Liberalism needs protection

[Rocky Mountains]

I particularly find the entire GOP distasteful particularly because half of their platform comes from financial policies that favour the rich at the expense of the poor and because the other half of their platform comes from imposing a fundamentalist Christian philosophy on the country.

It's the Christian thing that gives me the biggest concern because there are such a large number of voters down there who have such beliefs and will vote GOP simply because of that.

My biggest concern is that this trend (which is, fortunately, mostly being held in check within the CPC) may at some point be raised here. I would feel much happier with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in its preamble didn't contain the phrase "Whereas Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law". Under our Interpretation Act "a preamble shall be read as part of the enactment intended in explaining its purport and object." Given the wrong legislature and the wrong Supreme Court and we could go down the same stupid road the GOP and the USSC have been heading. May the Flying Spaghetti Monster protect us all if that should ever happen.

I call BS.  Republicans favour the rich at the expense of the poor?  Perhaps you have one example where favouring the poor at the expense of the rich has made the poor richer.  Never happened.  While many Republicans, and also Democrats, are Christians I simply don't see imposing Christianity as a policy.  Mitt Romney, Republican, was considered pretty much a liberal as governor as Massachusetts and a lot of people wouldn't consider him a Christian.  On top of that mixing religion and government is illegal according to the 1st Amendment.  You simply sound hateful, not Liberal.

You think the Supreme Court could lead us to a theocracy?  Have you actually seen the liberal judgements by a court appointed by conservatives.  Get a grip.

 

[Edward Campbell]

[size=11pt]
I call BS.  Republicans favour the rich at the expense of the poor?  Yes: in tax policies since Reagan. Now, in fairness to the GOP, those tax polices are grounded in some quite respectable economic theories. Perhaps you have one example where favouring the poor at the expense of the rich has made the poor richer.  Never happened.  You're quite right, but FJAG never said they did. While many Republicans, and also Democrats, are Christians I simply don't see imposing Christianity as a policy.  I agree that neither the GOP nor the Democrats are trying to impose Christianity because, as you point out, that would be unconstitutional, but I think that the GOP, especially, courts the politicallt active and powerful 'religious right.' Mitt Romney, Republican, was considered pretty much a liberal as governor as Massachusetts and a lot of people wouldn't consider him a Christian.  On top of that mixing religion and government is illegal according to the 1st Amendment.  You simply sound hateful, not Liberal.

You think the Supreme Court could lead us to a theocracy?  Have you actually seen the liberal judgements by a court appointed by conservatives.  I'll let FJAG speak for himself but, givemn his profession I'm bettng he has. Get a grip.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

I'll let FJAG speak for himself but, given his profession I'm betting he has.

JAG? - glad I didn't notice.  I might have said how I really felt.

 

[jollyjacktar]

How could such a keen observer not notice?

 

[FJAG]

. . .  While many Republicans, and also Democrats, are Christians I simply don't see imposing Christianity as a policy.  . . .  On top of that mixing religion and government is illegal according to the 1st Amendment.  You simply sound hateful, not Liberal.  There are numerous areas where this happens but two areas in particular: the pro-life agenda is fundamentalist Christian. Over the last three years over two hundred laws have been passed by GOP state legislatures putting restrictions on abortion to whatever extent they can get away with. The second area is gay rights and marriage. Again the entire argument comes out of fundamentalist Christian objections (and yes I know that there are other religious groups that also object) These laws have been struck down numerous times by so-called "liberal courts" but that doesn't stop a continuous push with new laws. There's a case that came up today

Just for the fun of it here's an example of this sort of stupidity http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/tim-guffey-alabama-ten-commandments_n_5682955.html - Basically it concerns an attempt by a county commissioner (GOP) who wants to install a monument to the ten commandments in front of a court house. He also wants a monument of the constitution and the Declaration of Independence so that the public can see how are laws all stem from the word of God.

