It's no great revelation to suggest the politics of the Conservative Party of Canada are steeped in religion, and that the Prime Minister and a number of his most prominent political allies are motivated by a religious ethos in their official capacities as national rule-makers. The Tories' mixing of politics and religion -- most recently manifested in the abortion motion vote in parliament, Vic Toews' cutting of funding for non-Christian prison chaplains and MP Rob Anders' opposition to transgendered people getting to choose which bathroom they are permitted to relieve their bowels in -- don't suggest religious vigour has overrun political debate in this country but reinforce the fact the two go hand in hand. Religion is politics, and politics religion.
It is entirely nonsensical to require that religious people abide by their belief exclusively in the privacy of their own homes, because religion is much more than a private manner. In the first place, religion manifests itself in communal prayers and gatherings at least as much as it does in individual action and contemplation, if not more so -- Christians, Jews, Muslims and Sikhs may differ on what day of the week they attend services, but all agree these gatherings are central to their traditions.
And that is not the extent of religion in public -- for so many church, mosque and synagogue-goers, belief and tradition determine where they live and gather, who they marry, even with whom they work. Requesting of these people that they mute religion when it comes to politics -- any public realm for that matter -- displays a failure to comprehend just how all-encompassing religious belief is, and the impossibility, if one is religious, of turning belief on and off depending on the context.
On the other side, really, what is politics if not religion? Groups of people, often large groups of people, organized by and devoted to specific worldviews. Immense rule books that define an action or ideological stance to take on every conceivable incident in human life. Party conventions where all gather to worship the leader and empower his disciples. How is that any different from religion?
As for the particular accusation that the Harper Conservatives have established religion as a basis from which to establish and alter policy, there's no denying it. But I highly suspect the Christian right isn't alone in aspiring to have the power to decide where trangendered people are allowed to pee and poop, and it is most certainly not the only religious sect hell-bent on controlling the abortion debate. (Toews's bizarre cutback, on the other hand, is purely a play to Christians since the sensible thing would have been to chop all chaplain jobs and let missionaries and zealots from every conceivable religious group take up the task of ministering to prisoners free of charge, which they obviously would be happy to do.)
Further, the mixing of religion and politics by politicians is hardly confined to the right in general -- the number of Liberals and NDPers who don't go to church or some other religious equivalent is dwarfed by the number who do. Even at the far-left end of the spectrum, where anti-religious, hippie atheists are most likely to find themselves, there's Elizabeth May, who one day aspires to be a minister.
Every major national party will attempt to woo ethnic voters with like-minded candidates and boondoggles designed to show sympathy for religion and traditions (for politicians, mixing religion and politics doesn't exclusively mean incorporating one's own particular religion when the right photo op with another religious group, preferably involving the wearing of traditional costumes, presents itself). If the conflating of religion and politics is a crime, everyone's guilty.
Unless it's not a bad thing to begin with because religion and politics have a lot in common. Whichever way you slice it at the core what we're talking about is believing in something, so whether one believes in god or in this or that political movement, basically it's the same thing. And that's why it's fairly common, not some great tragedy, that we believe in both at the same time.
Follow Yoni Goldstein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/yonigoldstein
This is a ludicrous statement. Religion is the belief in some "thing," or "force" absent any verifiable, testable and reproducible evidence. To suggest subjective experience (I know there is a god because I feel in my heart there is a god) is equivalent to objective data (this object contains 2 moles of carbon 14) accrued through the scientific method and tested via empirical and verifiable means is delusional and dangerous. The statement that "this object contain 2 moles of carbon 14" is a measurable and verifiable statement; it involves no belief! It involves the empirical examination of a statement as consistent with objective evidence, not subjective experience. Whether I have belief that this is true is meaningless; if the object is subjected to empirical testing and determined to contain the said amount it is simply a statement that is congruent with the observable, verifiable and testable evidence; belief has nothing to do with it! To suggest that rational, reasoned and experimentally supported positions are the same as the subjective experience of a sky fairy (which we can reproduce in the brain using many stimuli) suggests to me you're ignorant of the difference between a faith-position (subjective) and a scientifically supported statement (objectively quantifiable, testable and verifiable through experiment...reality testing).
Education is the only known cure.
He classifies "religion" and "politics" mere, innocent, neutral "groups," and gives his A-OK to that arrangement to rule all people in our polity!
BY definition, "groups" differentiate people IN the group from people who are OUT of the group. Groups are therefore exclusive, not inclusive.
Thus, by Mr Goldstein's reckoning, Canadians who are not Christians (I am one) are not represented by Rev. Harper's clubby little theocracy! "The Harper Government" [notice how Harper has assumed this style of address, not the old "The Government of Canada."] is therefore not my government. I am an "outsider."
Now, that certainly is prejudicial, toward me and millions of other Canadians!
But that exclusion could work both ways: if The Harper Government is not MY government, than its rules are not mine. and I am free to live by my own rules. That's called Anarchy.
Mr Goldstein, what are you doing writing on Huff Po about politics? May I suggest you hit the books and study up on John Locke and the philosophy of Liberal Democracy.
Liberal Democracy is a time-tested humanist political arrangement wherein all citizens live by a Social Contract. We all agree to to live together in harmony, attempting to accommodate the wishes and means of one another without prejudice, as far as is politically possible. We negotiate accommodation. We do NOT impose our religious values upon others!
I thought this was the most important question asked, as a female and an atheist. Both candidates spoke about their personal beliefs, but it was only Biden who said he would never want to push his own religious ethics on others via policy: that is the very essence of what you are prescribing for representatives, to govern with the utmost attenetion to one's ethics, while maintaining equal respect for the beliefs of others.
That is the essence of secularism. It isn't a form of moral relativism, because in the real world our politicians can rarely agree to disagree- they must reach imperfect consensus in the space where different interests and worldviews collide. It is more a simple commitment to mutual respect and rational compromise as a starting point for debate.
But of course, that is my own biased opinion, based on my own personal ethics.
May is a practicing Anglican and actually studied theology in order to become ordained.......HELLO!!
No one gets to "opt out" of laws we reach through legal consensus, that's sort of what a secular democracy is about.