles “at the door” when they enter the halls of government have accomplished little more than to trade them in for someone else’s.
Even the atheist must take the same leap of faith before declaring that no God exists as the person who declares that He does – it’s merely the path taken and the conclusions drawn that differ.
Thus, in any discussion involving religion in politics, it is a mistake to allow the self-defined “secular community” to assume the default position against which all others are measured, because, in so doing, we are permitting nothing less than the raising one religious belief system to reign supreme over all others.
With the precedent set, it is simply a matter of time before the secular default is replaced or modified to suit the political ownership of the day. Indeed, it’s not hard to make a case that the phenomenon is already in progress, and that we are witnessing signs of the emergence of “extremist secularists” in Canada and the bastardization of the core ideology into a movement that is increasingly repressive and dogmatic.
In modern democracy, all religious viewpoints must be provided a place in the public policy debate without fear of reprisal or official scorn (so long as they are not intent on undermining the very democracy that permits them to speak – there is a difference between religious tolerance and societal stupidity.) It is our duty as citizens in a liberal democracy to condemn the secular intelligencia and their voices in the media in the same matter we would any other extremist group who would silence other religion based opinion – for any system that would disallow an evangelical Christian or orthodox Jew or devout Buddist a voice in the political process, including the right to cast a vote in Parliament with the full respect of all members, is putting their own rights to religious freedom – including the freedom not to “believe” – in jeopardy.
Just who are these secular extremists? Please provide some examples. I submit that we have more to fear from religious extremists than secular ones. A fair and consistent test for any political view that may be deemed extremist is whether such views conform to the Charter and on this test I would fear religious extremism over so called secular thinking.
Born yesterday and can already operate a computer – amazing!
“Just who are these secular extremists?”
(Raises hand.)
How about Henry Morgenthaler, for one?
There’s millions of them in the USA…they’re called “Democrats”.
Jay,
Why do you feel it necessary to attack me rather than my point? Is it because you have nothing to add to the discussion?
The problem with religious thinking and politics is that it doesn’t allow for compromise. Catholics and many evangelical Christians believe life starts at conception and marriage is between a man and a woman. These points are non-negotiable and although such absolutes may be admired they are not necessarily an asset in politics where one is forced to compromise in a pluralist society. Canada is neither a Christian country nor is it secular – we are a pluralist country. No amount of insult will change that.
not believing in God is not a leap of faith, just like not believing that my computer is made out of peanut butter isn’t a leap of faith.
There’s no evidence that my computer is made of peanut butter, so I don’t waste my time believing that it is.
Believers? Bah! What kind of person hangs his entire world view upon the unscientific teachings of a crazy, deluded, bearded man from hundreds of years ago? Certainly not Marxists.
It’s trendy to be suspicious of people with “deeply held views.” And it’s wrong
Funny you mention SSM and abortion as non-compromising positions the religious hold, because I find the secularists are equally uncompromising in their positions: SSM must happen as a matter of human rights, and unrestricted abortion must be allowed at all stages of pregnancy as a matter of a woman’s right to choose. Full stop. No compromise permitted.
The only party that’s actually ever tried to figure out a compromise between the two extreme positions is none other than the Conservatives — civil unions with matching rights to marriage as the compromise on SSM, and, well, they punted an abortion in Montreal so I’ve got nothing there I suppose. Even so they get shouted down as “intolerant”, “bigoted”, “anti-women”, etc.
For the record, I haven’t set foot in a church for a religious reason in over 15 years — once I would’ve called myself Christian but now I’d probably call myself agnostic (not quite atheist). Even so, I find pieces like the Globe & Mail article to be pure gutter trash that Canadians should be ashamed of.
Whoops — that should be punted “on” abortion, not “an” abortion.. not a pleasant mental image, that 😉
It�s impossible to separate church and state. Most democratic institutions including our executive and judicial systems are structured around religion. Law exists because of religion despite any political dissidence.
In the USA, our Declaration of Independence asserts
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men…”
Nothing is specifically asserted about the nature of the Creator. However, many things can be deduced about the Creator’s nature by examination of the assertions of the Declaration. For example, we have a Creator that endorses liberty as a divine right. Also the right to pursue happiness. These particulars and many other assertions that follow give us important clues to the nature of the Creator.
Remember now, we’re talking about a government document here, not a religious work. The fact of a Creator suggests a transcendental realm or some other realm that the Creator dwells in. This means that a transcendental realm exists as part of the universe and possibly within the capacity of men to be involved with. Also the Creator asserts that certain rights are unalienable here on the planet earth. This suggests the possibility that the Creator is also immanent within creation, or at least has active will in the diretion of how the creation is supposed to play out.