You think the Supreme Court could lead us to a theocracy?  Have you actually seen the liberal judgements by a court appointed by conservatives.  Get a grip.

Get a grip? I think I have a very good one.

I presume you mean our SCC and not the USSC. I have read quite a few of their judgements and I agree that mostly they have been balanced and do not show a demonstrative religious bias. Trouble is so had the USSC (after all Roe v Wade came from there). The trouble is the court was heavily stacked by Born-again Bush with people he was assured would be like-minded. The result is bullshit decisions like the Hobby Lobby one.

I never said that the SCC would lead us to a theocracy. I'll spell it out a little more clearly so that you understand what I said. In effect if there is an equivalent of Born-again Bush as Prime Minister who stacks the court with the likes of the USSC's Roberts and Alito (not to mention Thomas and Scalia and Kennedy) then the preamble of our Charter and its reference to the "Supremacy of God" can become a tool for mischief-mischief we could avoid if the preamble wasn't there.

One final comment re telling me how you might really feel. I don't care.

But just for the fun of it, again, I'll tell you how I really feel. I firmly believe that people who believe in sky fairies shouldn't use their beliefs as a basis for laws that will impact the nation. The Charter gives them the right to believe in sky fairies and to indoctrinate their children and that should be ample. Unfortunately Christianity (and other religions) are heavy into proselytizing; either to convert or, at least, to live by the same morale/legal code that they feel has been sent down from above by the head sky fairy. Quite frankly it's time that we formally chuck off (at least within our legislation) concepts that were formulated by a bunch of shepherds and  goatherds some two to four thousand years ago. You do not need the ten commandments to know that murder is wrong.

Instead of "get a grip" - have a good one.

op:

:cheers:

 

[Brad Sallows]

>My contention is that the most purely liberal and conservative societies have developed built in accelerants

In the "gravity well" analogy, it has less to do with having a store of delta-V to give us an occasional kick to keep us in orbit and more to do with negating many sources of friction (friction being why the ball doesn't stay at the top of the model).  "Bad luck" cultures are those with more friction.

I sympathize with people who fear resurgent Protestant religious fundamentalism, but I observe that the direction in which libertine liberties are inexorably moving is away from that threat.  Irresponsible sexual practices and a shot of illicit narcotics - fill your boots, and bill the province for your misadventures.  A smoke and a beer and a pack of pork rinds while popping caps downrange - you immoral criminal who risks consuming vital health care resources.

I reiterate what I've written before: when totalitarianism finally arrives, it will be on the journey along the progressive vector because people must, if necessary, be made to do what is good for themselves.  Everything is subject to debate until they get what they want; then the debate is closed and to raise the subject again is despicably evil and merits ostracism.  Those who will not go along after persuasion is attempted must be compelled if necessary.  The more power is centralized in governments, the more the vituperations flow when non-progressive factions control the offices.

 

[Brad Sallows]

While being personally irreligious, I am thankful for those who believe in sky fairies and the legacy they have left us with respect to basic civil laws, expectations of behaviour, and LOAC.  Once people cease to believe in sky fairies, I wish you luck applying the mere force of reason to the great masses to convince them why they must refrain from doing some things, and strive to do others.

I think people who work to tear down religion overestimate the capability of people to evolve fast enough to live humanely without it.

 

[FJAG]

While being personally irreligious, I am thankful for those who believe in sky fairies and the legacy they have left us with respect to basic civil laws, expectations of behaviour, and LOAC.  Once people cease to believe in sky fairies, I wish you luck applying the mere force of reason to the great masses to convince them why they must refrain from doing some things, and strive to do others.

I think people who work to tear down religion overestimate the capability of people to evolve fast enough to live humanely without it.

I'm not quite with you on this. While I do appreciate and am thankful to some sky fairy believers for what they have done, I believe that the sky fairy concept wasn't necessary for that. Just as an introduction here's a wiki on the subject of secular morality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality which deals with the concept of a code or moral conduct without the need for a religion.

