Rude Conversation: CD Looks at Politics and Religion (Introduction)
Canadian Dimension, January/February 2006 Issue
Contemplating the return of the religious Right to worldwide prominence or even - God forbid! - dominance, Dimension is pleased to inaugurate this “rude conversation” about the secular state and the place of religion in politics.
Secularism’s moment has come again, says Rick Salutin, who observes that moral certainty preceeds the withering of any movement, Left or Right. Saeed Rahnema questions the politically correct, politically convenient wisdom of applying Shari’a law to Canada’s Muslim “community.” David F. Noble tells us the story of a Canadian university that failed to uphold its own, secularist governing principles and ended up adopting a religion by default.
A promising start. But these three articles only scratch the surface of the secularism debate - and in certain cases even raise further questions. Questions like these:
- Canada has gradually been moving toward self-administrating justice models for Aboriginal communities - sometimes involving traditional and spiritual components. If this model works for Aboriginal peoples, why shouldn’t it work - as Saeed Rahnema claims - for Canadian Muslims?
- A recent final decision of the International Court of Human Rights permits Turkey to ban Muslim headscarves from university campuses. But can the consequent exclusion of pious Muslim women from post-secondary education be called a victory for secularism?
- Religions operate places of worship, schools, colleges, seniors’ homes and child-and-family-service organizations with significant government support, from tax exemptions to direct funding. How much such support is the right amount? Is any?
We invite you to reflect upon these questions and submit your contribution to this important forum!
Comment by william clegg, writing from Canada on January 22nd, 2006 at 4:27 pm:
Robert heinlein once wrote that if he saw a priest he would shoot first and ask questions later. The greatest threat to world peace comes from the rabid rethoric put forth by the religous fundmentalists. It matters not what ideology they profess, or what church, synagogue, temple, mosque or glass cathedral they inhabit their agendas are identical.
Their mantra invariably consists of we are right, we know what is best for everyone else, those that oppose us or dare to question us are evil and, because we are right-eous in our beliefs about our own divine inspiration we will gladly harass, vilify and even kill all dissenters because we act in God’s name. Man, talk about arrogant!
Ultimately one’s spiritual connection with one’s God, higher power or divine interventionist must always be a personalized experience for that individual. There is nothing wrong with like-minded individuals sharing their beliefs and experiences. But, ultimately, we have to own it for ourselves. However, once I allow another person to define that spiritual experience for me I run the risk of becoming little more than a machine that may well be expected to accepts without question. Consequently, it is in the surrender of one’s own freedom to think - and therefore believe - for themselves that leads us into the clutches of the fundementalists and inevitable ruin.