REPORT. Canada's Independent Newsmagazine
December 18, 2000 Issue Full Text
Orthodoxy
Day is 'scary' all right--he's threatening Canada's established religious
philosophy
by Ted & Virginia Byfield
WHATEVER else may have contributed to the failure of the Canadian Alliance
to win
Ontario, one major factor was certainly the candid confession of Christian
faith made by its
leader, Stockwell Day.
This rendered Mr. Day "scary," the media reported, suspecting that because
he is a
Christian, he harbours a "hidden agenda." Prime Minister Jean Chretien
began making eerie
references to "dark forces"--i.e., sinister Christian influences--behind
the Alliance
movement.
All of which was apparently swallowed whole by hundreds of thousands of
Ontario voters,
thereby raising an important question: why is Mr. Day's Christianity so
"scary," while Mr.
Chretien's religion is not? Similarly, Joe Clark says he's a Catholic (although
Catholic
doctrine severely censures anyone who furthers abortion by supporting it
politically, so
presumably he isn't). Why isn't he "scary"?
The simple answer--that Mr. Day is Evangelical, while Messrs. Chretien
and Clark declare
they're Catholic--won't do. Jason Kenney, a Calgary MP and Mr. Day's campaign
chairman,
is also Catholic, but is considered scarier yet. So what's the explanation?
I think Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson gives it best in his
book, Reason in the
Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Religion (InterVarsity
Press,
1995). Every society, he writes, must of necessity have an "established
religious
philosophy." He doesn't mean an established religion. He means an Establishment
view of
religion, one common to academe, the media, the education system and government
bureaucracy alike. This philosophy determines how the law will regard religion,
what will be
taught in public schools, what moral values will be generally endorsed,
and how we can
acquire reliable knowledge about ourselves and the world.
This philosophy determines vital social attitudes and policies. Should
girls be educated
primarily as future mothers or as future income-earners? Has the purpose
of life been
established by a Creator, or is it up to us to decide? Should children
be taught rules for
sexual conduct, or merely informed of sexual mechanics and hazards, and
then encouraged
to make up their own rules?
"The philosophy is established, not in the sense that it is formally enacted
or that
dissenters are subject to legal punishment," Mr. Johnson continues, "but
in the sense that
it provides a philosophical basis for law-making and public education.
The content of
established philosophy may be controversial and change over time, but something
of the
kind must necessarily exist or government will become incoherent and even
chaotic."
At the beginning of the 20th century, the established religious philosophy
of the United
States was largely based on Protestant Christianity. By the century's end,
it had become
something else--what Mr. Johnson defines as "naturalism."
Naturalism is the belief that our only legitimate source of factually true
information is the
activity of nature as observed and defined by the natural sciences. Everything
else must be
regarded as purely speculative. Religion may certainly be practised, but
must be seen as a
strictly "personal," private activity. It can have no role in forming public
policy, in
developing public school curricula or in enacting laws.
Such is the current religious philosophy of the United States. In Canada,
naturalism is even
more deeply entrenched. We are still a pre-eminently conformist country.
Unlike the
Americans, we were not founded upon revolution, but upon acquiesence with
the status
quo. That's why our mainline churches--United, Anglican, even most Catholic
bishops--bow before secular authority. When that authority changes, they
change with it.
What made Stockwell Day "scary" was the fact that he does not subscribe
to this
Establishment religious philosophy and he said so, whereas all the other
leaders clearly
conform. In short, Mr. Day threatened change--real change. They did not.
Mr. Day pledged
to submit all so-called "moral" questions to public referendum. This pledge
was not
accepted. There were two reasons.
For one, the Establishment itself is not sure the public supports what
it's doing. Aborting
babies early in pregnancy may have majority support. Aborting them in the
final stages
does not. Letting children decide their own sexual morality most certainly
does not. So
referendums are too risky.
Worse still, referendums might bring the whole Establishment view into
question. People
might ask awkward questions, such as: if the only reliable source of truth
is nature, then
why stop at abortion? Why not infanticide? Why not euthanasia? Why not
pedophilia?
Why not eugenics? Why not sterilize the less productive elements in the
population?
Nothing in nature prohibits any of this. All that nature teaches is that
the powerful rule; the
strong overcome the weak; the fit survive and the unfit become extinct.
That is the lesson of nature. And if the suggestion that there's something
beyond
nature--meaning God--is purely a marginalized, "personal" affair, precluded
from public
discussion, then precisely how and where do we find authority to arrest
what is usually
referred to as "human progress" or "the advance of science?"
Mr. Day, through his referendums, would bring such questions into public
discussion.
That's why he was "scary." Whereas Jean and Joe, they're not scary at all.
Orygina³: http://report.ca/Magazine/p54i001218f.html
POWRÓT