That means in the USA spirit is supreme. You cannot be a real American, i.e., one who is an exponent of the Declaration, and be dismissive of the Creator’s intent relative to governing.
Also: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” So government in the USA ultimately has a subordinate position to the Creator. And men …are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” This means that the will of the Creator not only subordinates government, but that each human being has unalienable rights directly as a result of the Creator, and as a consequence in an ultimate sense the nature of an individual is one that already contains rights that government, in its subordinated position, neither has the right to give nor to take away.
This is all very important because it means that temporal powers must always be kept in check lest the maniacal possibilities in humans drive them to try to usurp the power of the Creator in order to force their own totalitarian desires onto other human beings. Obviously, religions can also force tyranny on human beings. However in our Declaration, humans do not have the right to usurp the unalienable rights of other humans. This is an enormous protection against the will of unscrupulous and stupid men, and here it is all provided for us in our Declaration.
The Declaration goes on to say that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute New Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…” It goes on to say, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Objects, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
I don’t believe in a “God”, either, but I know of no evidence to support my belief that is more compelling than those who do.
Secular extremists? Try Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, to name only a few with the sweetest dispositions. Whatever they were, no one dared to challenge them on it.
Greg,
Amen to that.
I still can’t for the the life of me understand where the secularists get the idea that this statement means that anyone with a religiously rooted opinion (unless of course you are Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or Gay) must not hold public office:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair colour (and my computer is made of peanut butter).
What was it that made those dudes fly those planes into those big buildings in New York on September 11, 2001?
Was it religion that fueled their insanity, or secularism?
Perhaps they just had the wrong religion?
What sort of test should be applied to religions to separate the right ones from the wrong ones?
I tend to think that a scientific evaluation of facts is a better method of arriving at a reasonable solution for anything than the alternative of simply resorting to primative superstition. But then again I think that modern medicine (like vaccination) works better that getting greased up and mumbled over by the elders.
I would not wish to abrogate the right of anyone to believe that the greasing and mumbling solution works, but I am not required to believe that they are correct. The superstitious, however, seem to feel that they should be allowed to impose their superstition on everyone else. Does anyone have any examples of godless atheists forcing people to have abortions or enter into same sex marriages? If you think these things are bad then don’t do them. Problem solved.
“examples of godless atheists forcing people to have abortions ”
No, they just force me to PAY for them.
Ape:
That’s your opinion. You are welcome to it. Don’t dare try to supress mine or YOU WILL LOSE.
I’m delighted to see this type of debate taking place now.
It is far better to do it now than in the middle of an election campaign when Paul Martin and his drive-by biker gang of smear artists would no doubt have complained that they had to set precious time aside from their rounds gathering brown envelopes from local restaurants long enough in order to accuse the Tories that they don’t support the Charter of Rights because some honourable members may go to church.
Kate,
THANK-YOU! THANK-YOU! THANK-YOU!
It’s great to see an atheist/agnostic/non-church attender (whatever you would describe yourself as) defending those people who you disagree with, but can still respect. You show true tolerance.
As for Naked Ape, the atheist Chinese force abortions on people and Peter Singer from Princeton suggests that we should allow abortions on children up to 18 months old (that’s 18 months out of the womb) as well as saying “society” has a responsibility to abort pregnancies where it is believed the children will be handicapped in some way. Sorry I don’t have the links to show that, but the stories/controversies came up about 5-6 yrs ago (IIRC). They were reported quite widely on various pro-life news sites as well as Alberta Report Mag, but were only back-page filler in the MSM.
“No, they just force me to PAY for them.”
No kidding? Do you have the invoice for last month yet? Is the amount more or less than what the government gives away to farmers? I mean at least the doctors are working for it.
“Secular extremists? Try Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, to name only a few with the sweetest dispositions.”
Wayne, you are right on here. And, it is worth noting that these secular extremists emerged not from the “far right”, as we are often told, but the far LEFT. Throw in Mussolini and Castro/Che – every one of them came from Socialism, the ideology that has more faith in man than God (if it allows for faith in God at all).
Socialists, Leftists, Communists all begin with the best of intentions – but unleash the fury of unintended consequences when they gain the power to enforce their social experiments.
An unborn child slain at public expense is somehow equivalent to agricultural subsidies? What quaint notions of morality you have.
The problem the overwhelming majority of secularists have is that the assumptions and principles underpinning moral philosophy must be reasonable and just, and theirs are not. If your premises are garbage, your reasoned view of life is garbage.
