The May 2010 Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Newsletter can now be found at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Newsletters/Newsletter108(May2010)(RGB).pdf Bill C-384 was soundly defeated by a vote of 228 to 59. Check how the Members of Parliament voted at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/HowTheyVoted.pdf On June 5, 2010, we are co-hosting the US/Canda Push-Back Seminar at the Radisson Gateway Hotel at the Seattle/Tacoma Airport. The overwhelming defeat of Bill C-384 proved that we can Push-Back the euthanasia lobby in the US and Canada and convince people that euthanasia and assisted suicide are a dangerous public policy. Register for the Seminar at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/2010SeminarFlyer(RGB)(LetterFormat).pdf The Schindler family are being attacked by a Florida television station and Michael Schiavo. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is standing in solidarity with the Schindler family. My blog comments: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/05/att
Reflections from the pastoral ministry of an Evangelical Catholic Priest.
Hi Tim,
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect to Cardinal Dolan and other religious leaders on the right, I think that there is an unfortunate conflation going on between:
a) religious dogma informing an individual's views/conscience on matters of public policy; and,
b) religious dogma as the basis for public policy.
Regardless of whether or not one is a theist or an atheist, I think we can all agree that a) is inevitable and normal.
With respect to b), however, I am afraid that the only practical response can be that there is no place in public policy for religious dogma of any stripe. The only arguments that ought to be acceptable on matters of public policy are secular arguments: i.e. those arguments demonstrable by way of empirical evidence.
In other words, if you want to argue that your reigion's view on any matter of public policy represents the common good, then you damn well better have good emipirical evidence to back it up. Otherwise, we have no basis to prefer your religious view over any other competing religious view....and I assure you, there is a competing religious view on every public policy question.
To pretend otherwise is to invite a tryanny of the majority where undemonstrable biases overrun the rights and interests of any minority. Moreover, it puts the state in the position of prefering or privileging one theology above another...is this something that the religious right truly wants to enshrine?
American Christians may be fine with the tyranny of the majority as long as they are the majority, but I assure you they will drop it like a hot potato the moment the numbers shift out of their favour.
Only a secular framework can protect all religious factions in our society. I would have thought that this was self evident...especially here in Canada where non-Christian populations grow at a faster rate than traditional Christian populations. Once the wall of separation between Church and State is breached, it is as easy to re-make public policy by the tenets of Evangelical Christianity as it is by the tenets of Islamic Sharia Law.
The religious right ought to be very careful what it wishes for.
Cheers...Martin