I shake my head at anyone who styles themselves "liberal" or "progressive" who gasps in dismay when someone mentions they attend church. Do you understand the meaning of those two words?
Not everyone who goes to church on Sundays (or temple on Saturdays, etc.) is a nutter. In fact, I would go so far as to say there are quite an unhealthy number of people claiming no affiliation or a "humanistic" theology that hold some pretty disturbed ideas. It is only types like Chandler who cloak themselves in religious piety (yet never seem to practice what they preach) who ruin it for the rest of us.
I commend someone who has the gumption to run for public office, and not hide who they are and what they believe in. Good luck to you.
First off, I don't actually care if someone goes to church every Sunday or not (or whatever faith observance you wish). The fact of someone's faith, or its absence is quite immaterial to me. The vast majority of church-going people are pretty rational and sane about things, and similarly the majority of people who choose not to attend church are pretty rational as well - neither has a lock on "rightness" or virtue.
However, we do not live in a theocracy, nor do we live in a country that gives primacy to any specific religious tradition. In such circumstances, we must reasonably view matters of faith as matters of personal liberty, and bound their exercise of those freedoms appropriately - especially if they are standing for public office.
I would go so far as to say there are quite an unhealthy number of people claiming no affiliation or a "humanistic" theology that hold some pretty disturbed ideas.
Since our commenter is being amazingly broad in such statements, one can only guess what they might be referring to. Any particular system of beliefs or perspective on the world can be twisted into some pretty hideous conclusions - a brief review of various periods in the history of the Catholic Church demonstrates that quite clearly. (Most people would be quite horrified by the reasoning present in the Malleus Maleficarum, for example)
Broad-based accusations of this sort are really quite meaningless, providing no grounds upon which to address them.
It is only types like Chandler who cloak themselves in religious piety (yet never seem to practice what they preach) who ruin it for the rest of us.
My grandfather used to have a saying "It is your responsibility to pay attention to our government and vote because if you do not, those whom you would least want in power will get there".
I'm sad to say it, but in recent years the rise of so-called "values voting" has dragged a particularly unpleasant form of "Christian" faith into the public arena, and given it a prominence that it does not deserve. Under such circumstances when someone proclaims themselves to be "a person of faith", is it unreasonable for the voters to question just what that catch phrase means? (One must, in fairness, be similarly vigilant about how others put things forward as well - politics is a game often filled with evasion and partial statements)
There are a number of similar "catch phrases" out there that are seemingly "empty", and often carry some surprising implications. "Pro-Life", "Family Values" and "Values Voter" are among the best known such catch phrases - fairly empty, innocuous sounding combinations of words whose full meaning varies from faction to faction among the voters - and some factions take some pretty unpleasant interpretations of those phrases.
One example that comes to mind is that the so-called "Pro-Life" movement in some corners is beginning to represent not just "anti-abortion" activists, but is going so far as to advocate against contraception of any sort.
Some so-called "Family Values" advocates in the United States are beginning to demand that funding aimed at AIDS research be directed elsewhere - primarily on the unfounded assertion that AIDS is primarily a disease of "the gay lifestyle".
It is the extremism, which often shrouds itself in the cloak of religiosity, that must be watched for and stood against, as it ultimately works to all our disadvantage.
13 comments:
My purpose for letting people know that I am a member of a church congregation is not to attract any "extremist" votes. It is simply a part of who I am. I agree completely that there have been horrible atrocities committed in the name of many religions, including Christianity. Does that make religion bad? Absolutely not! Do you have to attend church to be a good person? Absolutely not!
I would not want someone to vote for me simply because I attend church. Nor would I expect to be disqualified for the same reason. Make your decision based on who you feel will best represent you in government.
Those people who have “extremist” views and want someone to represent them should vote for another candidate. I want to appeal to those who want their concerns listened to. I am looking to appeal to the average voter, not the elitists nor the extremists.
Don,
I don't take anything you have put forward as "extreme" at all.
I was musing aloud more around the assumptions that I felt were embedded in that particular comment, and trying (perhaps failing) to state how I see some of that fitting together in the current political climate in Canada generally.
I apologize if you felt that I was going after you in some specific way.
Grog,
I have been accused on other Blogs of being an "extremist". I did not take your musings to be such an accusation. I did want to express my views, and displeasure that I am being compared to previous candidates who may have attempted to mobilize a particular faction using Christianity as a tool.
I have to accept responsibility for people making assumptions about me, as I do have an incomplete website. Hopefully it will be completed by December 31, and people will have the opportunity to view who I am and what I stand for as a whole.
No apology necessary, but thank you all the same.
I would be interested in talking to you more outside of a public forum. Can I reach you via e-mail? My address is on my website if you wish to contact me.
Don,
As a Christian I am a little offended at you trying to distance yourself from your beliefs.
Ted Morton was labeled extreme as was Preston Manning and even Chandler. I do not feel any of these people are extreme.
Oddly, I find it extreme to slam other Christians, not cool.
I posted the comment that lead to Grog's post. My comment was based on a prior comment from another poster who made a big deal about this Middleton fellow daring to mention that he attended church from time to time. It was not based on an original post from Grog, as you might believe from his subsequent writing.