Secularism in Canada was never more evident than in the days following 9/11. Most of North America was returning to churches and yet Jean Cretien made a speech and proudly pointed out that the word “God” was never uttered! This was truly a stunning moment in Canadian Oration.
Essentially in Canada Freedom of Religion has been translated to Freedom from Religion, and this appears to be acceptable the the masses. The last three Prime Ministers (I’m not including Kim Cambell here) were all catholic and yet not one mention of their religion ever comes into commentary. Last time I checked Catholics had pretty direct instuctions on lifestyle vis-a-vis gay marriage, birth control, etc.
The illogic of what I call secular fundamentalism is best summed up in the following excerpt from Doug’s posted link:
“It seems perfectly O.K. for secularists to impose their secular views on America, such as, say, legalized abortion or gay marriage. But when someone takes the contrary view, all of a sudden he is trying to impose his view on you.”
Ian in NS does a good job demonstrating the hyprocricy of this so-called “tolerant/non-judgmental/values-free” position. Whether or not one acknowledges a deity, we each have a system of beliefs that guide our actions every day of our lives.
Amazing how the bad ones are always the others, isn’t it?
BTW: Hitler was a christian, and Sadam is a sunni moslem, but Stalin and Pol-Pot were atheists. I was not aware that this group killed all those people in the name of atheism, I had thought they just felt it was politically expedient.
For bonus points: What do we call the time when christian religion ruled the western world?
Answer: The Dark Ages.
By the way – this debate are far broader than the issues of SSM and abortion. Just yesterday a left leaning radio host had a lengthy segment advocating the licensing of all parents – as a solution to societal ills like child neglect and abuse, of course. It wasn’t the first time, and I”d say callers were 70% in favour.
Think “Gun registry for ovaries”.
Now, who was going to design the tests and approve the licenses, and enforce the law – I can only guess, but I’d bet my back teeth that it wouldn’t be turned over to family, neighbors, pastors and priests from your local community.
That would be the job of a secularist government.
“It�s impossible to separate church and state. Most democratic institutions including our executive and judicial systems are structured around religion. Law exists because of religion despite any political dissidence.”
The point isn’t to separate church and state. The point is to uphold liberty. In a country where people are free to believe and worship as they wish (or not), the religious leanings of our government representatives shouldn’t matter a whit.
In a country where great power can be concentrated in the hands of a few, and where there are no democratic checks and balances in place to prevent abuse of power (kind of like Canada), the religious beliefs of our leaders suddenly take on a new importance.
Any over-arching world-view from which someone derives meaning, comfort or purpose is a functional religion in the sociological sense of the term. This proposition was first thoroughly explored over three decades ago by the sociologist Peter Singer in his book The Sacred Canopy. There have been many additions to this line of sociological discourse since then (including refinements by Singer).
Atheism and theism both fit into the sociological definition of “religion.” So do the various strains of secular humanism. If you don’t like the word “religion” (because you can’t get past its historical baggage, or whatever), just call it “world-view”. If you wanna be poncey about it, call it Weltanschauung. 😉
(Those Germans had a word for everything…)
The reason that Lech Waleska and Polish Solidarity movement were successful as a springboard to Polish freedom was because of the authority Pope John Paul II had in Poland.
Governmental authority is very jealous of sharing power with some other authority that people hold dear. As a consequence, government tries to find some way to diminish or eliminate whatever other authority may be competitive.
In its history, the Catholic Church also became a government and during the reign of its theocratic powers, it also tried to stamp out competitive powers. For example, gnosticism was eliminated because of threats it represented, and I don’t have to mention the Inquisition.
Thankfully, the Catholic Church made a wonderful transition into the modern world. And because of the authority with which it was imbued in Poland, communism was not able ultimately to prevail.
One always has to be careful when Authority determines it should be the only source of power in a country.
“Thankfully, the Catholic Church made a wonderful transition into the modern world.”
A modern world where women are second class citizens unfit to hold positions of authority and make decisions, apparently. :-p~~~
Hitler certainly was no Christian, he might have portrayed himself one but he in no way represented himself as one. I am sure if you asked any practicing Sunni Cleric they would say Hassein is in no way a Muslim either. An origination calling themselves Christians repressed the western world at one time but this organization was in no way Christian. Ya communists like Stalin, Zedong and Pol-Pot where atheists and they killed a lot of people. And your point is ?
