Big Blue Wave's Comments
"By that, they mean that Conservative Christians shouldn't vote according to what they think is right."
Wrong, that's not what separation of church & state means at all.
The individual voter can certainly vote according to what they think is right -- how else would they vote?
Separation of Church & State simply means that public policy cannot be dictated by religious tenets. Anything less is theocratic rule. If you want that, move to Vatican City. Or Tehran.
The individual voter can certainly vote according to what they think is right -- how else would they vote?
There are a heck of a lot of Catholics who think that if they vote according to what they think is right, i.e. their religious tenets-- they are imposing their views and therefore cannot do that.
I don't believe that a government should be run by the tenets of one revealed religion. That's why I never joined the Christian Heritage Party, even if I am sympathetic to some of the things that they are trying to accomplish.
However, I do think that if a government of religious politicians are voted in and they rely on their religious beliefs to direct what they think is right and wrong, that's fine. Our electoral system is designed so that if we're unhappy with the results, we can boot them out.
"There are a heck of a lot of Catholics who think that if they vote according to what they think is right, i.e. their religious tenets-- they are imposing their views and therefore cannot do that."
Really? Well, they're right about one thing: nobody does have a right to impose their religious beliefs on anyone else. But voting that way doesn't mean imposing, it's just having your say. Recognizing that this is a secular nation, even the most devoutly religious politician is unlikely to rock the boat by using faith to form public policy. Not if he possesses an instinct of political self preservation.
"I do think that if a government of religious politicians are voted in and they rely on their religious beliefs to direct what they think is right and wrong, that's fine."
Not with me. Freedom of religion means freedom from religion too.
So if I understand you correctly, JJ: you're okay with a voter basing his vote on religious belief, but you're not okay with a politician basing his policy directives on religious belief.
I think freedom from religion means that you compel someone to stop acting from their religious beliefs, especially as regards moral behaviour. If you want politicians of integrity, you have to allow for them to do what they think is right, whether that thinking stems from religion or not. Being able to follow one's conscience is the most fundamental aspect of integrity. A person who's willing to go against what they know is right or wrong is not a person of integrity.
"So if I understand you correctly, JJ: you're okay with a voter basing his vote on religious belief, but you're not okay with a politician basing his policy directives on religious belief."
Got it. I don't care who people vote for, but if they vote for a fundie they have to realize that the MP they're voting for will be leaving his religion at the door when he enters the HofC.
You guys haven't learned that yet after 2.5 years of Reformcon and no closer to banning abortion or rolling back gay marriage than before?
When someone is acting as a representative of their constituency, they should not be making policy based on their personal beliefs.
"A person who's willing to go against what they know is right or wrong is not a person of integrity."
The problem is that what is "right" for an MP personally may not be what's really right. For example, gay couples deserve the right to marry. To deny them that right is bigotry. There's really no other excuse for it -- if someone's religion says its wrong, then their religion is wrong, because bigotry is wrong.
That's the problem with religion and why it should never play a role in public policy -- some people use it as an excuse to justify their own bigotry. That's unacceptable.
OTOH, I wouldn't expect an MP who's rabidly anti-gay to vote in favour of SSM, and nobody's forcing him to. But thankfully, in this country, for every MP like that, there'll always be 10 more whose votes will cancel his.
Canada's Charter of Rights says that EVERYONE has the fundamental right of religion and conscience.
Even politicians.
The beauty of a democracy is that we vote in our leaders. Even though Harper's a Christian, he still got voted in over Martin. Why? Because the people saw him as a better leader.
Don't give me this crap about checking your religion at the door. Respecting others' beliefs? Absolutely. But you have to do that to make it anywhere in politics anyways. (Unless you're Stephan Dion.)
JJ:
You can't make the principle of conscience one into utilitarianism.
If you want politicians to do what's right, you must allow them to judge what's right.
You can't say: I'm not going to allow people to judge what's right, because if they make a mistake, they'll vote for policies I don't like.
What if it were the secular people who were bigoted and the religious people who were tolerant? What if there was a secular racist country, and it was all the religious people who understand that all people are created equal.
If religion is not allowed in the public square, then religious politicians couldn't change those policies.
Nazis weren't exactly the most religious people around, and some of their staunchest opponents were people of faith.
If you want someone to do what's right, you must let them judge what's right. Sometimes people make mistakes in their judgement. That's true. But the flip side is that if you do not let people judge, and you impose a standard of judgment based on utilitarianism, then you are stopping them from acting when they know the right answer. If religion in the public square had been disallowed, slavery may never have been ended.
There are people who make secular arguments against same-sex marriage. France didn't allow it. It's one of the most secular countries in the world. You just don't like that argument, so you deem it "religious".
"There are people who make secular arguments against same-sex marriage"
Any so-called "secular argument against SSM" that I've read is nothing but a veiled religious argument -- they just omit the word "God". It's still bigoted and superstitious claptrap.
I don't care what methods politicians use to make their decisions: praying, talking to God, for people of faith those things can be helpful in the decision-making process. But a politician may not take it a step further and impose those religious beliefs on me and the rest of larger society. It's that simple.
"Any so-called "secular argument against SSM" that I've read is nothing but a veiled religious argument -- they just omit the word "God". It's still bigoted and superstitious claptrap."
What about France? France is secular.
There are atheists who oppose same-sex marriage.
Call it bigoted if you will-- it's still an argument based on non-religious reasons. You may not agree with it, that doesn't make it any less secular.
If the word "secular" is to have a sincere meaning, it mustn't simply mean "corresponding to a leftwing worldview".
Commenting by HaloScan