I'm kind of with Dawkins on this one. I may be paraphrasing here but he said: "'Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you do atrocities' - Voltaire; 'Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do.' Bertrand Russell. As long as we accept that we must respect religious faith simply because it is religious faith, how can we deny the religious beliefs of the Taliban or Bin Laden"

From the crusades to the priests and missionaries who destroyed aboriginal cultures around the world to televangelists who fleece their flocks to the folks in ISIS who are slaughtering innocents in Iraq and Syria, much harm has been and continues to be done in the name of religion. Generally speaking, sky fairyism is the enemy of liberalism and tolerance.

:cheers:

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Generally speaking, sky fairyism is the enemy of liberalism and tolerance.

Generally speaking, I agree, because everything has to pass through middlemen.  Political belief systems have the same problem.  I see little difference between an appeal to God or to Party, except that Party is manifestly human and therefore much easier to hold contemptible.  But while over time most people deprecate the egregious scriptural admonishments and commandments of their religions with few earthly repercussions, political power is harder to escape.

And it's a mistake - albeit an easy one - to see religion as the enemy of liberalism and tolerance and assume that in its absence there would be more of both.  Religion is an excuse for tyranny, rarely a cause.  Religious freedom can also be exploited to preserve other freedoms; being irrational, it is less subject to political pressure (under the right political systems, almost immune).

All the people I know who successfully apply principles of secular morality are probably 75th percentile or better for intellectual capability and education.  But that is basically my point.  Try that with the larger fraction of people who are driven more by desire than intellect.

When a social institution is torn down, something will fill the vacuum.  Religion is one of those cases in which "before I let you destroy it, first satisfy me that you can explain all the purposes it serves"* applies.

*I paraphrase, and I don't know where the original should be attributed.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

JAG? - glad I didn't notice.  I might have said how I really felt.

Quit being so aggressive. Stick to the discussion.

---STAFF---

 

[Edward Campbell]

>Generally speaking, sky fairyism is the enemy of liberalism and tolerance.

Generally speaking, I agree, because everything has to pass through middlemen.  Political belief systems have the same problem.  I see little difference between an appeal to God or to Party, except that Party is manifestly human and therefore much easier to hold contemptible.  But while over time most people deprecate the egregious scriptural admonishments and commandments of their religions with few earthly repercussions, political power is harder to escape.

And it's a mistake - albeit an easy one - to see religion as the enemy of liberalism and tolerance and assume that in its absence there would be more of both.  Religion is an excuse for tyranny, rarely a cause.  Religious freedom can also be exploited to preserve other freedoms; being irrational, it is less subject to political pressure (under the right political systems, almost immune).

All the people I know who successfully apply principles of secular morality are probably 75th percentile or better for intellectual capability and education.  But that is basically my point.  Try that with the larger fraction of people who are driven more by desire than intellect.

When a social institution is torn down, something will fill the vacuum.  Religion is one of those cases in which "before I let you destroy it, first satisfy me that you can explain all the purposes it serves"* applies.

*I paraphrase, and I don't know where the original should be attributed.

And that brings us back tot he social contract: most of the people are below the 75th percentile in intellectual capacity, but they, all of them, have - as they must have - the right to choose their government. But they, the majority, are, generally amenable to the local prevailing orthodoxy be in Judeo-Christian, Confucian or Hindu orthodoxy (my opinion based on my own personal observations around the world).b And that, in turn, brings me back to the need to protect liberalism, specifically the sort of Scandinavian/English liberalism that still values the sovereign individual over all collectives, including the largest societal collective itself, and puts maximum values in civility and the rule of (man made) law.

