The debate centered on the nature, scope and impact of institutional religion on Canadian governance has re-emerged with a vengeance over the past decade in Canada. This overdue debate is both necessary and healthy. It should not be seen as a sign of an attack on religion or religious institutions. This debate reflects our society’s legitimate concerns regarding a remarkable game changing political realignment that is now well underway in Canadian national politics.
The last time Canadians experienced a similar political realignment was in the 1890s when a French-Canadian, Catholic Wilfrid Laurier, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, became Prime Minister in the election of 1896. Laurier remained Prime Minister until 1911 and Liberal leader until his death in 1919. He faced strong pressures from very powerful Quebec Catholic Church leaders to formulate government policies that protected and advanced the interests of the Catholic Church. Laurier steadfastly refused to bow to these pressures. Nonetheless, the majority of French-Canadian Catholic voters continued to support Laurier’s Liberal Party and government.
The Liberal Party of Canada, under W.L.M. King, Louis St. Laurent, Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, John Turner, and Jean Chrétien, went on to dominate national politics for the entire 20th century. One central element of the LPC’s dominance was that Prime Minister Laurier had embedded in national politics four concepts: the separation of church and state, a respect for religious minorities, an acceptance of cultural pluralism, and linguistic duality. The Liberal Party of Canada’s ‘new nationality’ was essentially political and civic in nature. This entente cordial between institutionalized religion and the Canadian state worked to the benefit of all Canadian citizens and Canada, at home and abroad.
The current national political realignment is of a very different nature. Prime Minister Harper’s new right Conservative Party is a coalition of several constituencies comprising fiscal conservatives, western democratic populists, Québécois conservative nationalists, and right-wing Evangelical Christians, Protestant and Catholic. As part of the CP coalition, Canada’s growing community of hard-line and moderate conservative Evangelical Christians, often referred to as theological or social conservatives, played an important role in the formation of the Reform, Canadian Alliance, and Conservative parties between 1987 and 2003. Conservative Evangelical Christians then assisted Mr. Harper’s Conservative Party to achieve minority governments in 2006 and 2008 and finally a majority government in 2011.
It was to be expected that the conservative Evangelical Christian communities and their Conservative Members of Parliament in some constituencies would demand that the Harper government pay close attention to, and act upon, some of their legislative demands. As a self-avowed moderate conservative Evangelical Christian, Prime Minister Harper has responded to some but not all of their demands. He knows all-too-well that if he embraces and acts upon their more radical demands he will set off a political firestorm across the entire country. PM Harper is beginning to realize that the very future of his Conservative Party’s ability to remain in power is also put at serious risk by ignoring the centuries old precept of separation of church and state.
Of course an individual’s judgments about personal and public decisions and actions are influenced by his/her ideological and theological worldviews. It is precisely because of this reality that in western political thought the concept of separation of Church and State became a central tenant of all pluralistic democratic states and governance. The concept of separation of church and state emerged out of the accumulated experience, knowledge and understanding of the exceedingly brutal wars of religious that held sway over Western Europe for several centuries. This disastrous era finally culminated in several revolutions, one being the savage French Revolution of 1789. At the very core of the France’s Republic was the separation of Church and State.
In pluralistic and increasingly secular democratic states it is imperative to maintain a clear separation of church and state. If one religious group, majority or minority, uses powerful state institutions to impose its religious beliefs on the rest of society, then this becomes a recipe for a very disruptive and very damaging political civil war.
Pluralistic democratic states allow all citizens to participate in the political process, to get elected, and to exercise executive, legislative and judicial powers as part of the government. Governments are in power, at the will of the citizens, to govern for the entire citizenry. They are not empowered by the voters to govern for one class, one religion, one gender, or one race. Of course, this can and does happen but the ensuing turmoil is destructive because it breeds distrust in democracy and undermines the legitimacy of state institutions.
To maintain, as Professor Paul Rowe did in his column of last week, that politicians can and should govern and legislate on the basis of their religious beliefs because the electorate has the opportunity turf them out at the next election is naïve and disingenuous in the extreme.
If a particular government’s religious beliefs happen to reflect those of the majority religion – as is more often than not the case – the government will get re-elected. This means that this religiously driven majority government will continue to impose with impunity the religious beliefs of the majority on all minority religious communities.
