A Separation of Belief
An interesting debate is shaping up on the newly redesigned and much improved Politics Canada Forum between the editor and yours truly:
Secondly, to Rob:
KERN says – “uhm...if a politician is a "Satanist", I'd want to know about it.”
ROB says – “Indeed as others may want to know if a candidate is a Christian Scientist, an Islamic, a Jew, or a Catholic. Such knowledge while irrelevant to governing a nation is essential for discrimination.”
KERN – Are you equating Satanists with Jews and Catholics? How someone governs anything (himself, a household, a business, a country), whether ethically/morally or not, is directly related to his character. His character can be gauged by the belief system to which he subscribes. Such knowledge, because it is essential information about a candidate’s character, is highly relevant to, as you put it, “governing a nation”. Discrimination in favour of politicians of good character is a duty we owe our nation and fellow citizens.
KERN says – “As well, this secular humanist "Theophobia", so pervasive in those who object to Harper's religious identity, apparently render's a person blind to the differences, subtle and overt, between, say, an Islamofascist and a Presbyterian.”
ROB says – "Harper’s religious identity has nothing to do with politics. Objecting to revealing religious identity does not make one blind to risk of fascism for it preys upon the weak irrespective of denomination. Prejudice on the other hand, is forever busy and never blind."
KERN – See above. You have, once again, equated all people of faith regardless of doctrine (this time casting them as fascists) thus revealing your own “Theophobia” and confirming my point. Perhaps you didn’t realize that the most tyrannical, murderous regimes of the 20th Century (fascists) were constitutionally irreligious and practically anti-religious?
KERN says – “Historically, Canadian politicians, in order to promote harmony, avoided the sectarianism of the UK & Europe between the Roman Catholics and Protestants. They did not, however, avoid references to Jesus Christ as the incarnate God of both. This anti-Christian stance is a recent invention.”
ROB says - "The founding fathers desperately sought cooperation from a conquered French population. Parading religious differences was regarded as divisive then, as it remains today."
KERN – This is a tautology. You have simply restated my point as a rebuttal: Historically the differences were avoided, but the similarities (i.e., Jesus Christ as the incarnate God of both “founding nations”) were not. Today references to any religion are not seen as divisive between French Catholics and English Protestants, but are seen as an affront to the secularist sensibilities of the anti-religious establishment.
It is folly to accept and/or desire that the doctrine of separation of Church and State precludes people of faith from holding office. No one wants a Theocracy run by an established sect, but all the virtues civilized people hold dear, that are responsible for the highest degrees of national success, are Christian virtues. The undermining of this religious/philosophical basis of our own nation is a disasterous turn of events. As we have had demonstrated time and time again, a nation of increasing antipathy towards Christianity is a nation descending into a hellish chaos.
J.S. Kern
...so, go on and add your zero-point-zero-two of a dollar!