I am impressed by how well Taoism has recovered from very real, massive suppression from 1950 until 1975. Mao really hated the Taoists, he feared them, I think, because they were what he could never be: real scholars, intellectuals in our parlance, and he tried harder to suppress them than he did the Confucians or the other religions. (He was, by Chinese standards, actually moderately tolerant of most religions, so long as they did not challenge the primacy of he and his party revolution.) The modern Taoists, it appears to me, are bringing a renewed intellectual rigor to Chinese political and cultural life ... some of it never died, as long as Zhou Enlai was able to protect it, but the Maoist orthodoxy was driven into the Chinese and it was easy, even attractive, and popular. My fear is that the new mix of Chinese intellectual and scholarly rigor in politics and culture will not win out, in much of the illiberal world over our liberalism.

 

[vonGarvin]

And that, in turn, brings me back to the need to protect liberalism, specifically the sort of Scandinavian/English liberalism that still values the sovereign individual over all collectives, including the largest societal collective itself, and puts maximum values in civility and the rule of (man made) law.

I could not disagree more. 

Putting the individual over the collective is nonsense, because we are social creatures, and to quote Spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few....or the one.

Ignoring the bigoted and ignorant references to "sky fairyism" from above in this thread, one need not believe in any sort of higher power to adhere to this sort of notion.  For if one values the sovereign individual over all collectives, then that flies in the face of the notion of rule of law (natural laws and man-made), for the sovereign individual is an absolute sovereign, or he is no sovereign at all.

Now, I'm not advocating any sort of Marxist-Stalinist collective, but noting and never forgetting the dignity of the person, the individual, it is "the collective" that makes us "live long and prosper".  And I would note that I advocate the base of any collective is the family unit, and that is is the family unit that defines the society, not the other way around.  For it is good families and family structures that make for good societies.

And that brings us back tot he social contract: most of the people are below the 75th percentile in intellectual capacity, but they, all of them, have - as they must have - the right to choose their government.

I also disagree.  There is no right to determine your government, just as there is no right to determine who your birth parents are.  The notion of "democracy" as we see it is nothing more than a oligarchy, with persons e.g. Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair all vying to determine the course and direction not only of our national policies, but the very social agendas that all three attempt to force upon all of us, enforced through "rule of law" and enslaving us all through criminally obscene rates of taxation.


/ :2c:

 

[Edward Campbell]

I could not disagree more. 

Putting the individual over the collective is nonsense, because we are social creatures, and to quote Spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few....or the one.

Ignoring the bigoted and ignorant references to "sky fairyism" from above in this thread, one need not believe in any sort of higher power to adhere to this sort of notion.  For if one values the sovereign individual over all collectives, then that flies in the face of the notion of rule of law (natural laws and man-made), for the sovereign individual is an absolute sovereign, or he is no sovereign at all.

Now, I'm not advocating any sort of Marxist-Stalinist collective, but noting and never forgetting the dignity of the person, the individual, it is "the collective" that makes us "live long and prosper".  And I would note that I advocate the base of any collective is the family unit, and that is is the family unit that defines the society, not the other way around.  For it is good families and family structures that make for good societies.
I also disagree.  There is no right to determine your government, just as there is no right to determine who your birth parents are.  The notion of "democracy" as we see it is nothing more than a oligarchy, with persons e.g. Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair all vying to determine the course and direction not only of our national policies, but the very social agendas that all three attempt to force upon all of us, enforced through "rule of law" and enslaving us all through criminally obscene rates of taxation.


/ :2c:

it is precisely because we are social creatures that we must, at all costs and above all else, protect and preserve the life, liberty, property and privacy of each and every individual from the grasp of each and every collective, no matter how well meaning that collective might be. We are people, not ants; liberal, enlightened, Western men and women, not Slavic drones in some Kafkaesque superstate in which the collective "needs" of the many run roughshod over the will of the individual.

Government without the consent of the governed - no matter how humane and enlightened -  is illegitimate and can and should be overthrown by any band of rugged individuals up to the task.

No collective, not a village choir, not a community, not a church and certainly not a state is "good," each tries, always and everywhere, to impose its will on others, for its own benefit - generally for the benefit of those who have risen to the top of the collective's power structure.

