UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 6 to Meditation 109
Not conducive to bringing about the supposed peace and unity desired.

by: Paul W. Sharkey

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This exchange of views has been continued.

While I find the goal of peace and unity to be laudable, I find the proposal that any government based upon a social contract and representing a religiously diverse populace should hand over fifty percent of its power and resources “in the name of Jesus” to be beyond absurd and certainly not conducive to bringing about the supposed peace and unity desired.

Canada, like Australia, Great Britain, the United States, etc. is a very religiously diverse country, with a trend toward increasing numbers of its populace identifying themselves as “following other religions or no religion” rather than as “Christian.”1 It is precisely this religious freedom – and the right to be free from religion – that makes these and other similarly disposed countries to be the havens of freedom and progress they are. Even believers in such countries should thank their Gods that they are not living in a theocracy, 50% or otherwise.

Which “Jesus” is this power and money supposed to be handed over to? The Roman Catholic Church, which represents about 40% of Canadian believers, or “Protestants” at somewhat less than 30%2 and from among all those, which kinds should get what percentage of the power and money? If one considers “non-believers” to be Protestants – they (we) certainly are among the most protestant of protestants – then we constitute the next largest single “religious” group in Canada at 16% and growing.3

But wait! All those folks already have all the power they need. The right – and I would contend, responsibility – to participate in the deliberative and judicial administration of their country by virtue of being its citizens.4 That’s what a secular representative democracy under a social contract means and despite their sometimes failures and flaws and after over two thousand years of trial and error they and only they have so far proved to be the best form of government for securing the goals of freedom, peace and unity for their citizens. Let’s not mess with it by stepping backwards into history by turning half – or even the smallest part of it – over to any “religion,” superstition or supernatural “authority.”

 

Notes:

  1. See: http://www.religioustolerance.org/can_rel0.htm
  2. Ibid.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Aristotle’s definition of a “citizen.” See Aristotle, Politics.