By Rick Hiebert. All Rights Reserved. Used by Permission.
If you have read Marci McDonald’s new book, you will recall that Preston Manning–the former Reform Party leader–is someone that she has misgivings about, which she shared at some length.
On Monday June 14, in a speech in Charlottetown, PEI, Manning said some interesting things when you keep in mind the comments that you read in The Armageddon Factor.
The local newspaper quotes him as saying:
“What (politicians) do in practice is keep faith and politics in two separate watertight compartments.â€
There are a number of reasons for this, including pressure from party whips and officials for politicians to stay on message, the idea to appeal to the separation of church and state and to remain neutral in a multicultural society like Canada, Manning said.
“We simply don’t know how to handle expression of faith in the political arena,†he said.
However, considering Canada’s democratic society, this will likely not be the case forever, Manning said.
“In the long run, it is not possible to keep faith and politics in separate watertight compartments, not in a free and democratic society.â€
The responsibility to make this change does not fall on those who feel the need to restrict faith discussions in political settings, Manning said.
“The initiative for legitimating the discussion of faith in the political arena has to come from those of us who believe and have faith.â€
Hmmm…
h/t to Ray Pennings who cites this too.
Well, of course it is impossible to totally separate them. Though some of the so-called Christians do a pretty good job about forgetting to feed the hungry and all those other things Jesus quite clearly told them to do. There seems to be an attitude of “My religion says I must…” when it suits their politics, and “I keep my religion and my politics separate” when it doesn’t.
Pisses me off.
As a Quaker, I am now convinced that one cannot be loyal to both the state and to God, because their claims are mutually exclusive.
John Médaille at Front Porch Republic recently discussed has some interesting thoughts on this subject, in the context of a brief review of William T. Cavanaugh’s The Myth of Religious Violence.
‘…the so-called “separation of church and state†is a complete sham. As Robert Bellah put it, the state becomes “an elaborate and well-institutionalized civil religion†that “has its own seriousness and integrity and requires the same care in understanding that any other religion does.†The real issue is where we place what Cavanaugh calls our “lethal loyalties,†which have been transferred to this new religion and its universal mission: the imposition of democracy and market economics on the whole world. None of us would think of killing for the faith, but killing for the state becomes “patriotism.‒
Dave:
It is good to hear from you again.:^)
I’ve missed your observational skills and acute sense of what is going on around you.
Here in Canada a media company wants to start up another news channel. One of the many goals is patriotism clothed in conservatism.
I am sorry to say it will probably do quite well.
In my view much of the discussion surrounding these issues misses what is the real problem here. Basically all religions have moral positions that are not perfectly implemented in the laws of the state: Mormons are forbidden to drink coffee, Jehovah Witnesses to have blood transfusions, and observant Jews to eat pork. Yet these groups, as far as I know, have not attempted to force these strictures on their neighbours. The state is always going to allow things that individual religions forbid.
The problem is that some religious conservatives apparently want to force their beliefs on their neighbours through law — on birth-control, abortion, the legal rights of homosexuals — and these are matters in which their views are increasingly at odds with the public.