I stand with Berlin on the notions of positive liberty (self mastery and the right to choose those who govern us) and negative liberty (being left alone to life our lives as we choose) as being necessary for the proper functioning of society. But both positive and negative liberty are, inherently, individual values - which operate in opposition to all collectives - and they are wrestled, by individuals, away from society.

I accept that we must each sacrifice some liberty, some property and some privacy in order to make the community, our society, work, but we must always question, challenge each sacrifice, however small, and ask the collective to justify its demands for more and more of our lives, liberty, property and privacy because it, a church or a government, has no inherent right to any of them ... a need, perhaps, in the case of the community or state, but no right.

 

[Kirkhill]

Like the General I too find the phrase "sky fairyism" needlessly inflammatory and pejorative.  Such language doesn't help to resolve disputes.

I am one who, finding the human institution of the Kirk to be fallible is of the firm belief in the existence of a Higher Authority.  It makes my life more bearable and the lives of billions of others equally so.  I have no knowledge of the nature or expectations of said Higher Authority and I look forward to discovering them someday ..... or not.

With respect to the philosophical debates about the supremacy of the individual or the collective:

That and any other debates the roil the nation from time to time have one place of resolution - Parliament.  That is why Parliament must be supreme.  It must be in a position to accurately reflect the mood of the nation on a day to day basis.  The more effective the Parliament is as an arbitrator then the longer the careers of the arbitration committee  will be.

But.

This presupposes two critical preconditions.

It presupposes that Parliament fully and adequately represents all the powers and interests and opinions in the land.

It also presupposes that the nation under Parliament is willing to "Play up. Play up and play the game"  ie to accept the decisions of the referees in Parliament, the arbitration committee, with the equanimity expected of a well schooled boy on the playing fields of Eton.

Parliament must include all the voices of the nation - even the noisome and divisive ones with which we most vehemently disagree.  That chamber that is the House is where the heat should be taken out of arguments to prevent explosions outside of the House.  It is a place where compromise must be found - and compromise is not a bad word.

More critical though is the nature of the culture that imbues and surrounds Parliament.  For Parliament to be effective the nation must accept Parliament as the final arbiter.  The decisions of Parliament must be the final word on any issue until the next Parliament is convened. 

In the event of a dispute between two national entities the expectation must be that the entities will try to resolve their dispute between themselves on an amicable basis.  This is the manner in which most commerce is conducted.

Should the entities require external adjudication then they can go to the courts who will evaluate the dispute against existing statutes and find for one or the other entities.  It is entirely possible that both entities in dispute are operating within the law and at that point adjudication becomes arbitration.    There is no legal case that can be used to easily divide Solomon's Child - somebody just has to decide on suitable COA for going forward.

If the decision is not acceptable to all entities in dispute then they have the right of appeal. 

In Canada that right of appeal extends through higher courts to the Supreme Court (if the Supreme Court deigns to spend some of its time listening to those particular appeals)

But the Supreme Court is not the last word on a case - despite the impression created by media and politicians alike in this country.

The last word on a case is provided by the Highest Authority In The Land - Her Majesty And Her Heirs and Successors in Council - that is to say that edifice which is Parliament.

Our fundamental right is the right to petition the Queen.  Once the Queen has spoke the matter is resolved beyond further dispute.

And that is the point that society, the nation, our nation needs to come to terms with.  If we want the nation to prosper then we have put our trust in the system - foibles and all - C+ / B- politicians and bureaucrats and lawyers and all - just learn to accept the impact of bad calls on the "game" just as we accept the final outcome of a Grey Cup or Stanley Cup game.

Perhaps if Parliament spent more time arbitrating disputes, hearing and responding to petitions, they might generate a greater sense of worth to the community and improve their esteem and, at the same time, be less inclined to spend their time creating new laws and regulations.

