Recently, a couple of articles appeared in the mass media out of our neighbors to the south that raise a particularly disturbing picture of the blurring of the distinction between religious faith and the state.
The first about a divorce decree in Indiana where a judge prohibited the parents from exposing their son to their religion - Wicca - following their divorce.
The second of these is a tale of some loose cannon judge in Kentucky who is using Church attendance as an "alternative" sentence option.
Besides the obvious problems with judicial imposition of the specific faith beliefs of the judge directly upon those appearing in their courts, these particular events are signs of a blurring of the line between the secular courts of law and religious law in the United States. I doubt very much that this causes anyone in the White House today any difficulty, although pluralists who believe in more than a monochromatic "Christianity" should be wary of these events. Even with my pidgin knowledge of the US Constitution, these rulings are significant and serious breaches of the guarantees of freedom of religion.
How does this play into the political discussion in Canada? With so-called "Christian Activists" apparently rising to gain control over the public face of the Conservative party; troubling efforts by Muslim clerics in Canada to legitimize so-called "Sharia Law" (done so successfully in Ontario, and failed in Quebec), Canadians must become aware of these "imported" issues.
Enabling Sharia Law - even in Canada's Civil Court system is potentially suspect. There are many aspects of that law as it has been practiced elsewhere in the world that run afoul of guarantees of equality held in the Canadian Constitution. It will take a long time, and a great deal of visible change in the cultural communities involved before the practice of Sharia Law would align readily with the precepts nad assumptions of the greater body of our legal system. The experiment in Ontario has yet to bear significant fruit, only time will tell if it works out in the positive. There is a definite worry in my mind in the application of a legal structure that derives heavily - and directly - from the interpretation of a religious document outside of the practice of that religion.
Christian "Activism" as we are seeing in Canada is taking its cues from the playbook of their counterparts in the United States. Given the Conservative predeliction for wanting to emulate whatever is done in the United States, it is deeply concerning to observe the American judiciary making rulings that are based on the specific personal leanings of the judge.
As I have pointed out before, Freedom of Religion is a very personal thing, and with the multitude of belief systems that are in the world today such guarantees in any constitution mean that the laws and the enforcement of them must become purely secular.
A progressive voice shining light into the darkness of regressive politics. Pretty much anything will be fair game, and little will be held sacred.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Alberta's Anti-Trans Legislation
So, now that the UCP has rolled out their anti-trans legislation, we can take a long look at it. Yesterday, they tabled 3 related bills and...
-
On March 19, 2024 the United Conservative Party of Alberta held an event that they called " Let Kids Be Kids " (spoiler alert: i...
-
There is an entire class of argument that we see in discourse that basically relies on the idea that “physical attribute X means that Y can ...
-
So, India is expanding its temper tantrum over Canada expressing concerns over the suspected role of the Modi government in the murder of ...
3 comments:
Isn't there a saying about the three main topics of conversation being sex, politics and religion?
There is a certain amount of truth to this - the politicians have already invited themselves into the bedrooms of the nations, isn't it just natural progression for them to want to get some additional action with the man upstairs?
True enough.
Trudeau said it best in the 1960s: "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation"
I would argue that similarly, the state is not in the business of imposing faith upon the citizens of the nation.
America.
Canada.
----
Martin.
Bush.
----
There still is a difference. Sorta
Post a Comment