"The Premier should explain to her constituents which of the many varied Biblical values she follows, how they shape her political views, and whether she is committed to upholding the separation of church and state and the primacy of evidence-based public policy should evidence conflict with her worldview."
Perhaps he, and other like minded people, should be reminded of Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ... everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Now, just to be clear, here is how the Centre for Inquiry describes itself:
The Centre for Inquiry is an educational charity with a legal mandate to educate and provide training to the public in the application of skeptical, secular, rational, and humanistic enquiry through conferences, symposia, lectures, published works and the maintenance of a library, and to develop communities where like-minded individuals can meet and share their experiences. We focus on three broad areas: 1. Religion, Ethics and Society, 2. Pseudoscience, Paranormal and Fringe-science claims, 3. Medicine and Health
They have also been quoted, and commented on, by the Canadian Atheist organization, which is:
" ... a collection of atheists from across
I for one have a personal religious belief, I am free to have it, and no one can deny me that right. Premier Christy Clark enjoys that same right.
That does not stop her, or me for that matter, from holding elected office if we choose to do so! The same holds true for those with no religious belief ... or who describe themselves as atheists or free-thinkers.
If an elected official was to attend a special religious celebration of Sikh's, at their temple, no one would raise a fuss and say they were promoting Sikhism?
If an elected official was to take their son or daughter out Trick or Treating no one would say they were promoting Satanic worship?
If First Nations Elders have a prayer / drum ceremony to begin to begin an official event or meeting, of or with government officials, does that contravene the separation of church and state?
NO of course not!
This demand by, Center For Inquiry National Communications Director Justin Trottier shows disrespect, across the board, to any and all who hold religious or spiritual belief of any kind. It shows a lack of respect -- and it insults the very foundations of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I'm Alan Forseth in
6 comments:
you are invited to follow my blog
I agree that both you and the Premier are entitled to your personal religious beliefs. However, I see problems if the leader of this province wants to make decisions for the province based on religious beliefs. Decisions should be based on "best evidence" to benefit the province. Our constitution does not prevent her or you from holding office when you have religious beliefs. It does however prevent you from imposing your beliefs upon me.
You are aware that roughly 1/3 of British Columbians do not have a religious affiliation and that roughtly 20% are non christians. So which religious beliefs should be used to govern this province?
No one is suggesting that you do not have the right to freely follow your religious beliefs. However, as a politician asking voters to put their trust in her, it is quite fair game to want to understand her value system and judgement and what motivates her. Would I vote for a Scientologist? No - because my personal opinion is that their judgement is fatally flawed. But they are free to be a Scientologist until their money runs out.
Brian - Toronto
Thanks for your comments Anonymous #1 and #2
I agree totally that decisions must be based on the best information available.
Elected officials must be clear that their personal religious beliefs will not interfere with governance -- the same must as well hold true for anyone that has new age beliefs ... or even atheist opinions.
The fact that someone holds a religious belief however, should not be a determining factor on if they are able, to hold elected office or not.
At times I believe SOME who have no form of faith however, think those with religious beliefs should not be able to hold elected office. This is not only ridiculous -- its discriminatory.
"The Premier should explain to her constituents which of the many varied Biblical values she follows, how they shape her political views, and whether she is committed to upholding the separation of church and state and the primacy of evidence-based public policy should evidence conflict with her worldview."
This hardly looks like he is stating that she should not be allowed to hold office, but that she should be transparent about whether we are going to be represented as voters by her religious beliefs over the best interests of the province.
Finding out what that position would be is not discriminatory, and in fact I'd argue is a responsible action before putting someone into power.
It's about knowing how decisions are going to be made, and whether as voters we agree, not about stopping anybody with religious beliefs from taking office by virtue ob being religious.
"There is a worrying pattern here," said CFI's National Communications Director Justin Trottier. "In previous comments Clark cited the Bible as a source of inspiration for making political decisions and indicated religion is how 'we understand ourselves'."
Does it not appear that if she is using a religious text as inspiration for making political decisions, that we should know in what cases she would do so, since we are the voters who are trying to make informed decisions?
Post a Comment