These three fundamentals apply:

Disputes are resolved by adjudication and arbitration
The King/Queen in Council is the ultimate arbitrator and every citizen has a right to be heard by his or her sovereign
Courts stand in place of the King/Queen in Council and operate within the bounds established by the King/Queen in Council

People must accept decisions and put aside their anger and look for the next opportunity to get a different decision when  a new Council is convened.

That conservatively Whiggish view of Parliament is now perceived as illiberal but it was the guiding formulation from 1689 to 1982.

 

[GAP]

I find it interesting that calling all religions "sky fairyism" brings out those who ascribe to it to defend their turf......guess it's not going away soon......we have had and may have more wars to defend those principles.... :

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I find it interesting that calling all religions "sky fairyism" brings out those who ascribe to it to defend their turf......guess it's not going away soon......we have had and may have more wars to defend those principles.... :

On the other hand, Communisim and Marxism were decidedly anti-religious.

In your personal experience, how did your brush with those movements work out for you? Peacefully?

All this to say is that religion (or those who would use religion as a fig leaf) have no monopoly on violence in the name of good.

I would say the real problem is busy bodies- those who are convinced they know what is right and are willing to force others to see it their way....

 

[Kirkhill]

On the other hand, Communisim and Marxism were decidedly anti-religious.

In your personal experience, how did your brush with those movements work out for you? Peacefully?

All this to say is that religion (or those who would use religion as a fig leaf) have no monopoly on violence in the name of good.

I would say the real problem is busy bodies- those who are convinced they know what is right and are willing to force others to see it their way....

:goodpost:

 

[GAP]

All this to say is that religion (or those who would use religion as a fig leaf) have no monopoly on violence in the name of good.

I would say the real problem is busy bodies- those who are convinced they know what is right and are willing to force others to see it their way....

I agree

 

[ballz]

On the other hand, Communisim and Marxism were decidedly anti-religious.

And all (communism, marxism, religions, etc) have a common denominator of not respecting an individual's sovereignty...

I would say the real problem is busy bodies- those who are convinced they know what is right and are willing to force others to see it their way....

So, the real problem is not respecting individual sovereignty?

 

[FJAG]

On the other hand, Communisim and Marxism were decidedly anti-religious.

In your personal experience, how did your brush with those movements work out for you? Peacefully?

All this to say is that religion (or those who would use religion as a fig leaf) have no monopoly on violence in the name of good.

I would say the real problem is busy bodies- those who are convinced they know what is right and are willing to force others to see it their way....

Never said nor suggested that religions had a monopoly. I was merely pointing out that religion does not equate to a sound moral code. As you suggest, neither does atheism. In my mind the concept of religion and that of morality are separate and distinct matters although most religions insist that they are the sole arbitrators of the morale standards for their societies. Those are the folks who you call the busybodies and in this I agree with you completely. Trouble is that most of those busybodies wrap themselves in a cloak of religious authority with the status of being the interpretors of God's (or the gods) will.

As to "sky fairyism" being "needlessly  inflammatory and pejorative" (per Kirkhill) or "bigoted and ignorant" (per General Disorder), I obviously disagree. What it is is sarcasm and absurdism. There are thousands of belief systems out there which dictate, without any proof whatsoever, that their deity/deities is/are the only true one. The concept of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" (and "sky fairies") was put forward as a way to show that an absurd concept of a deity was equally valid, in the context of an "intelligent designer" of the universe, as those of the so-called established ones.

One can use sarcasm without being either bigoted or ignorant and while some undoubtedly consider it inflammatory and even pejorative I would argue that it is not "needlessly" so.  In a debate where one side uses blind faith as its trump card the other is unfortunately left with absurdism since rational or scientific arguments hold no sway.

The point of this thread however isn't about the terminology being used here but whether or not liberalism needs protection and I argue that liberalism needs protection from the intrusion of religion. So here's the question: Should our Charter of Rights and Freedoms mandate that its laws and institutions be secular while providing its citizens with the right to privately follow their own religious beliefs and if so at what point does a secular government have the right to intrude on individual religious practices?

op:

:cheers: