Government And Religion, Reciting the Lords' Prayer.

The Canadian Constitution like all good Constitutions guarantees the separation of Church and State, which is as it should be. For almost 140 years the Parliament of Ontario has opened with the reciting of the Lords Prayer and now there is a proposal to abolish this practice. I for one think this has been long overdue. Our Parliament is made up of many different ethnic and religious groups and it is only right that no one group or religious belief be put ahead of any other. This has of course spawned the proverbial tempest with the Religious Right leading the charge.
The Evangelicals use the old stale argument that the "Founders" of the Nation did so under God. Well I beg to differ. The first Europeans here were Vikings and they were just looking for land to farm. They didn't last to long. The next to show up were the Basque fishermen catching Cod followed by the French looking for Gold. They found little gold but they did find something just as good if not better. BEAVER. Then along comes "The Company of Gentlemen Explorers" That of course is the English original name for the Hudsons Bay Company. Religion was the caboose that was dragged along by the settlers. Canada like the rest of the New World was founded by businessmen looking to turn a profit so lets put and end to this hypocrisy about being founded under God. .

PS: I doubt that the so called founders consulted with Manitou.


Camac.

Good morning Dave, you know since I use to strike out the words, (in god we trust) from whatever money that passed through my hands. I couldn’t agree with you more.

Hello J.C.

Can't do that with our money. No reference to God on it.

Camac.

Just don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

I absolutely agree with the Seperation of Church and State. But at the same time I vehemently disagree with the idea of the seperation of church from the State and the growing willingness of the State isolate believers. In the wake of the 20th century's proliferation of postmodernist ideals; the core of them being that there is no knowable truth, Western governments have been in a scramble to legislate permanent supports under the weight of society that had been previously held aloft by mutually agreed upon moral authorities. Those same moral authorities that are being systematically removed from our societies.

The Western Legal corpus is growing exponentially because our societies have come to interpret the doctrine of "Seperation of Church and State" to mean the freedom from Truth. The result has been a massive game of "wag the dog" as legislators and lobbyists try to appease their respective constituent bases which are proposing (in some cases) vastly different agendas. No one is allowed to say 'yes' to one and 'no' to the other because the sophists defending each argument legitimately have equal footing upon which to stand and deliver their points of view. Which is to say that none of them realy have any footing at all since we've effectively removed all foundations. The end result is that the loudest sophist with the most money and greatest access to the meadia wins!

Once upon a time paople held certain truths to be self-evident. Whether or not you choose to believe that they are endowed by the Creator is a personal choice that we all have to make. But that choice doesn't change that those truths that are self-evident.

An aside, just for a perspective on point of view.

I believe that for the most part the Left/Right divide is a pretty transient. Some think I'm liberal. Some think I'm conservative. The fact of the matter is that I'm a tad to one side or the other of the middle. Don't ask me because I don't know. What matters most to me is the other axis of the political scale. The one that measures the distance between Statism and Individualism. You can bet your last breath that I tolerate Statism only is small doses, and then only as necessary. Deliver the mail, put out fires, incarcerate the criminally violent and the thieves, fix the streets, make sure the toilet flushes, and pick up the trash. Beyond that, leave me alone.

FamhairCloiche

You state that you "vehemently disagree with the seperation of church from state"
You also say that the seperation of Church and State is interpreted as "Freedom from the Truth". Whose truth. Yours? If I do not agree with your truth am I to be shunned? Is my truth any less truthfull than yours? Without the seperation of Church and State and Church from state methinks we would be on the path towards Theocratic Dictatorship as in the case of most Islamic Republics. This means the abrogation of any fundemental rights that do not conform to religious doctrine. Moral Codes are not just religious they are also societal and most of them were around long before religion or the church got ahold of them.

You state my point exactly!

Is murder acceptable?
Ever?
What about if 85% of us say that it's OK to kill the other 15%?
Is it OK then?
But what if they're all dirty Jews?

The abandonment of "Moral Codes" is exactly where we're heading, and what I in too many words was trying to convey. That's the baby. Religion is just the bath water.
Theocratic dictatorship is only one possible response to the abscense moral code. Enlightened oligarchy in the mold of Socrates' philosopher king and beyond the power of the populace is quite another, and in my mind equally terrifying!

To me the Seeration of Church and State implies the ability of the two entities to govern their own affairs with an equal degree of respect of one for the other not to intrude in those affairs. The source of this doctrine were the several incursions of THE Church upon the various European govenment (investiture controversies being the most prevalent).
What has happened by the State intruding into the the Church's realm is that the State is having to create boundaries in society where religous doctrine used to exist. This is where the exponential growth of the legal corpus is in evidence. Because where the state used to just pick up the pieces, so to speak, of conduct that fell beyond the pale of church authority, now the State is trying to establish that same authority while not building upon the moral convictions of past generations. But in doing so without any heed to any self-evident truths, confusion is only value being cultivated effectively.

When I say "church" authority, I mean religious patterns of behavoir. Ultimately, independent of any system of faith, the temperance of people's behavior towards civility is the role of organized religion in society.

Famhaircloice'

My Friend; you ask if murder is acceptable? Ever? Yes it is. there are certain individuals who in my opinion have lost the right to be call Human and should be eliminated as you would a rabid dog. Mass murder or Genocide is never acceptable. As to the loss of moral codes, do you not agree that as long as we have the rule of law and that parents bear their responsiblity to pass on and teach the young those codes they will not be lost. Neither of my children were raised in a religious atomosphere but they were taught the difference of right and wrong and what is acceptable behaviour.



Camac.

...and when that statement can stand on its own with no strings attached, then we will have truely achieved a respectable level of maturity as a people.

You and I don't seem to really have any arguement.
I'm not advocating for the imposition of religion upon the government, and I don't think you are arguing for the expulsion of religious faith from society.

Just to state the point for anybody reading: For better or for worse, religion's influence is decreasing in the governance of our interpersonal affairs to whatever degree it ever did, and government is trying to fill the gap with laws that nurture the security of all.

It just doesn't seem to be doing a very good job in my opinion simply because it is trying be everything to everybody instead of being what it's told to be by those who hold the majority opinion.

Basically, let government be government, and church be church. Restrict the government from coming into my bedroom, but at the same time don't peddle your perversions in public. ("your" not being specific Camac). When people start proving that they can conduct themselves without impinging upon others, and when people can not be impinged upon by every supposed misdeed of others, then this will cease to be a relevent subject.

Trouble is, that may be another 10,000 years off!

FamhairCloiche

Methinks you are right we don't seem to have much of an argument. As to the 10,00 years, I have infinite faith in humanity but I will admit at times it is strained.


Camac.

Try living in Oklahoma!

No Thanks. Lived in San Antonio for 2 years. That was enough of the wild west for me.

Camac.

In reading the U.S. Constitution along with the Federalist Papers it is easy to see the intent of our fore-fathers. They meant that the State could never establish a specific religion for its citizens. They would be forever free to worship however they chose. This was not the case in Europe at that time and before. Our initial laws were based on the Ten Commandments. God is referenced in the Constitution and Federalist Papers regularly. (I used to know how many times but have forgotten) It was never intended that prayer and the pledge of allegiance would be banned anywhere in this country or where our Citizens meet in foreign lands.

Since our beginnings we have accumulated too many laws and both the Constitution and Bill of Rights have regularly been misinterpreted!

That is what made me a Constitutional Conservative.

Slàinte,    

Patch