Momorider, first of all, you are wrong: Hitler never ever claimed to be Christian or represent Christians. He was a secular racist, representing the “Aryan” race. Secondly, what is your point about Hussein? Of course no true Muslim would consider him a Muslim – he and his sons were fully immersed in the trappings of the secular West. Hussein was a Baathist, which is an Arab (not Muslim) movement inspired wholly by the Nazi Party. Finally, the fact that Communitsts like Stalin, Zedong, Pol Pot, etc. killed a lot of people IS the point! Of all the mass-murderers of the 20th century – the bloodiest of all centuries – name me one inspired by Judeo-Christian religious beliefs? (and let’s be real – liberal secularism is a reactionary movement against Judeo-Christian philosphy, pure and simple, not “religion”).
In philosophy, ontology is the study of ultimate reality. (what is ultimate reality?)
Believing in God and not believing in God are both ontological positions.
If an atheist believes that all of creation was some accident, then that accident is his ontological view of the origins of the universe.
A considerable amount of discussion would have to originate from these positions before any conclusions could be reached. In other words, different ontological views are the starting point of discussion, not the conclusion.
Science is a relative newcomer to this debate. It brings us an enormous mine of factors for consideration. However, science has no conclusion in respect to whether or not the universe is a product of intelligent design.
At the moment, down here in the States, the consideration of “Intelligent Design” has replaced other, considerably less sophisticated debates.
If around the 13th century the West had decided to go with Plato rather than Aristotle, we would have a very different view of all these matters. However, Thomas Acquinas preferred Aristotle and so we developed a view of these matters from a particular perspective. Other views are quite possible.
My point exactly Neil I think we are arguing the same point. I don’t confess to be an expert on Hitler or Hussein but I do no that their political and religious convictions are contradictory. I was just responding to a ludicrous comment by Naked Ape.
Momorider and NCF TO,
How do you calibrate your religion detector? What is the test that will determine whether or not someone is a true christian or moslem?
I mean how do you determine whether or not someone who claims affiliation with a given religion is really a member of that religion? Do you think that the pope considers Stockwell Day to be a true christian? How about James Dobson? Does it really matter what the pope or James Dobson thinks about anything?
The simple point is that these monsters (Hitler and Sadam) self identified as members of their respectve religions, not that they spring to mind as excellent examples of how to practice their religions.
Hitler was a Roman Catholic, baptized into that religio-political institution as an infant in Austria. He became a communicant and an altar boy in his youth and was confirmed as a “soldier of Christ” in that church.
Hitler’s Germany amalgamated state with church. Soldiers of the vermacht wore belt buckles inscribed with the following: “Gott mit uns” (God is with us). His troops were often sprinkled with holy water by the priests. It was a real Christian country whose citizens were indoctrinated by both state and church and blindly followed all authority figures, political and ecclesiastical.
Hitler, like some of the today’s politicians and preachers, politicized “family values.” He liked corporeal punishment in home and school. Jesus prayers became mandatory in all schools under his administration. While abortion was illegal in pre-Hitler Germany, he took it to new depths of enforcement, requiring all doctors to report to the government the circumstances of all miscarriages. He openly despised homosexuality and criminalized it.
You may feel my comments ludicrous, but I still feel that siding with Hitler on SSM and abortion feels wrong.
Naked Ape, I think you make my point for me. Hitler and Saddam hijacked religion and perverted it to further their secular statist aims. This does not mean that religion and state need be separated by a firewall. On the contrary – if Hitler followed any of the teachings of Jesus, he would not have done what he did. Hitler was perverted by socialist influences and Jew-hatred, not his Catholic upbringing. Did you forget that “Nazi” is short for National Socialist Workers’ Party?
Ah, the “Dark Ages”… that ever-useful canard beloved of historical illiterates everywhere. As this article states, “Other things went on besides people dropping dead from the plague.”
>Answer: The Dark Ages.
The Dark Ages were hardly a time of Christian domination. Regardless, the Dark Ages occurred in the wake of the fall of a civilization which forgot the values of its ascendancy and turned to self-indulgence.
>You may feel my comments ludicrous, but I still feel that siding with Hitler on SSM and abortion feels wrong.
Just because Hitler held a position on an issue at one time for his own reasons, everyone else who holds that position must be Hitler?
Congratulations. You have the powers of reason of a cucumber.
Hitler was a big fan of Schoepenhauer (The World as Will and Representation) during a period of his life. The World as Will and Representation in its way is a philosophical restatement of the Upanishads. It postulates the idea of ultimate reality as a blind, forceful will. He also was a big fan of the philosophical orientation in Wagner’s operas, though he must have detested Parzival even though the implication is a very Aryan Christ.
