CHP: Why Church and State MUST Be Kept Apart

This morning's troll through the wingnut-o-sphere turned up this little gem on Wingnut Daily. (which is being parroted here on Tristan Emmanuel's blog)

It seems that the Christian Heritage Party and its leader are the subject of a couple of human rights complaints. Largely for recycling and posting material that is hostile to GLBT persons. (Go read the article over on Wingnut Daily if you want ... I'll not be recycling that spewage here)

However, that led me to start poking through the CHP's website, just to see what they have to say for themselves. Essentially, they advocate for what amounts to a form of theocracy - even if they wrap themselves in the cloak of democracy.

From their policy pages on what they euphemistically call Civil Government:

1. GOD, MAN, AND GOVERNMENT
We affirm that God is the Originator, Sustainer, and Judge of all governments. Those who govern, whether in the family, the church, or the civil realm, are ministers of God for our good, and therefore are subject to God's Laws (1). Since authority t o govern is ultimately derived from God, the state does not wield supreme power over the individual, family, or church, but is obliged to respect their legitimate jurisdictions. Government exists to serve God by dispensing justice, protecting basic human freedoms, and directing the activities of the community as a whole towards justice and righteousness.

I see - these clowns want to revive the "Divine Right to Govern" concept that the monarchy used in centuries past. (I don't think we need to spend too much time reflecting on how that particular exercise went)

1. ORIGIN OF HUMAN RIGHTS
We affirm that the value and dignity of the individual is derived from man's being created in the image of God. 'Human rights', therefore, have no other source than the God of the Holy Bible, and cannot be construed as to mean the freedom to commit acts which the Bible openly calls 'sin' (i.e. the transgression of the Moral Law of God).

There's an interesting problem here. Essentially the claims in this would return us to the era of stoning people to death, and treating women as chattel rather than persons. Lovely...just lovely.

But the real gems are just starting to emerge:

3. DISCRIMINATION
We affirm that no person (or group) has unlimited freedom to do anything desired, without due consideration for the 'rights' of others. 'Human rights' do not conflict, and the 'rights' of one person should not be interpreted by civil magistrates, or upheld under civil law, in such a way that they infringe upon the basic 'human rights' of another. The term 'discrimination' cannot in all cases be equated with a denial of 'human rights'. Discrimination is an inevitable consequence when a choice is mad e between good and evil, or between those that wish to uphold honesty and integrity, and those that don't.

Uh huh. Yes, you read that right. They want to reserve - in law - the right to marginalize people based entirely upon the CHP's notion of good and evil - how generous of them. You can just guess who are first in line for their righteous wrath - GLBT people, followed by anyone who dares not follow the CHP's idea of "Christian righteousness".

From their more foundational Basis of Christian Law pages:

We assert the importance of maintaining the Biblical basis of the Common Law, transcending any clauses of or judgments under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or any rulings or interpretations by Human Rights Commissions, in accordance with the Preamble to the Canadian Constitution.

I see, so the notion of "biblical law" applying in Canada derives from a particularly brain damaged interpretation of the preamble to The Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law

I've heard that canard before. It's largely derived from some pretty bold assertions as to what that phrase means. As part of a preamble it perhaps provides some contextual guidance, but certainly does not provide legal weight to any particular notion of scripture or "God". Although one would tend to suspect the authors were referring to a Christian concept, the fact that the document later discusses freedom of religion explicitly, it would seem that they may well have meant a much broader concept of godhood than what the CHP is reading.

And then they become quite explicit about their intentions to marginalize and discriminate against GLBT people:

3. SEXUAL ABERRATIONS
It should be beyond the power of any legislative or administrative body to recognize, affirm, condone, or discriminate in favor of, identifiable sexually aberrant individuals or groups (1).

I see...so being visibly "different" should be grounds for being fired, denied residency etc.? No, I don't think so. We've tried that before and the result was some of the darker periods in human history.

The Christian Heritage Party presents in their platform all of the things that make me a firm believer that the Church has no place whatsoever in the governance of a nation these days.

I don't know the specifics of the alleged complaints by Mr. Wells, but the very policy foundations of the CHP are as noxious as anything I've ever seen on Wingnut Daily. The fact that the allegations are being reported on Wingnut Daily right now, and I have yet to find an independent corroborating source is enough to make me question the claims on Wingnut Daily - however, the party's policy platforms themselves strike me as containing just cause all by themselves. (Biblical allusions contained therein aside)