To maintain stable, productive and democratic governance, it is imperative that pluralistic states adhere to the concept of the separation of church and state. The powerful institutions of the state and taxpayers hard-earned taxes should not be used to advance the religious beliefs or institutional development of any religious community.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Michael Behiels
The last time Canadians experienced a similar political realignment was in the 1890s when a French-Canadian, Catholic Wilfrid Laurier, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, became Prime Minister in the election of 1896. Laurier remained Prime Minister until 1911 and Liberal leader until his death in 1919. He faced strong pressures from very powerful Quebec Catholic Church leaders to formulate government policies that protected and advanced the interests of the Catholic Church. Laurier steadfastly refused to bow to these pressures. Nonetheless, the majority of French-Canadian Catholic voters continued to support Laurier’s Liberal Party and government.
The Liberal Party of Canada, under W.L.M. King, Louis St. Laurent, Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, John Turner, and Jean Chrétien, went on to dominate national politics for the entire 20th century. One central element of the LPC’s dominance was that Prime Minister Laurier had embedded in national politics four concepts: the separation of church and state, a respect for religious minorities, an acceptance of cultural pluralism, and linguistic duality. The Liberal Party of Canada’s ‘new nationality’ was essentially political and civic in nature. This entente cordial between institutionalized religion and the Canadian state worked to the benefit of all Canadian citizens and Canada, at home and abroad.
The current national political realignment is of a very different nature. Prime Minister Harper’s new right Conservative Party is a coalition of several constituencies comprising fiscal conservatives, western democratic populists, Québécois conservative nationalists, and right-wing Evangelical Christians, Protestant and Catholic. As part of the CP coalition, Canada’s growing community of hard-line and moderate conservative Evangelical Christians, often referred to as theological or social conservatives, played an important role in the formation of the Reform, Canadian Alliance, and Conservative parties between 1987 and 2003. Conservative Evangelical Christians then assisted Mr. Harper’s Conservative Party to achieve minority governments in 2006 and 2008 and finally a majority government in 2011.
It was to be expected that the conservative Evangelical Christian communities and their Conservative Members of Parliament in some constituencies would demand that the Harper government pay close attention to, and act upon, some of their legislative demands. As a self-avowed moderate conservative Evangelical Christian, Prime Minister Harper has responded to some but not all of their demands. He knows all-too-well that if he embraces and acts upon their more radical demands he will set off a political firestorm across the entire country. PM Harper is beginning to realize that the very future of his Conservative Party’s ability to remain in power is also put at serious risk by ignoring the centuries old precept of separation of church and state.
Of course an individual’s judgments about personal and public decisions and actions are influenced by his/her ideological and theological worldviews. It is precisely because of this reality that in western political thought the concept of separation of Church and State became a central tenant of all pluralistic democratic states and governance. The concept of separation of church and state emerged out of the accumulated experience, knowledge and understanding of the exceedingly brutal wars of religious that held sway over Western Europe for several centuries. This disastrous era finally culminated in several revolutions, one being the savage French Revolution of 1789. At the very core of the France’s Republic was the separation of Church and State.
In pluralistic and increasingly secular democratic states it is imperative to maintain a clear separation of church and state. If one religious group, majority or minority, uses powerful state institutions to impose its religious beliefs on the rest of society, then this becomes a recipe for a very disruptive and very damaging political civil war.
Pluralistic democratic states allow all citizens to participate in the political process, to get elected, and to exercise executive, legislative and judicial powers as part of the government. Governments are in power, at the will of the citizens, to govern for the entire citizenry. They are not empowered by the voters to govern for one class, one religion, one gender, or one race. Of course, this can and does happen but the ensuing turmoil is destructive because it breeds distrust in democracy and undermines the legitimacy of state institutions.
To maintain, as Professor Paul Rowe did in his column of last week, that politicians can and should govern and legislate on the basis of their religious beliefs because the electorate has the opportunity turf them out at the next election is naïve and disingenuous in the extreme.
If a particular government’s religious beliefs happen to reflect those of the majority religion – as is more often than not the case – the government will get re-elected. This means that this religiously driven majority government will continue to impose with impunity the religious beliefs of the majority on all minority religious communities.
To maintain stable, productive and democratic governance, it is imperative that pluralistic states adhere to the concept of the separation of church and state. The powerful institutions of the state and taxpayers hard-earned taxes should not be used to advance the religious beliefs or institutional development of any religious community.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Michael Behiels
No comments:
Post a Comment