Tuesday, July 19, 2005

The accidental theocrat

Just because you don't believe in the supernatural, that doesn't mean that your religion isn't just as cultish and (gag) "intolerant" as the next one. From the faith group that brought you the miracles of "unity in diversity" and "universal health care" comes this CBC Commentary, courtesy FD:

We could also help the general cause of religious freedom by introducing a code of moral practice for religions. They will never achieve unity so why not try for compatibility? Can't religious leaders agree to adjust doctrine so all religions could operate within the law?
The "law", of course, meaning "whatever crazy new notions we will invent in the next five minutes and implement in law so as to divide our opposition and undermine naturally arising social ties so that they may be replaced by profitable government programs".

One impediment of the likes of the Party and the UN is belief in an unchanging authority higher than their own freshly half-tossed word salads of the day. Whether you call that authority "God", "nature", "reality", or "the blatantly obvious", no Party can long abide values that are derived from it and that are not subject to change when politically beneficial.


basil said...

From the CBC link:

"I envisage a congress meeting to hammer [and sickle] out a code that would form the basis of legislation to regulate the practice of religion. Like the professional engineers' P.Eng designation, there would then be RRPs (or registered religious practitioners). To carry the analogy to its conclusion, no one could be a religious practitioner without this qualification."

Gee whiz, why didn't God think of that?

Anonymous said...

God was only one being, without SSHRC funding or the benefit of a Marxist social science or humanities education. Besides, do you really think Bob Ferguson falls for that faith business? I can't believe this guy makes a living from public money. On the other hand, I don't think he could make money any other way.

Former Londoner said...

Ferguson's reason for his proposal? " I do it because I am worried that the separation between church and state is under threat."

So the solution is for the state to take over the churches, change doctrines, ban some activities, monitor others and defrock dissidents. He wants to impose his own religious views on everyone else.

Sorry Bob, its been tried, many times, and it doesn't work. It has always backfired.

Pietr said...

Former Londoner should take a look at the British Home Office site, particularly the bits showing the 'Anti-Terrorsit Act 2000'.
That can ban absolutely anything in specific detail for any individual.
It's really really shite!