I believe it was in Mein Kampf that Hitler spelled out the reason he was against Jesus Christ. Hitler believed that it was only in the midst of struggle that one found the true meaning of existence. He believed that the struggle for survival was a preeminent, key note because survival represented the absolute value of life.
He disliked the idea of Jesus Christ because Jesus intentionally and voluntarily went to the crucifiction, rather than a mounting a supreme fight. Jesus intentionally lay down His life with what Hitler saw as a docility, and therefore was in contradistinction to what Hitler saw as the value of existence discovered through struggle.
(This is short and quick. I wouldn’t expect it to pass muster from graduate school professors, but I think it’s generally an accurate statement.)
Western civilization used to be known as Christendom and the rights and freedoms you enjoy now were built on the values it developed. In the last 100 years over 100 million lives have been taken in the name of atheistic secular philosophy – mostly communism and fascism in the USSR, Nazi Germany, Red China. In less than a century, these societies have killed more people than were killed in the name of religion throughout all of history combined. A good book on this subject is The Nlack Book of Communism by St�phane Courtois. Courtois states that Marxist-Lennism alone accounts for almost 100 million. It isn’t Christians (who run orphanages, feed and care for the sick, educate the poor, operate hospices, eradicated slavery, founded the U.S.A. and ked the civil rights movement) that you have to worry about.
I am atheist and would, you may assume, be
considered a “secular extremist”. That is
another battle. I am an extremely small minority
on the planet and therefore reject any religious
or anti-religious hyperbole. Why? Because I know
I am firt in line, in front of the firing squad.
Therefore, I do not criticise people who
bring their personal religious (philosophical)
views to their politics. And nor should they,
mine. I am against religious
courts having state sanction in Canada;
I know of how the Christians took over the Roman
Empire. But, it is not reasonable to decry
an individual’s beliefs as a political attack.
This is just asking for sectarian warefare.
For me, the philosophical battle must be separate
from the civic dicourse. Therefore, I must
accept people’s religious views in the public
domain, disagree with them I may do. That doesn’t
preclude me from agreeing with their positions on
many subjects; nor arguin against them.
My battle with them must take place in a
different space other than the public polity.
I’m not sure I have been quite clear here, a
little rambling perhaps. Let me make it plain.
Some of my best friends and lovers have religious
views that I profoundly disagree with. We argue
about them. But we live with
each other and occassionally get into BIG
arguments. But none of us will decry each other
for holding those sincerely held beliefs.
It’s not reasonable. And here, the liberal
establishment in Canada is making a BIG
mistake – see G&M article.
Secular extremists? Try Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, to name only a few with the sweetest dispositions. Whatever they were, no one dared to challenge them on it.
All socialists. I rest my case 🙂
Secularism in Canada was never more evident than in the days following 9/11. Most of North America was returning to churches and yet Jean Cretien made a speech and proudly pointed out that the word “God” was never uttered! This was truly a stunning moment in Canadian Oration.
I am atheist and when I saw 9/11 I immediately
finered the cause. The Chretian Liberal response
was an anti-american, thank-goodness it wasn’t
me head in the sand attitude. It disgusted me.
Greg (outside Dallas) — when are you going to start a blog? Great comments!
“It seems perfectly O.K. for secularists to impose their secular views on America, such as, say, legalized abortion or gay marriage. But when someone takes the contrary view, all of a sudden he is trying to impose his view on you.”
No it isn’t OK. I am atheist but I do not think
this is the right thing to do. It is NOT OK
for secularists to enforce these moral attitudes
upon others. I myself do not agree with them:
AND I am a militant atheist.
The philosophical discussion is ongoing; the
moral discussion, to me, is self-evident to
all natural creatures.
To clarify: I do not agree with the premises
of the religiou people (whatever religion) but
that doesn’t preclude me from agreeing with
their positions. The same results from
different angles.
Believing in God and not believing in God are both ontological positions.
Not at all. I do not “not believe in god”,
I simply regard this as a canard.
You come to me, a happy person ignorant of
your supposed god and tell me about it; I
respond “What is your evidence: show it to me”
Of course, there is a demonstrable lack of
evidence; does that allow me to carry on my happy
way? Of course; I don’t believe in Santa Claus or
gnomes, either.
>It is NOT OK for secularists to enforce these moral attitudes upon others.
Exactly, so if any secularists out there are forcing religious folks to have abortions and marry people of the same gender, stop it right now!
Those sorts of descisions are not anyones else’s damned business.
Hey Wimpy! You are very interesting. I just wish I could figure out what the heck you are saying.