But, Grog took this comment and ran with it... somehow trying to relate a centuries-old period in which some Catholic officials went to extremes in the pursuit of "truth" (as they saw it). When all else fails, throw in some comment about the Inquisition, or Ratzinger, huh?
My comments were intentionally broad, as I was not trying to single out any particular individual. But if you are looking for one, when I said: "I would go so far as to say there are quite an unhealthy number of people claiming no affiliation or a "humanistic" theology that hold some pretty disturbed ideas."
... you could easily come up with a number of ideologies and individuals that fit that description. For example, if one considers radical environmental extremists to be in that category, Google the name "Toni Vernelli". That this lady could have an abortion and then self-sterilize to reduce her carbon footprint, yet see no problem with continuing to emit CO2 from her lungs is an Orwellian contradiction that would make any communist dictator of the past century proud. Would you like this person in elected office?
My point - as I evidently failed to make it - was that extremists should not be defined by religious affiliation only, and that mentioning that a one has a religious aspect to their life need not be a mark of shame.
Anonymous@8:41:
Thank you for providing an example of what you consider to be "disturbed". I'm not sure it strengthens your position particularly.
When all else fails, throw in some comment about the Inquisition, or Ratzinger, huh?
If you have not studied the Malleus Maleficarum itself, and the kind of logic it is based on, you likely have misunderstood what I said as a "cheap shot" rather than as an example of where things can go horrendously wrong, on a surprisingly large scale - in the name of "Faith".
Good people can have religious affiliations, but it does not necessarily follow that religious affiliation makes someone "good".
The fact it is an example centuries old is irrelevant, as history has an ugly habit of repeating itself.
My point - as I evidently failed to make it - was that extremists should not be defined by religious affiliation only, and that mentioning that a one has a religious aspect to their life need not be a mark of shame.
I don't think it is, but I do claim that religiosity has been co-opted in the political landscape in both Canada and the United States by people and movements who use it in ways that are cynical, manipulative and deceitful.
Writes Kevin Frontenac:
Ted Morton was labeled extreme as was Preston Manning and even Chandler. I do not feel any of these people are extreme.
Ted Morton: Bill 208 - 'nuff said. The good news lately is that he has stuck primarily to his ministerial portfolio.
Chandler: Have you really paid attention to that whole debacle? Or have you just been reading his press releases?
Preston Manning: He's the only example you have that I nominally agree with. In Ottawa he seemed to be "getting it" and had started to moderate much of what he had said. (That said, I'm somewhat less impressed with what I've seen come out of his "think tank" organization in recent years)
I think Don has been fairly clear that although he has his faith, and those beliefs are part of his life, that he has a reasonable and fairly middle-of-the-road view of how his faith would fit into his role in public life. (A stance that I think few voters would have any concerns with)
Mr. Frontenac,
I am not sure what I have said that "distances" me from my beliefs. I simply want people to take the time to research the candidates who are running. Find out more about them and vote based on whom, in their view, is the best candidate. Voting for someone simply because they make a claim to share your religious affiliation, does not show a great deal of responsibility. Being a Christian is important to me, but it is only a part of who I am and does not, in itself, make me the best choice. As I said before, “Make your decision based on who you feel will best represent you in government.” I believe that I am the person to do that.
Bill 208 simply said that people should have the choice - tolerance goes both ways. If a gay/lesbian couple wanted to get married they could simply go to the next person. Who's imposing on who under the current system? Where does Middleton stand on this?
I disagree. Bill 208 is one of the most atrociously designed pieces of legislation I've ever seen.
Put in its full context, it opened the door for forms of discrimination against GLBT people that are utterly unjustified. {I went through the bill in some detail in an earlier post on this blog - it is deeply flawed}
It is a much, much broader bill than merely talking about civil marriage commissioners.
Religion has no place in the politics of Canada in 2008. Lets not fall into the trap of mixing state and religion - particularly since there is no official religion in Canada.
Just my two cents worth - but I don't think people object to people being faithful to their own beliefs in private - actually I would assume most people see that as a plus. It's when those same people start emphasizing their faith beliefs as part of their politics that people get uncomfortable - it seems like in the past that has been the first step to discovering the person is actually, a "nutter," as someone so eloquently put it above.
I find this all quite amusing. Has anyone read the Constitutional Act, 1982 of Canada. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#I
Trudeau was a Catholic and left the "supremacy of God" front and centre. A typo, perhaps. You would think the civil servants would have picked up on that by now.
This Middleton fellow seems pretty normal and the fact that he stuck to something for 11 years is encouraging, regardless of whether its his marriage, his church or his work. At least he follows through and doesn't quit when the going gets tough.
The members of the Egmont community need to find someone they can identify with. A 30 something teacher with two kids probably has a lot in common with the average Calgarian, regardless of whether or not they go to church. He likely still has a mortgage to pay, a car payment to make and is struggling like the rest of us Calgarians to make ends meet on decent salaries. Too bad I don't live in the riding.
Trudeau was a Catholic and left the "supremacy of God" front and centre. A typo, perhaps. You would think the civil servants would have picked up on that by now.
Yes, but you will note that the Preamble does not state whose notion of "God" is involved, and in the Fundamental Freedoms, the concept of "Freedom of Religion" does not provide that any one religion has any kind of precedence over others (including a choice not to believe in a deity).
Post a Comment