Government shows totalitarian impulse

[rustypouch]

Don't worry, this is about religion.

This article was published in the local paper yesterday.

Several of the points made make me so angry that I do not know how to express it in words.

An example:

The court decreed that Ontario's marriage laws must immediately be rewritten to include homosexual couples. So with uncharacteristic alacrity, Toronto city hall began issuing same-sex marriage licences that very day: five hours elapsed between the court decision and the first gay wedding at City Hall.

And the author objected to this, saying it takes away his freedoms.

I do not understand how allowing people more freedom infringes on religious liberties.

Any suggestions on how to respond?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It appears he is upset because he thinks the sacrament of marriage is purely a church function that should not be intruded upon by the government. However, if that were the case then there would be no need to change any laws to allow gay marriage or any other sort of marriage. In fact, there would be no laws about marriage at all.

Sounds like severely twisted logic to me. Am I missing something?

Religious liberty means there are places the state may not go. It means the state may not coerce consciences. A democracy that loses its respect for religious liberty loses its respect for limited government. Its government may wear a democratic guise, but it is infected by the totalitarian impulse.

Is the state legislating that everyone has to like gay marriage?

~~ Paul

 

[SunTsu]

And the author objected to this, saying it takes away his freedoms.

I do not understand how allowing people more freedom infringes on religious liberties.

Any suggestions on how to respond? [/B]

Hi

I suspect it takes away the "author's" freedom to impose his own views on the rest of the community.

Still given the obvious bias of this writer of the article in the Calgary Herald, it's hard to be surprise, only disappointed.

His pet upset is that the state seems to be interfering with what is viewed a religious domain, and I say that's what the state should do in situations where religions fail to do a proper job. We may not like the issue the state is intervening in, but at least the state has some democratic credentials for trying to reform the laws. Contrast that with religions which have for centuries persecuted those who failed to fall in line, and have been too long arrogant towards the community as such. Why because they are always right. Tolerance is hard to find at times in both Government and Religion, but I'd more likely trust Governments than Churches.

Now a totalitarian government impulse would be to legalise gay marriages and make them compulsory! If that occured our author friend may have a point.