Yet that’s the future.
The office hasn’t opened yet and, according to the CBC, two prospective “ambassadors” to head the office have declined the post. Good, but unfortunately someone will eventually accept the job.
To even think of opening such an office — estimated cost is $5 million — reeks of insanity.
The late Northcote Parkinson (of Parkinson’s Law fame) understood the syndrome perfectly when he noted government bureaucracy cannot help tampering and is always eager to create a new bureaucracy which, once created, is hard to get rid of.
I prefer the bed bug or body lice analogy — once there, they’re hard to get rid of.
What on earth do we need an Office of Religious Freedom for?
Most of us believe people should be free to worship any way they wish, so long as their religion abides by society’s standards of taste and decency.
Still, the potential for controversy is unlimited.
Will the religious freedom office disintegrate into something like our hate legislation that is abused and misused to advance causes that are the very antithesis of freedom? Of course it will.
Forming such an office is akin to begging for trouble.
Look at the U.S., once a God-fearing nation that tended to abide by certain agreed-upon standards. Now, even the mention of God in a political context creates controversy and disharmony where none before existed.
“Merry Christmas” has morphed into “Season’s Greetings.”
Which religion is genuine, and which is a cult? Will the new office have an opinion, and if so how to reconcile that with individual beliefs?
Most of the world’s religions believe in God — one God.
Leave it at that.
The Christian religion is resented by some because it tends to proselytize — tries to persuade members of other religions to switch horses. Will this new office attack the missionary function of the Christian church? If so, why?
Leave it alone.
Religious convictions lead to strong feelings — and overzealousness. Some religions believe blasphemy should entail the death penalty. Should that be tolerated here?
Canada doesn’t need an Office of Religious Freedom.
Canada and the U.S. are generally religiously tolerant. You can believe anything you want, so long as you don’t bother others.
I suppose evangelists knocking on doors to persuade homeowners to see the light is a form of religious freedom.
Most of us don’t much like such invasions, but we tolerate them.
I suspect people would be less accommodating if Devil worshippers knocked on doors seeking converts.
How about religious freedom on the dark side? Satan worshippers and such?
Tolerance not the answer
Historically, religions are not notorious for tolerance or generosity to rival religions. But tolerance isn’t the answer. Jews don’t proselytize or seek converts, yet look at the animosity in some part of the world towards Judaism.
Will the Office of Religious Freedom solve that one?
No. It’s more likely to exacerbate religious hostility.
There’s some virtue in leaving some issues alone, especially when there’s no great need to do anything.
It’s too late to undo this silly and unnecessary decision by Ottawa, but it’s something Prime Minister Stephen Harper will eventually have to wrestle with in his conscience.
Another bit of folly by bureaucratic meddlers.
Original Article
Source: toronto sun
Author: Peter Worthington
No comments:
Post a Comment