POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY LORNA DUECK IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
This is dishonest stuff.
First, it starts with a truism, faith affects politics.
Yes, just as temperament, age, literacy, and a host of characteristics. So what?
So long as the faith part remains just a part of personal motivation, there can be no argument.
But accepting that does not mean that expressions of faith should become part of national politics or have a role in policy or laws.
That is gigantic leap from a feeble truism.
We simply have too many faiths and shades of various faiths to allow that to happen without unpleasant consequences.
Just look at some of the debates and controversies in the United States over the last few decades of the Religious Right entering formally into politics.
Almost all of it has been a vast waste of resources and human effort for no gain, full of hysteria and screaming and even violence.
Freedom of religion absolutely includes freedom from religion in the public sphere.
Any politician who makes an effort to disturb our delicate balance deliberately to make some little political gain - very much what Harper has done - is someone to shame and disapprove of.
Otherwise, we end up with vicious morons like Huckabee or Gingrich making outlandish statements and proposals, getting campaign funds for doing so, and only scattering dragon's teeth in society.
Harper and Baird and Kent have already started down this damnable path, a path which vitiates democracy and rewards special interests.
Of course, Jesus said to render unto to Caesar what is Caesar's, and he condemned the Pharisees for their public pretentious prayers, saying prayer was a private matter between God and God's creatures.
But that hasn't stopped so-called Christians from trying to railroad over others time and time again.